“You never really noticed him, you couldn’t describe him, but he was always there, in background, doing stuff.” Perfect for an assassin or spy. Lousy for the hero of novel, even if the hero is an assassin or spy.

I’ve just been reading a novel (no names, no pack drill) where the research and attention to detail has been utterly superb. Indeed, exhaustively superb. Damned if I know the hero’s name or care what he’s doing, but I read it, as that period of history interests me. The hero would say something, or do something, and we’d be back the importance of antimacassars… and just what unguents were employed by barbers in the 1850’s. The story had nothing to do with barbers, or unguents or the port of Makassar – but led me off on lot of rabbit-holes. A page later I would be disturbed in my peregrinations by the rather dull hero.

For me it was learning a fair amount of history in a relatively painless fashion – which I will use in another book. Very little of the background will make it into my book, and what does will relate to the hero’s speech, actions or misadventures. Because the details that I do use are right, and evocative, a great many readers will assume I described the background int detail.

Your milage may vary, but I strongly believe in a need-to-know basis for my stories. I need to know a lot. The reader doesn’t. Trust me on this, where you come adrift is where the reader knows a lot (guns, horses and ships/boats/aircraft – the world is full of people who do know a lot about these things) and the author obviously doesn’t.

But the key feature of the background is when it is well done, it gives you the chance to slide things in that the reader doesn’t even realize. It’s great for priming, foreshadowing, and setting mood/tension. But all of that works rather like salt – without it, your story is flavorless. With too much, it is just salt.