Content Warning: This post discusses the craft of writing sexual assault aftermath in fiction.
Here is a scene I chose not to write. It would have been the scene where everything that shapes Elara’s subsequent behavior in Technomancer actually happened — the event that explains her flinch responses, her carefully managed distance from people who move toward her too quickly, the specific way she positions herself in rooms. The reader needs to understand what she carries. I decided, early in the drafting, that they would understand it without the scene existing. For fourteen chapters, the evidence accumulates in her body, her behavior, her avoidance patterns — and the event itself remains offpage, unnamed, not shown.
This was a craft decision, not a content decision. The distinction matters.
The Difference Between Knowing and Being Told
The conventional approach to backstory trauma in fiction is to give it a scene: a flashback, a confession, a moment of revelation in which the character’s history is rendered with enough specificity that the reader understands. This approach has advantages. It’s direct. It gives the reader something concrete to hold. It doesn’t ask them to do interpretive work they might not complete. For many kinds of backstory — the death of a parent, a professional failure, a formative loss — it’s the right tool.
But for some kinds of trauma, the scene approach does something inadvertent: it puts the reader in the position of witness. The flashback makes the event present tense, visible, on the page. The reader doesn’t only know that it happened — they are, in some technical narrative sense, there. For certain categories of harm, that witnessing has a cost that isn’t always worth the clarity it purchases. The reader leaves the scene carrying something they didn’t ask to carry, in a way that can overwhelm the character herself, who is supposed to be the story’s center of gravity. The event eclipses the person.
The behavioral approach does something different. It asks the reader to read the evidence rather than observe the event — to encounter the aftermath rather than the cause, and to work backward from what they can see to what it means. This is how we understand trauma in actual human relationships. We don’t get the scene. We get the flinch. We get the way someone moves through a room, the distance they maintain, the sentence they don’t finish. We triangulate. We understand without being told, and the understanding we arrive at is, in some ways, more intimate than comprehension delivered directly — because we built it ourselves, from the evidence the person’s body and behavior couldn’t help but provide.
Carrying It in the Body
The specific technique is not complicated to describe, though it requires sustained discipline to execute. Every chapter in which Elara appears is an opportunity to render the behavioral residue of what she’s carrying. The posture she assumes when approached from behind. The calibrated way she reads exits in unfamiliar rooms. The way her attention sharpens near particular kinds of men in ways that her priestly training can’t fully account for. The distance she maintains — not the distance of formal culture, which she also observes, but a different kind of distance, closer to the surface of her skin.
None of this requires commentary. None of it should be explained. The moment the prose explains what the behavior means — the moment it steps outside Elara’s perspective and annotates her flinch for the reader — the technique fails. The annotation converts behavioral evidence into exposition, and exposition is exactly what this approach is designed to avoid. The reader needs to feel the behavior accumulating, page by page, the way they would feel it if they were in the room: as something notable, as something that doesn’t quite fit the character’s otherwise demonstrated capabilities, as a pattern they’re beginning to recognize even if they can’t yet name it.
Fourteen chapters is a structural commitment to that accumulation. It means trusting the technique across the entire first third of a novel, without a scene to anchor it, without a moment of explicit delivery. There were drafts where I nearly broke — nearly gave the reader a half-sentence of narration that named what had happened, as a small clarifying service. I cut every one. The clarifying service was actually a failure of confidence in the reader, dressed up as helpfulness. The reader already knew. They had been knowing, chapter by chapter, from the body language on the page.
Why This Matters Beyond Craft
I want to be clear that this is not a prescription. There are stories where the scene is exactly right — where the event must be present-tense and visible because the story’s architecture requires the reader to carry it that way. Beloved works partly because the horror is rendered and not only implied; the ghost is literal, the wound is visible, the story insists you cannot look away. That is a deliberate craft position, and it serves that novel’s specific argument. Morrison is not being careless. She is making the reader hold something that the culture has historically refused to hold, and the method is integral to the meaning.
The choice I made for Elara is different in kind. The point isn’t that the event should be unspeakable, or too dark to render, or protected from the reader’s gaze. The point is that Elara’s story is not fundamentally about what was done to her — it’s about who she is on the other side of it, what she does with it, what it costs her and what it can’t take from her. A scene that puts the event on the page risks making the event the center, when the person is supposed to be the center. Keeping it offpage keeps her at the center. Her behavior is the text. The event is subtext. And the story is about how she moves through the world — which is visible, active, present — not about what happened to her, which is past.
This is a different way of thinking about what a reader needs. The conventional assumption is that the reader needs to be shown. The behavioral approach assumes that the reader needs to be trusted — to recognize the pattern, to do the interpretive work, to arrive at understanding through the same process by which we understand the people in our actual lives: not by being given their histories, but by watching them move through rooms and paying attention to what the body remembers.
The Practical Test
If you’re working this way, the question to ask at every chapter isn’t have I told the reader enough? It’s does this chapter add one more increment of behavioral evidence that the attentive reader will register, consciously or not? The accumulation doesn’t need to be dramatic. A single sentence in a crowd scene — the way Elara catalogs the bodies between her and the door — is enough, if it’s consistent with the pattern you’re building and arrives in a chapter that might otherwise seem to have nothing to do with her history.
The reader’s subconscious is doing the work. Your job is to give it something to work with in every chapter where your character appears. Not the event. The residue. The residue is in the posture, the flinch, the distance kept. The residue is what fourteen chapters of careful attention can render without ever once naming the silence it surrounds.
Read more in the preview of Technomancer
Do you like this kind of content? Would you like to learn more? Subscribe to get writer-focused content delivered directly to your inbox. Genre research, essays on writing multi-POV books, Tips on complex timeline management, and much more.
