Transcription
[Music]
Hey everyone, join me around my campfire. I was just reminiscing about writing backstories. It was a long time ago. I told myself, "JP, if you ever find yourself in need of a topic, you can always do an episode on filler." But I already did that. Well, then, JP, you could always do character backstories instead. That always pads out runtime.
Since then, I've steeled myself and prepared, training every day for this very moment. Now the time has come. I've honed my skills in preparation for the day I teach writers how to write character backstories. A character's backstory is the events and history of the character before the main narrative takes place. Backstory adds context and can shed light on why a character acts the way they do. A character's backstory can be pivotal in understanding them and can be used for plot hooks, generating audience sympathy, or adding immersion to the story. It can also just not matter at all.
But how can a writer tell when to spill a character's backstory to the audience? By listening to me. Since my backstory was training my entire life to tell backstories, and I'm telling you that the most important thing to remember is that characters are defined entirely by their backstory. Backstory, characterization, and motivation are all like the same thing. Backstory is the end-all-be-all of character motivation and not like a very specific tool to use in certain circumstances. They give it like a button that a writer can can smash if they find themselves stuck on character motivation. Just hit the backstory dispenser and use it to justify any character action and then move on. It's that easy.
Now, in general, backstories have a lot of other utility as well. For example, character backstories are great places to introduce future plot hooks and foreshadow upcoming story events. Should these be introduced early in the story? Nah, just drop new backstory foreshadowing right before the event unfolds. I'm sure no one will accuse the writer of grasping at straws and shoving stuff into the story on a whim. It's less foreshadowing and more like just shadowing. But I won't let a little detail like that get in my way.
If a writer does introduce a story hook in a character's backstory early, then be sure to make a huge deal out of it and then never bring it up again. Plot hooks can be left dangling forever while I jump to the next thing that I will build up before abandoning. Will these neglected backstory plot hooks build up over time and begin to form a picture of a writer who is more enamored with ideas than execution? Oh, look over there. I just added another aspect to the character's backstory and another and another. Hang on, let me pull up 10 novels' worth of backstory for my character who's in my actual novel for like three scenes. I basically need to refer to my own wiki in order to write this character, but I'm sure the audience will have no problems following his backstory with its intricate array of relationships, past events, and family tree. I'm sure their backstory won't come across as needlessly complicated and convoluted, even if it mostly consists of entries on their amazing abilities and powers and not anything about their actual character.
It is important to remember that while the audience requires the story to be believable, at least within the context of the story's own rules, but they have no such standards for a character's backstory. As such, the writer is free to make it as outlandish as they wish with no regards for willing suspension of disbelief. Poor Mary Sue lost her parents in a tragic double dark lord homicide before she was sent to the Hateful Home for Haggard Orphans. There, she was abused and set on fire every day, which is how she mastered fire magic, but she was so cold and alone, she mastered ice magic too, despite the other orphans hailing her as their champion. Then all of her orphan friends died, except for the jerk ones, though. Then she got adopted and her new loving adoptive family died. Then her middle school and high school boyfriend died, so she can never love again. Also, she has orphan and is fated to die tragically should she ever find true happiness again, and she inherited her dead adopted family's debt, and she got bullied too. Oh, and her dog died too. Just keep lumping crap on that pile and setting it on fire. More tragedy just means more sympathy from the audience. See, they're crying, and I'm sure that's not tears of laughter.
Trim down a character's backstory to retain believability and maintain consistency. Make sure the character's backstory doesn't clash with the tone in a way that undermines the story. Eh, sorry, but Mary Sue needs those pity points in her backstory, otherwise, how will anyone feel sorry for her without her tragic backstory?
Speaking of tragic backstories, so stories are the best. Having a character with a stock tragic backstory always engenders sympathy in the audience and can never backfire. Like if I write a villain who murders children, but it's okay, he was trying to kill his troubled childhood by proxy. The audience has no choice but to sympathize with him because the touching piano solo says we have to. The villain is understandable now that I've given him a tragic backstory, even if I skip all the steps between parent dying of cancer and destroying all spacetime. He's justified in his actions to destroy the entire universe because some people were mean to him. Tragedy can be used to excuse any action and is great for anti-heroes. Trauma should be used to excuse behavior, not explain it. Never have a character with enough functioning brainpower to point this out when the villain tries this excuse, nor should a writer just consider not bothering with a sob story for a villain. Especially for a particularly nasty one. Could a writer instead use the villain's backstory to emphasize just how vile they are? What about using it to set up future plot points? Could a writer just not bother with the villain's sob story at all? No, only tragic villains are deep, entertaining, and a meandering sob story spun right after the hero defeats them at the climax is the best way to cap off the story. In fact, the very end of the story is the only place to contextualize the actions of the villain. But don't worry, it won't come across as though the writer just forgot about their antagonist and decided to shoehorn in some backstory at the last minute. Nor should a writer worry that the villain's sudden sympathetic backstory will be dissonant with the character's actions. In fact, a writer should never double-check if a character's backstory might clash with the character's actions and established characterization.
Now, a character can act differently in spite of their backstory. That's what character development is. That also makes it fine for them to just ignore their own backstory whenever the writer feels like it, because in writing, consistency should only be applied inconsistently. Much like characterization, character backstory can be changed or ignored on a whim without any thought or consideration.
Speaking of consideration, any discerning gentleman in the audience who struggles with writing women characters? Excuse me, I mean female character backstories. Just have them demonetized in the backstory. Demonetized? Oh, sorry, I had a YouTube filter on. Let's call it SA for short. Yes, tragic backstories for women should always involve their ovaries for some reason, whether it be SA, miscarriage, or some other thing relating to their reproductive bits. Be sure to really focus on it, way past the point of it being comfortable. It's not like a woman could have pretty much any other kind of backstory, but no. Riding women, or excuse me, when riding females, they should always be considered a separate species from men and not like human beings like everyone else. Never mind that SA as a backstory has been done to death. That is an intensely taboo subject, but no, just wade right into that rather than pick almost anything else. You can trust me when it comes to giving advice on riding women. Why, I've even seen one once. When she told me to move out of the basement before expressing disappointment in her son.
Now that I've covered the general tips on what to write for character backstory, how to actually convey the backstory itself in a story. When it comes to conveying the backstory in the story, it falls on a spectrum. On one end is painting the character's backstory in broad strokes, keeping it vague and cultivating mystery and intrigue. On the other end is directly portraying the backstory and leaving little to no room for interpretation. Should I consider which spot on the spectrum is the best fit for relaying the character's backstory to the audience, one that takes into account the story's tone, pacing, and structure? Eh, randomly, on a whim, will do. Instead, just like deciding when to spill a backstory, as well, whenever is fine, rather than at the moment with the new context on a character will have the most impact or at the very least feel natural and not disrupt the story's flow. A writer could adhere on the side of caution and withhold character backstory unless absolutely needed because, in my experience, the audience will stick with the story when they are confused over when they are bored. But I must burden my audience with endless character backstory details because if I had to suffer through writing all those backstory notes, then so should they.
Never should a writer consider alternative ways of quickly portraying character backstory, like through the use of props. Could I use a shelf of trophies that are either displayed proudly at the center of their home or dusty and tucked away in a corner? The protagonist calls their father a coward for wanting to avoid war, only to stumble across his father's medals for valor that were hidden in the attic along with a photo of all their friends he lost in combat. A witch that dresses in rags and lives on the edge of a poor town wears a strangely ornate necklace that later turns out to be a magic artifact that only can be worn by royalty. Oh man, that's all exhausting just thinking about it. I'll just have everyone sit around a campfire and talk about their backstory instead.
Now, campfire sharing hour is a particularly functional trope, common in fantasy stories, kind of like coffee shops for contemporary fiction. Any place that's comfy and will let characters talk. It's fine if a bit generic, which makes it okay to use without thinking. When using dialogue to convey backstory, writers should know that they don't have to worry that the dialogue still needs to be in character. Much like any exposition, the moment the characters start talking about backstory stuff, then all character vanishes and they become expository machines that dispense blocks of text, and character backstories are no exception.
If dialogue doesn't cut it, though, then there's always flashbacks. I love flashbacks, man. This reminds me of the time I talked about flashbacks in the filler arcs video. Man, this reminds me of the time I talked about flashbacks in the exposition video. Man, this reminds me of the time I talked about flashbacks in the beginning of story video. We need to start with a flashback rather than using that flashback to show a key character moment. Let's instead use it to reference an event that will in no way shape the protagonist's outlook or ever come up again in the story. Still not enough? Let's flashback within a flashback. That won't be confusing. Oh, that's right, flashbacks within flashbacks are the best. Flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks are great for filler. Yeah, flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks are great for character backstory, especially when they're used to take up space.
Riders shouldn't worry, the flashbacks are on the pretty extreme end in terms of leaving little to no room for interpretation, as it directly shows the audience rather than painting the character's backstory in broad strokes. At other words, never worry about flashbacks cutting the mystery or tying a character's backstory down with hard details that cannot be changed later, because I'm going to change them anyways without caring about the contradiction. Just remember that a writer can't simply just skip the character's backstory if it doesn't add anything to the story. Character backstory adds context, and extra context is not always needed. But other stories I like always shoehorn in character backstory, so I guess I will too.
I've covered the common methods for adding character backstory, but I didn't stop there. So here's a list of common backstories found in fiction as well. Think of these like molds for casting characters. Don't break them.
Stock Revenge Backstory: Ah, a true classic. I did a whole video on revenge. It's a strong character motivator, if very common. Don't worry, it can still be used without any thought and then ignored halfway through the plot. I can always awkwardly wrap it up at the last minute so I can get back to the plot I actually care about.
Avenging My Mentor Backstory: If revenge is too mean a motivation, then try diet revenge, also known as avenging in this case, avenging the dead mentor. Man, the poor mentor didn't even make it to chapter one and died in the backstory.
Slum Backstory: This character was raised in the slums. In fantasy, they are probably a thief character, and this is most characters' backstory. In cyberpunk, remember to base the slums on a middle-class writer's glamorized idea of a slum, not research how life in the slums actually kind of sucks.
Raised on the Farm Backstory: A favorite for fantasy writers and occasionally crops up in romance novels. This was also the backstory for a huge chunk of the population for most historical agrarian societies until mechanization freed up people for different economic niches. Don't worry, though, the story won't spend any time on the farm before it gets burned down so the protagonist can go on an adventure, then it will never be mentioned again.
Mysterious Parents That Vanish Mysteriously Backstory: All parents in fiction are either abusive, dead, or missing. Good plot hook, just so long as the writer doesn't get bogged down in the abandonment issues that would create.
Dead Parents Backstory: Dead parents are great for the writer. The last thing we need is a bunch of loving and supportive parents to bail their kids out of having to fight the forces of evil to fulfill their destiny. I don't even have to flesh out their characters now that they are just fleshless bones in the ground. There's only one way this could be better.
I Watched My Parents Die Backstory: Go even one better and maximize the protagonist's trauma points by making them watch as the dark lord strikes down their parents. This works even if the character was way too young to actually remember it. They still will for some reason, despite being only an infant. How terrible. Unless abusive parents or legal guardians work too? Why have a family work against the story by trying to solve the protagonist's problems when they can be the source of those problems? Abusive guardians and family are great because they generate conflict and sympathy, especially with the young audience. Parents in the audience, not so much. Remember that a writer is free to make the abuse as over-the-top as possible and still have the audience take it seriously. I'd hate to see the protagonist's therapy bill, though.
Dark and Troubled Past Backstory: Another classic. This backstory tends to end up on the vague end of the backstory spectrum. It can also act as a plot hook generator. Just don't worry about overusing it. Conversely, just saying a character has a dark and troubled past is fine and then never actually do anything with it. The mysterious backstory that is most definitely not a placeholder. Even more serious than the dark and troubled past backstory. Who knows what their past was really like? Not even the writer.
The Defining Tragedy Backstory: Something bad happened once to the character, so they're cynical now, and it's always one very bad thing and not like a whole bunch of things that makes people cynical. I should know, as if my cynicism is cheap enough to be bought with one singular event. But in fiction land, every character is one bad event away from becoming a cheap Daria or Joker knockoff.
I Failed Backstory: The character failed at something and decided to mope about it until at least the prologue. This backstory used to have a lot more punch to it before events in the real world showed us that no level of failure will sink some people and that doubling down is more common than fessing up.
I Failed, But With Feeling This Time Backstory: Same as above, but the character chose to fail on the cusp of victory. However, if they had succeeded, it would have cost them their morality or something else. One would think that a character's failure being the result of them doing what's right would make them feel better about it, but no, they'll mope about it just as hard, if not harder.
I Used to Be the Very Best Like No One Ever Was Backstory: At least until the tragic accident, scandal, or some other event that put an end to their career as the best at whatever. Common in sports stories. It does provide a good way of explaining why a character is skilled at something but not recognized any longer or shunned, even if the event itself can be glossed over and be full of plot holes. While this event has haunted the character for years, thankfully the protagonist can resolve it in the space of a beat.
I Was Almost the Very, Very Best Like No One Ever Was Backstory: Same as the last, but the character came in second place or not at all because of the tragic accident, scandal, or some other event that put an end to their career before it even started.
My Princess/Girlfriend/Wife/Lover is in Another Castle Backstory: The character's significant other is dead or missing. Another rather stock motivation, usually for male characters. Thankfully, doesn't mean I have to actually think about the missing SO's character or flesh them out in any way at all, not even to have the character reminisce about their partner. Pairs nicely with the revenge plot if Theo was killed right in front of them. Just be sure to leave space in the fridge for them.
Veteran of the Great Backstory War Backstory: This grizzled veteran survived the Great Backstory War. Get ready for the theme park version of PTSD, or not. Just have it have little to no bearing on their characterization at all, other than a drinking problem and a gruff voice.
And many more backstories are great not because they contextualize the character's actions, but because I can use them as a smoke screen for my complete lack of characterization. Characters are completely defined by their backstories, not their actions. It's not that backstory informs and contextualizes their actions. Characterization is shackled to a character's backstory and can't be altered by new experiences, shifting the character's perspective. The core of people doesn't really change at all that much, but perspective does. People can be told their whole lives to hate chocolate right up until they finally try some. What happened? Well, their experiences changed their perspective. Too bad their backstory says otherwise, and only the protagonist is allowed to change a character. Not that it matters, since I'm just spilling character backstories to use as filler, just like this entire video.
Everyone, settle down. The Federation Senate is now in session. The Ethics Committee has investigated the Ethics Committee and found that the Ethics Committee is free of ethics. I mean, free of allegations of corruption. Yeah, that's what I meant. We also finished our investigation into alleged tampering with the election. Shockingly, we have conclusive evidence that Greed bribed election officials. The shocking part was we didn't get a cut. Oh, look, I have new evidence that proves Greed won the election in a landslide. Greed is breaking the rules. You mean like you did? That was different. Hey, you got a new outfit as well. Shut up, General. We will get to your crimes in a moment. Excuse me, my fellow Senator, I am not a puppet under the control of the ancient conspiracy whose leader is very handsome and smart. Uh, if he existed, of course. I motion we all get mol chips implanted in our brains that will most certainly not allow us to be ruled from the shadows. That seems reasonable, gentlemen. If I may have the floor. Sold. I mean, it's all yours, Greed. Most noble Senate of the Federation, I've brought you this video sponsor, Skillshare.
Skillshare is an online learning platform full of creative classes from writing, art, design, and even more practical classes like cooking or business management. People pay you for what you know, and it's always helpful to learn something new. I can even recommend a few classes to get you started, like "How to Build a Believable Character" by YA author Sabaa Tahir, "Writing a Character Study" by Lindsay Summers, or for a change of pace, try "Fast Flash Fiction: Writing Tiny Beautiful Stories" by Kathy Fish. A newer feature is that Skillshare has helpfully organized their classes into learning paths that can guide you from starter to advanced with each lesson, like learning Adobe software I use to make these videos. If you wish to join Skillshare's community and begin your learning journey, then the first 1,000 people who click the first link in the description will get a one-month free trial of Skillshare. Link is in the description below.
As you can see, only I can summon these sponsors that will certify my victory in everyone in the Federation will be rich. Yeah, wait, everyone? You mean just the rich will get richer, right? Not poor people too? I can't be the personification of greed unless every last person has all their needs met and yet still wants more. What's the point of being rich if you don't have poor people to lord over? I thought you were cool, Greed. Attention, I have a proposal that I think will settle this election dispute and satisfy everyone. Power vacuum. I declare myself King of the Federation. I declare myself Emperor of the Federation. I'm going to split off and make my own Federation with blackjack and hookers. And what was that other thing? Uh-oh. I was worried about this. What's going on? We're leaving before it turns violent. We are ready to pull out our agents along with any useful assets. What about the General? Eh, he'll be fine. Maybe he'll get his war finally. Politics is hard.