One Hundred Fantasy Clichés That Really Need To Rest In Peace

#86: The Tragic Backstory

To make a complex character for any fictional book genre, a series of precise ingredients must be mixed well together to create a relatable, metaphorical baked bread.  There is first the floury inspiration, which can be anything from wanting a silly comedic character to help ease the otherwise tense atmosphere from the story's overall tone or a strong egotistical hero with a hidden heart of gold.  From this simple idea comes the cracking of many unique takes of an otherwise flat character to build up more complexity.  The dumb father becomes a parent desperately trying to save their child despite not being so wise in a mysterious fantasy realm or the egotistical warrior decides to become the very best for not just himself but to avenge those who fell into darkness trying to achieve this same glorious path.  Your character ingredients are mixed together with some small quirks, such as the obsessive love of horror movies or perhaps the more strange fear of ferrets.  Finally, there is the backstory, which bakes the foundations of your character together into a crispy perfection if done right.  The key to achieving the backbone of the backstory seemingly is simple; create a series of past events for the character that explains why they act the way they do as a person.  At first glance, the right answer for most writers would be a tragic backstory, which has been proven from multiple other memorable characters in fiction to pull the heart strings of the audience.  A bad past equals more investment towards the character after all, at least in their minds.  However, this take on the backstory is actually the cheapest, most cliché move an author could take in order to craft a character.  Without a careful, steady hand, almost all characters of this nature are doomed to become flat, mushy resulting concoctions that are Mary Sue like cardboard cutouts.

  Now you may be asking why adding a tragic backstory to a character almost always results in disaster.  After all, many memorable fictional characters in the past have used the element of the tragic backstory to great effect.  There is Harry Potter, who before becoming a student at Hogwarts had both of his parents murdered by Voldemort and afterwards spent almost a decade living a missable life at his aunt and uncle's house.  There is also the popular character Bramblestar from the Warriors book series, who before becoming leader was feared by his other Clan mates due to the blood connection he had to a blood thirty leader, was left questioning his own morality when having no choice but to kill his half brother in order to save his Clan leader, and had his heart broken in two when it was revealed his mate Squirrelflight lied to him about the three kits (kittens) she supposedly had being theirs at all.  Finally there is Patty and Liz from the Soul Eater manga series who were half starving to death on the streets of New York before the rich Death the Kid saved them so both could become his demon weapons.  If these characters worked so well with a tragic backstory, shouldn't this been a sign the trope is far from a cliché?

  The reason Harry Potter, Bramblestar, Liz, and Patty all work with this trope is not because their stories were just simply melting the heart strings of the audience.  All of the characters represented learned not to be defined by their pasts and worked to become better individuals from their experiences.  Harry Potter became a strong wizard through his training at Hogwarts, which gave him the strength to fight Voldemort years later to avenge all those who suffered from his bloodthirsty ambitions.  Bramblestar worked hard as ThuderClan's deputy and was rewarded with an outstanding reputation through the job by becoming the next leader.  Liz and Patty found a new life helping Death the Kid take out evil kishins, eventually growing to love him as a brother for everything he had provided them.  It was simply not the backstory itself that defined these characters.  Every example grew from the pain of the past to become well rounded individuals in the future.  If it were the backstory defining each and every character, they would not have gained half the love received by audiences.  In fact, they would have become dull, edgy cardboard cutouts.

  The tragic backstory is a trap for writers believing it is the only way they can make a character likable to the audience.  They believe by defining their character by the past solely will make them easier to understand whenever they do something morally questionable or attract more readers to their material.  This is far from the truth.  A character trapped in the past can never grow as an individual, whether for the better or for the worst.  They remain static characters that will bore the audience with the same old edgy repetitious acts done time and time again.  The only time tragic backstories can work is if they are created for the well founded purpose of blue printing the eventual character development the individual will experience.  Otherwise, they are clichés that only someone completely sure of their character should ever experiment with.

  The best way to counteract the flaws from the tragic backstory is to simply not create one at all.  You can still create a complex, well founded character with a completely average past.  All you need to do is make their experiences in the story be the dark, interesting tidbits that draws the audience in.  A successful example of a character like this is Johnny Smith from Stephen King's novel The Dead Zone, where his newly found psychic abilities gives the audience the driving force they need to invest themselves into the character.  Before gaining his abilties, he was just an average teacher from Maine dating his first love.  The ends justify the means through these types of characters.  A tragic backstory would just hold them back.  It does not matter if the chicken or the egg appeared first.  This should be the precedent for most fictional characters.