- May 9, 2019
- 4,951
- 16,688
My point was that not everyone needs a sad past. Some people had good chilhoods.Amber has already found a window for you in her schedule
Just because the conditions in the past that shaped a character's behavior aren't revealed does not mean that there is no reason in that character's past for their behavior. And the reason that we are who we are usually lies in our past, it's difficult to deny. Therefore, it seems to me that it is good that at least a few of my favorite authors pay attention to such things. They show us why their characters are the way they are, rather than just throwing cardboard figurines around the stage labeled "villain," "arrogant bitch," "competitive bitch," "asshole," as many others do. And yeah, that competitive girl in your example who just likes it, I’m sure she wasn’t born with a competitive streak, she didn’t even have the concept of “competitiveness” back then. She learned it, and certain events from her past shaped her taste for it.
And morre generally, not every characters needs a past to be how they are.
Nobody "taught" me to be competitive when I was younger. Yet I was. And I do enjoy an attention to detail, don't get me wrong. But not everyone needs to be given such details, specially the same kind of "this terrible event/experience/relantionship happened to me before, so like me." Some characters simply are. Others can have tragedy happen to them DURING the novel. Some may take the mantle of victims and others of victimizer. Complex characters is not just creating a background for people to be sorry about.
I am the biggest drama queen here. Up until the other day, my signature said "conflict is the essence of drama". But reading how every character was abused/mistreated/neglected or whatever as kids ends up dimishing the effect by overdose. Reader gets numb to it.
Its good to show some contrast.