“Is character backstory overrated?”

A poll posted on The GITS Club message boards by Jonathan which I thought would make for an interesting discussion here.

Character backstory: Is it important? Overrated? Do you like to delve into it? Or not? Why or why not?

UPDATE: Got an email from Shawn:

You threw out the GITS question on your blog and I responded. I also took the time to read all the replies AND about everything you have written on Character Development.

I was hoping you might through in your final 2 cents to the question you posted. I mean, from all I have read on this subject from you so far, I have a feeling you will say it is essential to do a certain amount of backstory for any script.

Shawn gets two points for clairvoyance into my view on things because I do believe a writer should dig — and dig deeply — into the each character’s life. But let me back up and make a distinction.

There is the backstory of a character that exists up to the point the writer types FADE IN.

Then there is the backstory that gets revealed in the context of the script.

While the latter must by logic overlap with the former (that is any backstory details that emerge in the script must have arisen in the character’s backstory before the time-frame in which the script begins), a writer must be judicious how and what they choose to include of that information. Why? Because backstory revelations in a script are what we call exposition and as I have said before, almost nothing can deaden a scene or squash a script’s momentum more than stopping to elaborate on a character’s past.

So two kinds of backstory and I have a different approach to each:

* Character backstory that they experienced in their lives up to FADE IN is critical. It informs the writer about the character’s life-experience, specific and important events in their past, relationships with other characters, story ‘stuff’ that shapes the character’s world view and belief systems, coping skills and defense mechanism, ‘stuff’ that can indicate what the character wants (conscious goal) and what they need (unconscious goal), and on and on and on.

* Character backstory that gets revealed in the context of the script. With a caveat that the process of determining what gets revealed (or not) varies from story to story, genre to genre, character to character, in general a writer needs to be careful about not revealing too much.

That is a tendency, I would conjecture, of all writers, even professionals. One of the things that you learn if you read a movie’s script while watching the film is the script material that most often gets edited out is exposition and character backstory. A good example of this is The Shawshank Redemption, as there is probably about 20 minutes of story stuff, most of it backstory, that is omitted from the movie.

The thing is script readers and movie viewers can intuit much of a character’s backstory from the action and dialogue of that character in the script/movie. But here’s the thing: That is much more likely to happen if the writer has dug into the character enough to really grasp the key aspects of their backstory. Even if that information is not stated directly as exposition, it can filter through via the character in terms of subtext (through dialogue) and intention (through actions).

So to try to make my point really clear: The more work you do on a character’s backstory in your prep-writing and character development process, the less of their backstory you’ll likely have to reveal as exposition in the page-writing phase. Why? Because the essence of all that great backstory ‘stuff’ will emerge in an oblique and indirect way through the character’s dialogue and actions.

Now some times you have a story like The Silence of the Lambs whereby Clarice’s backstory — unfolding as a mystery revealed through Hannibal Lecter’s urging and Clarice finally summoning up the courage to tell the story of the spring slaughter of the lambs on her uncle’s farm — is an essential, indeed, fascinating aspect of the story. There the exposition is anything but boring. On the other hand, take the movie Up. There is that wonderfully told backstory sequence of Carl and Ellie at the beginning of Act One, all done with visuals and no dialogue. But after her death and before Russell appears on the scene, there’s a sequence that occurs that basically shows a day-in-the-life for Carl — how he wakes up, heads down the stairs, eats his breakfast, and makes his way onto the front porch. He says nothing in that sequence, but through actions we pick up a key aspect of his backstory: After Ellie’s death, he has been living a ‘lifeless’ life — nothing but routine, nowhere to go, basically running out the string of his days. Instead of having him say that, the good folks at Pixar decided to convey that key part of Carl’s backstory in an oblique way through the underlying intention and meaning of Carl’s actions.

So to sum up:

* I strongly encourage my students, writers I work with in consultations, and blog readers to dig deep into their character’s backstories for all the reasons listed above. 95% of that ‘stuff’ may not end up in the script in any direct form of exposition, however there’s a good chance the important ‘stuff’ will be conveyed through a character’s subtext (in dialogue) and intention (in actions).

* Re character backstory as exposition in a script: When writing a first draft, feel free to include whatever you think is important. But as you rewrite and edit the script, ask yourself if this or that piece of exposition is really necessary. Is that ‘stuff’ conveyed elsewhere and already through more oblique ways? Or is there a better, more indirect way to get that ‘stuff’ into the script? The general rule of thumb about exposition being ‘less is more.’

Comment Archive