Again, "do keep in mind that"

Subject: Again, "do keep in mind that"
Author: DemonFiren
Posted on: 2013-05-22 22:27:00 UTC

This backstory I've created I've mostly tried to narrate from an entirely neutral point of view, the details as distorted by the perception of a character - him - I will only expand on if he is questioned in this direction in FicPsy. As it is it's only a glorified excuse for him to behave as he does.

As far as the grandparents bit goes...I hate to say I took this bit from myself and extrapolated: Gramma was - if I recall - never totally content with me and Mom contently living and used to bring up Dad's death on every occasion, often trying to make me experience guilt. I think I wrote her into Michael's backstory there.

Potentially there are clashing interests there. Michael's actual character is also quite unlike my own, making things even more difficult.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Another writing question. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 16:08:00 UTC Reply

Is it possible to subvert a trajeck past (ex: becoming an orphan, grandparental abuse, running away from home and ending up in the worst possible situation on the streets yet still somehow removing oneself from there) in a way that leaves the result as halfway acceptable character?

The trick is in the execution. by Neshomeh on 2013-05-22 16:38:00 UTC Reply

I think you'll find the trick in writing is always in the execution...

Anyway, the series of events you described is not impossible, or even implausible, really. It only becomes trajeck if it's written in such a way as to seem shoehorned in as a cheap means to make us sympathize with the character and otherwise has no bearing on their personality or behavior. Someone who went through all that is going to be deeply affected by it, so if they appear to be getting along just fine until the plot demands angst, it's not gonna work. However, if they're shown throughout the story to have (for example) trouble trusting people and forming close relationships, and tend to react to stressors like they're still on the street rather than "normally," and have to do actual work to overcome these issues rather than magically getting over them when their LO appears, that's a real character.

Make sense?

~Neshomeh

It does, yes. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 17:09:00 UTC Reply

The example I haven't pulled out of thin air; it is in fact the prototype backstory for one of my characters - his self-preservatory instincts command him to not recognise emotion in order to reveal no weakness:

First, any mistake he had made or confessed in his grandparents' presence they had perceived as insult to the memory of their daughter - of which he is the only remaining sample, genetically - and as such punished with the harshness ultra-traditional grandparents are infamous for (at least if I remember my own Gramma, and that one friend of Gramps'.)
Second, less emotionally, more rationally: Showing emotion may lead to showing weakness, not good if you're only sixteen, on the streets, cutting down free time (note: he has no concept of this, therefore will integrate well into the PPC) and sleep in order to both survive after the first break that caused him to run away from a psychologically awful, but materially sheltered life and somehow acquire enough of an education to join society as something other than underpaid worker (it was the military he'd signed up with when he grew of age, and also made use of their education program in exchange for twelve years' service.)

Combining this with my intended portrayal of him as someone who respects only usefulness in people, makes "friends" specifically to exploit them, consciously buries his issues and primarily focuses on survival, not living...I hope to have created a woobie of the Jerkass/Iron persuasion (that is, defying his own woobieism, lacking all moral integrity, but provoking maternal instincts in the unlikely case his backstory is discovered) who will allow you to hug him so long as you carry no pointy instruments and serve a certain purpose. In the literal case of hugging him: Meatshield.

I'm having alignment troubles with him, though. Lawful Neutral seems logical, as it grants a certain level of freedom (in the good/evil direction) while still providing stability.

Teal Deer:
Harsh past, coped with it at one point using Anger (cf: Five Stages of Grief!), this ended poorly, so he overworked himself to make things better (Bargaining) and eventually ended up semi-subconsciously ignoring the issues altogether, realising that the situation was not, in fact, actually going to improve (somewhere between Denial and Acceptance, on the Denial side.) Ironically this helped him acquire the peace of mind necessary to not get slapped with his universe's equivalent of Section 8.

@Demon Firen by Lenore Snow on 2013-05-22 22:00:00 UTC Reply

I think that this back story, if well-written and continuously holding actual consequences for your character, would not be bad at all. The only part that catches my eye is the concept of grandparents who blame him for errors simply because his mother is deceased. This seems as though it could be either quirky and interesting or pointless and, quite honestly, Stu-ish. Generally the difference between tragic and pathetic is breached by the true repercussions for the character, which I think you have thought through nicely, and the whole "It's not his fault..." thing, which I think you could improve on. That bit rubs me the wrong way a tad. Hope this helped!

Again, "do keep in mind that" by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 22:27:00 UTC Reply

This backstory I've created I've mostly tried to narrate from an entirely neutral point of view, the details as distorted by the perception of a character - him - I will only expand on if he is questioned in this direction in FicPsy. As it is it's only a glorified excuse for him to behave as he does.

As far as the grandparents bit goes...I hate to say I took this bit from myself and extrapolated: Gramma was - if I recall - never totally content with me and Mom contently living and used to bring up Dad's death on every occasion, often trying to make me experience guilt. I think I wrote her into Michael's backstory there.

Potentially there are clashing interests there. Michael's actual character is also quite unlike my own, making things even more difficult.

@DemonFiren by Lenore Snow on 2013-05-22 22:40:00 UTC Reply

Writing from personal experience brings up an entirely different point, then. I think that drawing from your own knowledge and emotions will do well to make your agent's backstory more convincing and less cliché. At the same time, using him as an outlet for your feelings may evolve back into the sort of pity-party vibe that you want to avoid. Keep it classy, though, and it should work out fine.
My sympathies about your grandmother. Sounds rough.

Oh, not that bad. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 22:52:00 UTC Reply

She didn't start out like this - and neither will his grandparents, of course.

I remember her initial form as that of a short, distinctively traditionally dressed, enormously inconspicious woman with an outstanding talent for apple strudel. As Father died and mother moved on (and remarried, which we had to hide from Granma lest she blow her pacemaker) things grew colder. Situation alleviated by only calling her once a year or twice and not coming over to visit anymore.

Not much of a pity-party vibe to be had, the entire relationship was simple alienation.
I'm writing Michael because I was able to ignore her presence. I want to find a plausible way of getting out of the sticky situation arising when you can't G.T.F.O. or simply keep away. And, yes, I want to torture the little bugger a bit. No no-sells permitted, after all they say only Sues are coddled.

Idea, update on his characterisation. That unemotionality bit? I'm dropping it for his job, since I've written him to develop into a consummate survivor - and that means, by extension, a consummate professional.
Being married to the job should mean not taking kindly to being yelled at on said job or quality of one's work, and also satisfaction when successfully overcoming obstacles - providing something to relate to, especially when the obstacle is the presence of a Sue's head or similar.

@Demon Firen by Lenore Snow on 2013-05-23 03:49:00 UTC Reply

...And much is made clear.

Well, good luck writing!

Oh, this is your prospective agent again? by Neshomeh on 2013-05-22 19:59:00 UTC Reply

In that case, a couple additional points:

1. I repeat, agents need to be relatable. I don't see myself relating to an agent who goes through missions exploiting his partner and not having emotional reactions to stuff. That is creepy, psychopath, Do Not Want territory.

2. Missions need to be fun and funny. A very serious character trying to keep it together in the face of absurdity can be funny, but that's not the vibe I'm getting here (see above). Maybe it's just your very formal writing style, but if so, that in itself will need work if you want to write PPC stories.

3. ... Wait, why are we even talking about this right now? You just got here. Sit back, relax, make yourself at home. Agents can wait until we've gotten to know you better.

~Neshomeh

Keep in mind that. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 20:52:00 UTC Reply

I've explicitly mentioned him sitting through a lot of FicPsych. He'll be all right, but occasionally drift into bathos - it may cause him pain, yes, but don't we all suffer for comedy alone by reading the badfics we're going to spork?

During therapy, expect him to overemotionalise, then put on an air of forced calm (again, I'll be practicing writing the comically serious) while likely clenching his fists and rummaging through storage looking for flamethrowers...only to be caught by some doctor or another and subdued using Bleepphene.

Soon as he's stabilised he can be sent on missions.
[Deity] help you if you send him after his LO, though, as with his emotions flowing more freely he may show more enthusiasm than is healthy to protect canon rather than defile it.

Section 8? (nm) by son_of_heaven176 on 2013-05-22 17:14:00 UTC Reply

As copied from Wiki:Section 8 (military) by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 17:16:00 UTC Reply

"The term Section 8 refers to a category of discharge from the United States military when judged mentally unfit for service. It also came to mean any serviceperson given such a discharge or behaving as if deserving such a discharge, as in the expression, "he's a Section 8". The term comes from Section VIII of the World War I-era United States Army Regulation 615-360, which provided for the discharge of those deemed unfit for military service."

Basically he pulled himself together to not get tossed out of whatever job he was going to find (by then it was already clear that he'd join the Cornerian Navy) on the grounds of being batshit insane, quietly so.

Interesting backstory by Karen on 2013-05-22 18:51:00 UTC Reply

Might I ask why his grandparents punished him for "weakness"?

Rephrasing. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 19:05:00 UTC Reply

I doubt I have worded it the way I've been quoted, but allow me to rephrase in any case:
As they saw in him the last living memory of their daughter as well as the reason for her death (reason: Born to a scientist father and terraforming mother on Fichina, before Climate Control was installed; a blizzard knocked out the energy systems and consequently also the medicals, he and his mother barely survived long enough for help to arrive - he was recovered, she didn't make it) they expected no less than perfection of him - a traumatising experience for a child. Naturally he failed to deliver, as such, was put through hell in an attempt to force him to do better.

Mkay... by Karen on 2013-05-22 20:13:00 UTC Reply

Yeah, I prolly didn't quote you right.

But why did they expect him to be perfect?

Another symptom of dysfunction. by DemonFiren on 2013-05-22 20:36:00 UTC Reply

Grief leads to the desire to see the thing grieved over return, whole and healthy.

He was expected to be said...return...of his mother - a living time capsule of her character. Of course this is highly illogical - he barely knew her from the outside.

Failing that he should be a non-disgrace - which to the already severely disappointed elderly couple assigned the mission of raising him meant venting this disappointment at him at every opportunity.

Their sentiment towards Michael is a bit like the Dursleys' view of Harry in the Harry Potter novels (at least initially): They can't stand him, they view him as biological insult to the family, but they have to raise him. Naturally they treat him like crap.