Can a CompleteMonster have a tragic past?

One of the first rules of writing is that you do not give the audience more information than we need. If a character's backstory has no effect on who they are now, that backstory is not information that we need. Suggesting to people that they should include a backstory that does not, in any way, shape their character, is, in effect, arguing for bad writing.

It is also a recipe for failure when it comes to trying to create a Complete Monster. The CM trope—also known as Pure Evil—is reserved for characters who are a) evil by the standards of their work, b) void of all redeeming qualities, and c) have no real reason for doing what they do. It's a horror trope more than anything else, and providing the character with a reason dilutes the horror and makes it likely you are not writing a CM.

Can you give your irredeemably evil villain a genuinely tragic backstory, or a functioning Freudian Excuse? Yes. But at that point they are not—provided you are a competent writer—a CM. Just a very bad person. The only way a character with a sad backstory ends up on the list is if there is such a disconnect between the excuse, and what they currently do, that the audience cannot accept the excuse as valid. And at that point, you have failed as a writer, and might as well cut the backstory altogether.

Hmm ... that is a good point, yes. If someone doesn't feel any negative emotions towards something, it means it's not really a tragic past; they themselves feel no tragedy of it, so to say.

But what, for example, about cases where a character did feel really bad about it and simply came to terms with it at a later time? Do we say that there's no tragic past, then, or do we say that there was a tragic past but it simply isn't much of an issue to the character right now? Personally, I think it is the latter as it is normal for people to come to terms with past pains, be it via forgetting about them or getting revenge or simply being the kind of person who slowly gets more comfortable even with grievances of that magnitude (or any other possibility), but I'm really curious what reason could one have to instead think that the former option applies.

But yes, for a reader or viewer a character with no presented past, tragic or otherwise, kind of has no past at all; I cannot disagree with this because it is clear that when there are no informations given about whatever is in a story most readers make up their own versions of events either way. For writers, however, I find that discarding something that now appears irrelevant or even is irrelevant, just because it no longer directly applies, can be a mistake because even it effects no change during the course of the story itself it might have had an effect on the character in the past that had carried over to their current self, there might be mannerisms and quirks in behaviour that the character has specifically because of this thing, there may be people interacting with the character whose interactions only make sense if you know that the character had once behaved like-this-or-that which you might not have known had you discarded the past from the get-go. So as far as I see it, as a writer I cannot count it as not being there at all if it once was, even if it no longer appears to be.

Well, I do admit that the above approach might simply be because I like to create whole back-stories (or as close to that as possible) for any major characters before writing them in, and I really don't like rail-roading character development, so I do pay attention to details of this sort because for me that's the way (that I use, not the only way ever or stuff like that) to writing believable character development.

Aren't you falling into "if it's not like I say, it's not True Art" territory? Giving a reader useless information does not equal being a bad writer.

I mean, I agree on your points about Complete Monster, but that other bit sounds quite a lot like No True Scotsman.

An author can add a backstory for a character and have that information be irrelevant for why the character ended up being that way. The example used previously, The Joker, is proof that it can be done and that is not necessarily bad writing. Why? Because it adds something to the world and to the character even if it's not what made him who he is.

To use a cooking analogy, a backstory is like salt for a character. It can be an essential component, something that shaped the character. But it can also be something superficial, to add just a little bit of flavour. Neither is more right than the other.

Now, as with any other so-called rule of writing, it depends heavily on how an author uses the tools given to him/that he chose. If the author fails to use the tools properly, that doesn't make the tool inherently bad.

Anyway, to get back on topic:

Re "Complete Monster with a Dark and Troubled Past": It could be done, but it's really hard to pull off. The past has to be completely irrelevant to the character in question. That is, their past didn't make them who they are; it's just another detail about the character, like hair or eye colour.

@Swordofknowledge: The thing about your character is that her tragic backstory could paint her in a positive light. From a certain point of view she could be anything from a tragic villain, to an anti-villain, to a well-intentioned extremist.

Given that there is at least one interpretation that is (more or less) positive, she's already excluded of being a Complete Monster.

Anyway, as with all audience reactions entries, I'd suggest not even thinking about this. Look at Tragic Monster and Tragic Villain if you want to see examples of evil characters with tragic pasts.

edited 7th Jul '15 7:57:12 PM by Lorsty

I think it depends on the nature of the tragedy. I can imagine an immature young guy feeling he's like the protagonist of a Shakespearean tragedy, but later in life he looks back and sees the trials as character-building. I think this might not be a tragic past if the 'tragedy' genuinely was overblown by the character, or maybe misunderstood (e.g. he fails in a relationship that he later realises was poisonous and dragging him down).

But you also present good explanation of an opposite situation, where there was a genuine tragedy but a character has healed from it.

I think it is just a matter of the context.

edited 7th Jul '15 8:15:16 PM by editerguy

A character who has healed from tragedy, however, would not be likely to be a candidate for the CM list. Not to mention that "has recovered from tragedy" is still a character trait, and still helps us to define who this person is.

"An author can add a backstory for a character and have that information be irrelevant for why the character ended up being that way."

Got to say that I disagree. If you're putting something on the page, then you are telling me that this is information I need to have. Maybe it tells me about their personality. Maybe it tells me about why they react a certain way to certain things. Maybe it gives me greater insight into why the character holds certain religious beliefs, political opinions, views on human nature, what have you. Maybe it's the way the character tells the story that is important, rather than the details. Regardless, the moment needs to matter, otherwise you are confusing the readers and, more practically, writing something that will probably just end up on the publishing room floor.

And of course the bigger the piece of backstory you reveal, the more it should matter. It's one thing for a character to say "I went to the zoo when I was ten" and have it not matter. It's a whole other thing to have a chapter-length flashback about their tragic origins and have it not matter—or worse yet, expect that said flashback will have no effect upon the audience.

As to the Joker, what matters isn't whether he has a tragic backstory. What matters is that he himself doesn't really remember his past and doesn't really care. It's the Multiple-Choice Past that is important, not what's in any of those multiple choices. His possible backstories give us no insight into who he is, and add nothing to the character. Rather, the very fact that there is more than one is what helps to define the character as random violence personified.

Since we don't particularly disagree when it comes to the subject of sad pasts and Complete Monsterhood though, I suppose there's not a lot of point in arguing the rest.

edited 7th Jul '15 8:36:37 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

"Giving a reader useless information does not equal being a bad writer."

Yes it does. At best, it's useless; you just wasted their time. At worst, it's confusing as people try to attach meaning to something that's ultimately without it. Put words on the page with meaning behind them or don't do it at all.

If it's possible to explain why a person did something without excusing the terrible act, then I'd say yes. That's keeping Complete Monster and Dark and Troubled Past‎ separate tropes that pop up in the same character, as mentioned upthread.

If it's possible to forgive somebody for terrible acts because one now knows their Dark and Troubled Past‎, then I personally don't believe that another character's forgiveness disqualifies the Complete Monster. (Or the reader's forgiveness, because YMMV.) But perhaps the possibility of forgiveness at all creates an incomplete monster for some people, even if that monstrous character doesn't volunteer for a redemption arc (that would definitely disqualify.)

So, what people? Are we awarding tropes from the position of A.) authorial intent, B.) the opinion of the character/s, or C.) the audience?

edited 8th Jul '15 4:12:34 AM by Faemonic

Technically CM status is awarded by vote in the Clean-Up Thread.

To address your questions, though, if another character forgives the villain, then we will, 9 times out of 10, cut them. If their backstory has clearly shaped their actions we will, 9 times out of 10, cut them.

The thing about a Complete Monster is that they have to be complete which entails there being no possible excuse, justification, rationalization, etc, for what they do. If, after reading their backstory, we now understand them, we will typically remove them. This does not, by the way, entail excusing their evil because something bad happened to them. Rather, it is acknowledging that while they may be bad, they are less evil than somebody else who does similar things without an excuse.

edited 8th Jul '15 9:18:38 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Ah, so the possibility of forgiveness or even explanation-without-excuse takes a bite out of the monstrousness, and therefore makes the character an incomplete monster.

So, the answer all along as been no (with a 1 in 10 margin of exception), a complete monster can not have a tragic past.

More like, can't have a tragic past that drives them or affects them emotionally (to crudely put it). But yes, in most cases that is pretty much the same as an impossibility of having both.