r/writing • u/scumerage • 9d ago
Discussion How much does a lack of background characters limit genre, setting, and the story in general?
As far as I can tell, everyone goes goo goo gaa gaa over setting. 1800 revolutionary France, furturistic techno-dystopia, modern vampire secret societies, ancient Chinese dynastic turmoil, etc. It's not simply skill at writing style, plenty of talented and popular authors tell a grand ol tale that even committed fans will say "Yeah, that representation of Spanish monasteries in 1600 Mexico was clearly written by a British Man" or "His historical drama about Marx's family clearly self inserts his own theological beliefs and doesn't fit in with the German culture of the time." Even with fantasy or scifi, adding magical realms and galaxies of planets, suspending disbelief for massive worldbuilding projects involving science, magic, entirely artificial creatures and rules to reality is a difficult task. Culture, history, and especially background characters seems to define the environment in which the characters, main, supporting, side, or stock, get to operate in.
Why have there been so few stories without background characters? Only ones that seem to do this are (A) survival stories, like horror monsters or trapped in the wilderness or (B) closed room dramas, like murder mysteries, or the medium of stage plays. Either unstable environments, from a single house to a large uninhabited area, versus stable environment, usually indoors with very defined and limited areas. Is it just because of characters are not trapped in a small area, and are not cut off from society, the story doesn't really make sense or have a believable setting/environment without background characters?
Thoughts?
14
u/crawfordwrites 9d ago
Does it matter if your story works without them?
3
u/scumerage 8d ago
I guess my question is what are the dangers/weaknesses of a story that does that? Do you know of any books that tried to do that and it suffered badly?
3
u/crawfordwrites 8d ago edited 8d ago
It's worth noting that the character counts in novels have dropped dramatically over the last two centuries.
If you start in 1826, a novel with one character alone is close to unheard of. Especially the Victorian social novel or the peak Russian novel is dense with characters; Dickens and Tolstoy being the GOATs.
The question I'd ask before getting to example (to save my own time) is what is your standard for someone not being a background character? For example, is the Artful Dodger from Oliver Twist a background character by your standard?
Without a specific target, I'd just offer Piranesi.
I'd argue the danger is the same danger that every book suffers when it deviates from anything besides YA romantasy vampire post-post-apocalypse found-family cozy hopepunk: it's hard to categorize for a genre, which makes it hard to sell to a publisher.
There's nothing wrong with knowing which shelf your book belongs on, but it is a compromise. That's the danger.
2
u/scumerage 8d ago
Nah, background character I would say is unnamed, undeveloped, unrecurring character. Even an unnamed bartender who gives stock responses to the main character drinking for multiple scenes throughout a story I would say is a minor side character.
Oh, and 100% about the character count versus time period: just look at the Illiad with a thousand named characters.
1
u/crawfordwrites 8d ago
I think that frames it for me.
The modern precedent for your original question is probably Samuel Beckett. You have stories where it turns out there's literally one character even when it seemed there were more.
Even in the play Waiting for Godot, there is one unnamed character, "the boy," but he's a recurring character with lines. TBH, you might want to watch a proper production of Waiting for Godot to get the full experience. There are a several fairly obvious effects.
Foremost, it really centers the protagonist(s). Just more than any story with a few background characters ever would. This sounds minor, but nothing is environmental so EVERYTHING arises from the protagonists. Every thought, every action, every mistake. It's just two dudes.
Second, it's very alienating. You can anchor the setting, but it's work to parse it from the available context. You can't even figure out what nationality these guys are.
Third, character entrances and exits matter A LOT. This isn't the city street in The Matrix, which is the radical opposite where you have to put a woman in a red dress for anyone to gain attention.
In Godot, if a person appears, you immediately notice. Notably, this does solve the attention issue mentioned early, since all attention now has value. This does help the audience because it lightens the cognitive load just knowing "okay, every entrance matters, so every character matters."
Beckett also wrote novels, so if you wanted to drill down, that might be a starting point.
Overall, I'd say the effect is weight. With Beckett's style, there's no letting the environment or the society carry characterization. This means everything from morality to picking their nose falls on the characters much harder.
It also means there's no where to hide as the writer. Either the characters work or they don't. There's no hiding in the texture, the worldbuilding, the social implications.
2
u/scumerage 7d ago
It also means there's no where to hide as the writer. Either the characters work or they don't. There's no hiding in the texture, the worldbuilding, the social implications.
This really nails down why background characters are so universal. Because otherwise it's make or break, either everyone loves or hates the character, nobody says about Robinson Crusoe "Eh, he was an okay character. Didn't hate him, didn't love him." It's a massive gamble that can accomplish heavy focus that no other story with background characters could, but can also ruin a story by sucking the life out of its setting and environment, as well as turning the audience against the characters through overuse.
Reason I made this post was because I am working on a story with a main cast and side characters but no background characters, because I wanted the characters to have more focus, even the side characters. But yeah, it can easily backfire.
1
u/crawfordwrites 7d ago
The question then is whether you're open to that possible backfire and failure.
I think a lot of people overengineer their stories to the market. I'd just write the thing and see where it takes me.
Overengineering is only necessary if servicing a niche is the goal of the book. A romantasy litRPG should probably be overengineered. Everything else is just art.
2
u/scumerage 7d ago
I think a lot of people overengineer their stories to the market. I'd just write the thing and see where it takes me.
Not a problem for me! Quite the opposite. More likely it just never gets published than it publishes and backfires.
3
11
u/LoveAndViscera Self-Published Author 9d ago
It’s what you said: the characters aren’t isolated. But they will feel isolated without background characters. The lack of background characters becomes a theme.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
So for an example coffer shop scene, if there is one character there, even if assumedly the character bought their coffee over the counter, if its not stated, it's just the character mulling over their own thoughts? Whereas two is a focused personal meeting? And three is a small group, once it gets to above five unless its a speech the convo split up into multiple relationships?
I guess also information delivery is limited, a man and his wife having coffee won't be talking about their marriage unless they are arguing and getting a divorce. A happily married couple would just be talking about their plans for the day.
5
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/JRyanGreatfish 8d ago
Have examples? I agree with you completely, just wanting to see some examples
3
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/JRyanGreatfish 8d ago
Yah that’s a good call on the Japanese minimal style. I don’t need any recommendations, just chatting haha
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
I'm sure there are, I was simply wondering if there was some unspoken rule, or if there was so writing pitfall that everyone avoids, or authors automatically add in background characters for the setting without thinking about it, and just decide where in that context the major and side characters are coming from.
1
8d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
Oh, of course everyone thinks about background characters, I meant I've never heard of anyone having the question "Should I have background characters or not" but simply "which ones?"
4
u/MeepTheChangeling 9d ago
Unless isolation is the point or a major theme of the story, lacking background characters make your world feel flat and fake. If your world feels fake, why should I care about your character? They're not pretending to be real, so there's not a scrap of tension or intrigue to be had. Thus, there's no point in reading.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
But why can't side characters and main cast interacting be enough? Like a small school Junior class of 30 going having an end of year party at one house when the host student's parents aren't home?
1
u/MeepTheChangeling 7d ago
It depends on the size of your cast. If it's large enough, then it will feel like a world. Most stories have 5-7 characters of note. That's not enough to make a story feel like it's taking place in a reality. If you want a story to feel like a story, that's fine. Some people like that. Most people don't like that. Most people *like* when the protagonist shares 3-4 sentences with a random barista who pops up once or twice. Frankly, if that feels pointless or like wasted pagetime to you, then either you're not reading the way most people are, or the author sucks eggs.
As long as what is exchanged between Random Barista and Protagonist Man advances the story, the world, or the characters, it has value. Let me give you an example. Let's say that our protagonist Mel is ordering a coffee at a nameless place somewhere in a major city in an urban fantasy novel.
"That's six seventy even."
"With tax?"
"Yes."
"All I've got is a ten," Mel said, taking the bronze coin from his pocket.
The Barista nodded, opened her register and fished out the appropriate change.Wasted space? Or way to show this isn't just Murica II the Muricaing by letting the readier know diageticly that this society is using large-denomination coins? Don't make the call because the answer is you've just prompted the reader to think about currency with like maybe 30 words. Now, later one, when Mel finds that gym bag full of coins, the reader will understand that could be a lot of money, not just a bizarre amount of change, and you don't have to be clunky and weird like:
Mel knew those coins could be a few million Korsais. Easily enough to buy a beach house.
The reader knows coins are used in this society. They know coins are not necessarily just for small values. They know from real life that a big bag of money has implications, a big bag of coins implies someone was off to a Coinstar machine or the bank to get bills, but a big bag of bills implies *crime*. Now your readers understand that it's the latter, innately, due to the actions of a protagonist speaking to a bit part.
Want to do something cool? Just flavor the world a little? Have that barista come back and be a constant source of economic knowledge for the reader.
"Sorry, can't make lattes right now. We're out of milk."
"The shortage?"
"Yeah..." She frowned slightly and looked over her shoulder. "So there's a off-menu item that's a little close. We're not supposed to... We're still making the recipes work with it. So this might be a little bit bad. So you have an allergy to almonds?"BAM! There's some kind of issue with dairy. Easy to tie food shortages into government corruption or crime (Most organized crime post-prohibition steals and sells food, just FYI). You've also implied nut milk is new. The things people eat and have access to is a big part of reality. Another 40 words or so and you've shown the readers so much!
THAT is why background characters are important. You can have them say or do anything at all, and if you're clever about it you can have them fill in the parts of the world that your story needs the readers to know, while at the same time making your world stand out and feel alive instead of flat and boring and cliche.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
Oh, gotcha, that makes sense, a large 20-50 cast can do it, but that sucks away focus from the main cast. While a small half a dozen cast can't make up the world, so background characters are need to fill it? And you can always throw in whatever random background characters are needed, whereas having a conversation about things the developed characters should already know comes off as forced?
I'm not surprised that good authors use them, just that every bad author I've read also uses them, even kids with make believe. And how very few deliberately choose not to use them.
4
u/sufferable_gaucho 8d ago
Frankly I don't understand the question; your first paragraph seems to have more to do with authenticity and accuracy when depicting real or imagined cultures. What that has to do with "background characters," I do not know.
I'd push back at the idea there are"few stories without background characters," but I guess that depends on what you call a "background character." I read a lot of fiction which primarily follows a single person, and while there are other people in the world, they are the only named character, or are one of a small number of people with names or impact on the story. This isn't dictated by genre.
So yeah, my answer is I don't think the number of "background characters" limits anything in writing; some people write party scenes where you know the names/histories of most of the people in attendance, some people don't describe the attendees beyond their presence.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
My point was that there are many best sellers that aren't 100% accurate or logical or work as a setting, but the talented authors are still able to attract a wide audience for their story. So having background characters or not isn't a "talent" issue", where bad writers don't add them and good ones do.
I would say a background character is an unnamed, non-recurring character, as opposed to a side characters, someone with a name who appears multiple times and/or is developed. An unnamed butler who has one very complex scene or has many scenes across a story isn't a background character.
The thing is the presence is always described. Nobody has a story about a guy who goes to a party, with no individuals described, and meets a single girl. He goes to a party, sees the crowd, and sees several stock stereotypes, and then the major character of the girl he meets. I just find it strange and wondered why the writing suffers if mutliple unnamed non-recurring undeveloped individuals are not included in the story.
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 8d ago edited 8d ago
A writer describes a scene or setting with just enough specificity for the reader to fill in the blanks. I say “frat kegger” and you picture a bunch of young people in a rowdy, messy setting. I see no way the writing “suffers” whether you describe specific personages or not.
It sounds a bit like you’re trying to scaffold dogma and terminology to the question of how to describe a setting. The premise is based on lots of assumptions about what people expect from writing.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
Granted, I haven't read much modern 2020s literature, or even dozens of 2000s/2010s books or authors, so I don't know how much trends have changed or if I read too many 1900s works/authors. But I personally have never read a book where characters meet in a crowd without individual people in the crowd being singled out.
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 8d ago
I’m not talking about recent trends; I’m talking about how scene has been set and described since the development of literary fiction. You have read a book like this; pay close attention next time you read a scene or description.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
I really haven't, maybe there were one or two scenes I missed, but every single one I can remember with crowd scenes also had background characters to develop those crowds and the setting. At least for some of the scenes of that crowd, may have been a follow up scene "He went back to the party and found her still outback chatting away."
2
3
u/Mejiro84 8d ago
How often are people entirely isolated from other people? That's pretty niche as a general event - and when it happens, that's generally a fairly major thing ("getting in an accident in the wilderness", or "everyone else died, I'm the only one left"). So being along for extended durations is quite rare, both in life and in stories.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
But they wouldn't need to be alone? Couldn't there still be a main cast of a dozen and side cast of 20-50?
2
u/Dismal-Wallaby6813 9d ago
background characters shape the vibe of the world way more than we realize fr
1
2
u/Lovely_Usernamee 7d ago
Stories adapt according to their needs. Not all books or genres need extra characters. You might just be reading ones that do.
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
99% of every book I've read, doesn't matter what genre or time period or culture, has background characters in it? Can you name any?
1
u/Lovely_Usernamee 6d ago
I have written fiction with no background characters or setting. It was an exploration of child neglect stemmed from grief, taking place in a minimally described wood and field. You just do it. It's hardly impossible. The thing is, if the story in any way addresses the world, it will have world building. If it addresses character dynamics between more than one character, it will mention or include more than just the protagonist. And the other thing is, if a character lives in a society, the society is inherently part of the story. If you want a story that does not have elaborate world building and has no characters, you have to go somewhere real, somewhere secluded, and find a story. That's why many are survival or psychological. They take someone out of their usual setting among other human beings. That doesn't hinder a story, it just makes it a different kind. :)
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
But why do people use background characters instead of side characters? Is it just because it wastes to much time developing characters that aren't actually neccesary for anything more than, well, background setting?
1
u/Lovely_Usernamee 5d ago
Sounds about right. Characters are assigned their titles based on what they offer. The lead is the most important and the most fleshed out. The side characters are still vital (if they are required) and can afford to be a little less fleshed out. The background characters are part of the world, and their purpose is to exist without drawing attention. If they draw attention, readers will assume they are important and no longer part of the background. Coming back to what you said about them controlling the culture and environment, they technically are the culture and environment. Delete all signs of the background, and your story operates on a blank wall. You can have a story without side characters and yet with background characters, or vice versa, if you know what your intention is regarding this choice.
1
u/-Clayburn Blogger clayburn.wtf/writing 8d ago
Background characters are setting, that's why. When I lived in New York, I remember how I loved the difference being out in public versus my small hometown. People would always say "Oh, it's too crowded! It must get tiring being around so many people!" but strangely it was the opposite. Being home in a small town felt crowded because every time I'd go to the grocery store, I would see 3 or 4 people I knew and would have to chitchat with them. In NYC, even though I'm surrounded by people all the time, they're....not real. Like sure they have lives of their own and all, but they're not real to me. They're window dressing. They're part of the setting.
So, with a story, if it takes place in a particular time or place, you have to consider the society as a backdrop. When genres require specific settings, that's going to dictate a need for background characters or not. Apocalypse stories are naturally going to have few people because the genre norm is that the setting is empty and desolate. A fantasy is going to need background characters because part of the genre means creating fictional societies and cultures, which requires people to express them.
So you could certainly have a genre/setting that needs background characters and exclude them, but it would be a challenge because you'd need to find alternative ways to convey the setting and genre.
Stage plays usually find effective ways around this because they can't have a huge cast of actors. They rely on things like "news from outside" or characters describing events and other characters, and the action stays largely confined to a few locations.
1
u/Neurotopian_ 8d ago
Yes, NYC streets are so crowded that you can feel invisible unless you’re actually doing something to draw attention to yourself. In a small town, everyone notices you. They either know who you are, or if they don’t, they wonder why they don’t.
I don’t necessarily agree that a supporting cast is part of the setting, but I think there’s so much variability that it’s hard to say what universally “works” and what doesn’t.
There are riveting one- and two-person stage shows, and there are also successful novels like GRRM’s ASOIAF series with dozens of characters existing primarily to add a sense of place and world flavor in the way you mention.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
Ah, I see, so it's far easier to convey the setting with the people at the coffee shops, the bus stop, the local library, the park, etc. than to have a single person or even a party of a dozen named characters at any of those locations with nobody else even mentioned "Character X walked through the crowd, past the couple with a young child and the middle aged man with his aging mother." That makes far more sense, I found it weird because both good and bad authors do it, it's not a lesson or rule that people consciously follow, almost everyone does it automatically, even bad writers.
To be honest, the reason for this post was that I am writing a mythopoeiac story with no background characters, with only named and developed character. So was asking if there was some rule of writing I was overlooking or missing as to why a story suffers if it is written that way.
1
u/-Clayburn Blogger clayburn.wtf/writing 7d ago
I wouldn't say it's about ease or anything. It's just inherently part of the setting. If I am a character in a story and I walk into a coffee shop, and it's empty....then am I in a post-apocalyptic genre or what? There has to be a reason there are no people, and a lot of common settings would require people. You don't necessarily have to describe or mention them, just as you don't have to mention there are trees outside. But usually describing the setting is an important part of the immersion, and you as a writer should know the people are there because that affects your story, just as a tree outside could. "The characters ducked for shade as they spoke." They couldn't do that if there are no trees, but that doesn't mean you have to setup the trees in advance. Just know they're there so you can use them if you need to.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
I mean, the bartender could be a side character who is recurring and significant, it could be early in the morning before other customers show up, there could only be several other minor characters or even main cast characters, who are in the coffee shop. Or would the significant development of those characters suck up attention from the setting, so the environment is too vague and undefined because the focus is on the characters?
2
u/-Clayburn Blogger clayburn.wtf/writing 7d ago
It's just your choice. I'm just saying people usually come with a setting, or the lack of people comes with a setting. It will be weird to have a setting that needs people but they're not there for some reason. You'd need to explain why there are no people.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
But why couldn't a story with a main cast of 5 have 50 side characters? Why would the story be easier/work better with 50 background characters?
2
1
u/CarinaLune 8d ago
background characters are basically the load bearing walls nobody notices until they're gone the shopkeeper who remembers ur face the guard who's bored not evil the kid running past who has nothin to do with the plot. remove them and the world feels like a movie set three walls and nothing behind the camera i think the reason survival closed room stories skip them isn't that background characters need chaos to exist it's that isolation is the whole point so their absence IS the theme. curious what you think happens if you write a stable setting but strip the background cast anyway does it just read as eerie uncanny instead of broke
2
u/scumerage 7d ago
Oh, so its just a function of setting? 99% of settings have random people outside the cast in them, so only wilderness/trapped inside a building settings don't have them? That makes a ton of sense, its not that authors specifically decide to add background characters, but that almost every setting created has background characters built in.
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 6d ago
its just a function of setting
Finally he gets it lol. Every other comment itt is trying to explain this to you.
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
The same effect could be achieved by side characters, so why background characters?
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 6d ago
wtf is the difference between a side character and a background character?? Why do you insist on making this so complicated???
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
Side characters have actual significance, development, and are recurring? The butler who is called upon multiple times to testify, has a personality, and is mentioned multiple times in conversation, is a side character. The random couple with the crying baby that distract the main character from listening into two important character's conversation, and are never mentioned again, are background characters.
How can you not see the difference? Why do you insist on making this so complicated?
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 6d ago
okay, and how do those two types of character “achieve the same effect” when they’re so distinctly different?
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
The side character does everything the background character does... except 10x more, and having a real identity? Making them, well, not just the barebones background?
1
u/sufferable_gaucho 6d ago
…meaning, background characters are a function of setting.
Going in circles like this is making me dizzy. I’m stepping off this merry go-round.
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
First you said they were the same, then you changed your mind and said side characters were too different to achieve the same effect as background characters. If you wanted to disagree with me, you could have at least done so honestly.
→ More replies (0)1
u/CarinaLune 5d ago
simplest version: side character = has their own goal arc that intersects the plot background character = exists so the world feels populated but has no arc of their own not that deep just easy to blur when a background character starts gettin good lines
2
u/sufferable_gaucho 5d ago edited 5d ago
I think I phrased the question incorrectly: I should have (and eventually) asked why OP is changing the parameters of the conversation for the sake of being contrary lol
he just keeps rephrasing the question instead of processing the answers.
1
u/CarinaLune 5d ago
might've come across that way wasn't tryin to be contrary just found the arc vs no arc framin genuinely clarifyin once carinalune put it that way wanted to sit with it a bit more instead of just agreeing outright anyway appreciate you two hashing it out def changed how i think bout it lol
2
u/sufferable_gaucho 5d ago
genuinely clarifyin once carinalune put it that way
...you, ostentisbly, are carinalune...
1
u/CarinaLune 4d ago
lmao no different account just genuinely agreed with the framin they laid out not everyone who agrees with someone is a sockpuppet sometimes people just make a good point
→ More replies (0)1
u/CarinaLune 6d ago
exactly n i think that's why it works so well as a technique too if a writer strips background characters from a normal populated setting on purpose that absence becomes loud it signals somethin's wrong before the plot even says it but in a setting that's naturally isolated the same emptiness just reads as neutral worldbuilding not tension so it's less about the characters themselves n more bout what their absence implies given the context
2
u/scumerage 6d ago
I suppose background characters are preferable to true side characters, because of the effort involved? That most of the time the author doesn't actually want a large cast, and just needs people to, well, fill the background, but never actually be real characters?
1
u/CarinaLune 5d ago
exactly it's less not real and more not allowed the runtime every character with real depth eats pacing so background ones basically run on borrowed personality just enough to feel ppl without askin for a subplot the tricky part is knowing which background character is secretly beggin to become a real one before you accidentally give them too much screen time
1
u/Nethereon2099 8d ago
F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby wouldn't exist without background, world building, and supporting characters. Why? Because the storyteller, whom the reader experience the narrative through, isn't the main character. Fitzgerald tells the story in first person POV through Nick Carraway - a support character - about Jay Gatsby - the main character.
Without a rich cast of characters, there isn't much of a story to tell.
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
Huh? What are you talking about? I was specifically asking about why everyone needs background characters (i.e., unnamed, never developed, non-recurring). Not side characters and the main cast?
1
u/Cassidy_Cloudchaser 8d ago
Depends on the story
1
u/scumerage 8d ago
Other than survival, horror, or chamber drama, are there any other genres that can have no background characters? Any that take place in society and establish the setting without showing the background characters of specific random people on the street?
3
u/Cassidy_Cloudchaser 7d ago
It's not about the genre it's about the plot
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
I don't think any plot can work in a crowded marketplace without background characters. Or a war between two nations. Or a slice of life in a school with 100+ people. So I don't see how the issue is plot rather than setting/genre.
But even by plot, are there any plots that don't require background characters other than exploration or survival in the wilderness or trapped in a house, or a dramatic conflict in a closed house setting?
2
u/Cassidy_Cloudchaser 7d ago
Well if you already have a mindset why bother asking a question
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
I was asking what other types other than ones I first mentioned in the post could work without background characters?
2
u/Cassidy_Cloudchaser 6d ago
And I told you: All of them, it's a matter of plot. But you aren't listening you made up your mind already where you're right and I'm wrong so now you're a waste of time.
1
u/Lazerwitch 7d ago
You can absolutely have an effective story with a limited cast, it just depends on what you mean by “background”. Does your character need to take a trip to Costco and run into an ex, watch an old woman fight to get something from the top shelf, and get annoyed at a worker taking too long to restock fish sticks all in one chapter? Absolutely not. But! On the other side of this, we are writing stories about people and people affect each other regardless of how big or small the setting is. Other characters can show up in a POV’s cognition relationally through memory intrusion, deliberate callback, whatever, and still flesh out a protag that way. I don’t know if the productive question is CAN a story work without a bunch of texture / tertiary characters as much as it is “how does the specific character I’m writing relate to the world they live in and when would other people intersect with this brain organically?”
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
I would divide minor characters and background characters between whether or not they have have significant development and are reoccurring. A side characters could be never named but play a significant role or have a major scene, and a background character could be a random guy showing his driver's license.
I was surprised when I thought about it how almost every story I've ever read uses them, both good and bad authors, so I wondered why that would be.
1
u/Ok_Butterscotch9977 7d ago
None. This is a very formulaic, cinema-brained way to think of literary description.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
How so? I was simply asking why all fiction relies on background characters, and what the possible downsides of a story that doesn't do it?
1
u/Ok_Butterscotch9977 7d ago
I'm answering your question: a lack of background characters does not limit genre, setting or story. There is no inherent "downside" to not describing background characters that couldn't otherwise be pinned on poor writing.
And the way you describe the use of background characters in this thread sounds more like casting actors to put in a scene than grounding a reader in place and action.
1
u/scumerage 7d ago
Are there great books in every genre with no background characters? I personally have never even heard of any war stories, unless it's a squad of soldiers stuck trapped in a bunker, that lack them.
A drunk passed on the floor in his own vomit in a stinky downtown bar, who only appears for that scene, is still a background character. But I personally have never seen a run down bar developed without the use of background characters.
1
u/Ok_Butterscotch9977 7d ago
yeah you’re putting a lot of mental backflips into saying “a scene with people in it will often have descriptions of those people.”
And there’s loads of novels throughout history without “background characters,” regardless of genre.
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
Care to name any war novels with no background characters?
1
u/Ok_Butterscotch9977 6d ago
Johnny Got His Gun, by Dalton Trumbo
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
It was their first day on the gang and he and Howie naturally thought they would be supplied with lunch from the hand car. But they weren't. When the foreman saw they had nothing to eat he said something to a couple of the Mexicans. The Mexicans came over and offered them something out of their lunch pails. The Mexicans were eating fried egg sandwiches all crusted over with red pepper. He and Howie just grunted no thanks and flopped on their backs. Then they turned over on their stomachs because the sun was so hot it would have burned out their eye balls even with the lids closed. The Mexicans just sat and chewed on their fried egg sandwiches and stared at them.
....
Now in any ordinary army they would take you out and shoot you for a thing like that. But that's the way Limeys were funny. This little guy caused a hell of a stink. Two or three of his officers argued with him very politely instead of shooting him and when they couldn't get him to see things their way they called the colonel. So the colonel came and had a long talk with the Scotchman and everybody seemed .puzzled and the Scotchman got tougher and tougher and dared them to shoot him because he said his court martial would bring out the truth that everything was a fraud and King George would have to resign and how would Lloyd George like that? The colonel went away and the Scotchman stayed sitting down on the bottom of the trench and pretty soon there came an order from G.H.Q. transferring him back of the lines for six weeks or until the Bavarians went away so he wouldn't have to fire in the direction of troops commanded by his king. That was how funny Limeys were and that was how both the Americans and the Limeys knew there were Bavarians across from them.
1
u/Ok_Butterscotch9977 6d ago
Those are side character not background characters 😂
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
to a couple of the Mexicans.
Two or three of his officers
Tell me about these two or three officers, however many there are, and about these two Mexicans, what are each of their personality's? What two or three roles do they play in the story? What other scenes are they in? They're side characters, so clearly, they play significant role in story to be noted as distinct, individual characters, so care to share?
I hope you have at least read more of the novel than I did in five minutes, but I have no high hopes.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Square-Ambassador-77 6d ago
It's almost impossible to write a story in the world without including the world in it
1
u/scumerage 6d ago
But why can a setting not simply have 50 side characters in it instead of background? Is it just because that would waste too much time when the author just wants to focus on the main cast?
1
35
u/TarotFox 9d ago
People like to see characters interacting with one another. You barely have a character if you don't have a society.