Does every hero have to have a tragic backstory?

[Dragonexx]

It seems that that almost every story I look at (which is mostly sci-fi and fantasy, to be fair), the hero always seems to have some sort of tragic backstory. Abusive parents, dead parents, slavery, trauma, imprisonment and other sorts of things. Even heroes like Superman now have those things added in.

What I'm asking is that is tragedy some sort of requirement to be truly considered a hero or a worthwhile protaganist? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

[Pex]

It's the tragedy that motivates the person to become the hero. It's great if someone happens by chance to see someone needing help and he gets involved to help, but it takes more effort to look on purpose for someone needing help or wrong doers to vanquish. That person tends to know what it is like to be a victim or suffer a great loss to want to alleviate the suffering of others.

However, it is a good exercise to think of (super)heroes who really do it because they are just great people and not motivated by tragedy. Those I can name based on info I know of the character:

Wonder Woman (Paradise Island is just there.)
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) (The Ring chose him.)
Captain America (Getting frozen and losing Bucky are tragic, but he was a superhero before then and his goody-two-shoes personality was why he was chosen to get the serum in the first place.)
Shazam

[Lethologica]

Frodo
Vlad Taltos
Louis Wu
Roderick Blaine
Aerin Fire-Hair
Tiffany Aching
Nita Callahan
Will Stanton
Keladry of Mindelan
Alanna of Trebond
Aly Cooper
Pevensie children
Dor, Bink, Irene, Trent, and probably others from Xanth
F'lar
Cimorene, Mendanbar, Morwen
Jonas (The Giver)
Redwall
John (Old Man's War)
Coraline

A backstory is a perfectly legitimate place to create drama, but lots of stories don't.

[Agrippa]

Elijah Snow didn't have a tragic backstory before going on his global quest to uncover the world's secrets and founding Planetary.

[Razade]

It seems that that almost every story I look at (which is mostly sci-fi and fantasy, to be fair), the hero always seems to have some sort of tragic backstory. Abusive parents, dead parents, slavery, trauma, imprisonment and other sorts of things.

Read better stories?


Even heroes like Superman now have those things added in.

:smallconfused: What? Superman had dead parents and dead species and last surviving member of his species from more or less the get go. What do you mean now?


What I'm asking is that is tragedy some sort of requirement to be truly considered a hero or a worthwhile protaganist? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

No.

[Lord Raziere]

Ok, lets experiment, lets make a hero without a tragic backstory.

What is their reason for going forth to defeat evil?

This person has experienced no pain or loss. They were raise by good parents in a good community with no idea of what its like to fight evil or face danger. They have decided to take up the sword to go forth to do just that: fight evil. Just because it is right.

This person....is very innocent. They have no idea the pain others go through. They will probably make mistakes and confront problems they never thought about and have no idea how to solve. Others will mock them for being a foolish naive child, while they might think their own good life as boring and needing more excitement, or wanting to become famous and rich and not content with normal life.

The backstory changes from "guy who takes up sword after tragedy" to....."innocent guy who has no idea what they are doing taking up the sword thus soon causing a tragedy from their lack of experience." and thus you see the problem here. whatever first story they are in with an actual problem that needs solving, will BECOME their backstory, and whatever they think will do good won't actually be good because of their lack of experience. A hero with no tragedy behind them is a hero with a tragedy waiting to happen.

And the sooner the tragedy happens the better, because they get bigger the more competent the hero gets without the tragedy. Its why the heroes of Greek myth have tales that END on tragedies rather than begins. Because their heroes start off as the greatest guy at this or that, and how AWESOME it is to be the strongest guy in the world/greatest music player/most beautiful woman etc. Then it all goes downhill from there.

in contrast, when your kid-hero has a tragedy when they are young? well they already are at rock-bottom, only way to go is up. The sooner the tragedy the better. Harry Potter? Superman? Naruto? Steven Universe? These lucky guys were BORN tragically. Can't get any earlier than your parents dying from your mere coming into existence. Practically guarantees you'll end your journey on a high note, if not the highest note. Why do you think childhoods with parents dying are so popular, such a cliche? because its basically an early tragedy coupon to a one-way express of upward successful heroism.

The earlier the tragedy, the more it will be a way to teach the hero how cruel and hard the world can be and to get them to do something about it while allowing them to learn from it. The later the tragedy the more its a thing that actually screws the hero over as well as everyone else because of decisions the hero made. Tragedies are inevitable for heroes. Its just a question of when will they happen and what way this affects them.

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't really think a hero needs to be motivated by personal tragedy. Maybe outsider heroes just aren't popular for some reason? Or because people feel it's implausible a comedic hero could understand tragedy and pain of others, as is implied by Raziere's otherwise good text.

[Aotrs Commander]

Some other examples of heroes without tragic backstories:

Kim Possible
Twilight Sparkle (among others)
Shikamaru Nara (among others)
Ron Weasley and Herminone Granger
The Ghostbusters (pretty much applies as far as known to either the original or reboot)
Static
Blue Beetle (Jaime, at least pre-New52)
James T Kirk (prior to timeline revision)
John Sheridan
May and Max Maple (notably because there are just about the only protagonists (I'm aware of, not havng watched all of BW or XY) who have a full family unit
Samwise Gamgee (yes, I know we've mentioned Frodo, but... Frodo's parents did drown in an accident, and Sam at least still has Gaffer Gamgee, so there's that).
Most of W.i.t.c.h.



It does tend to be rarer than not, since it's really easy to make a tragic backstory the impetus for a character's motivation.

(Personally, I think it's used a little bit too much, especially when done very badly *cough*MagnetoinAgeofApocalypse*cough*)

[hamishspence]

James T Kirk (prior to timeline revision)


Kirk had a pretty traumatic childhood in one respect - he was on-planet for the Kodos The Executioner incident, where Kodos murdered thousands of people.

The Trek EU went into more detail - but the basics are still referenced in The Conscience of the King.

[Quild]

Frodo
Vlad Taltos
[...]
Coraline

A backstory is a perfectly legitimate place to create drama, but lots of stories don't.
I only know those.

Can't say much about Frodo, not sure his backstory is really given. He's a single hobbit, friend with Gandalf, more or less close of his uncle... We don't know much.

Vlad's backstory is kinda tragic. Unknown mother, bad father who died from plague (probably for the best), lives is a hostile society he hates... He only has noish-pa to lighten this up. Also if you set up anything after the events of Phoenix, it has a tragic backstory :smallwink:

Coraline is forced to moved out, she loses her friend and her parents don't care much about her (that's actually most of the point of the story) our about themselves. Note that the boy friend from the movie was not in the book.

[Aotrs Commander]

Kirk had a pretty traumatic childhood in one respect - he was on-planet for the Kodos The Executioner incident, where Kodos murdered thousands of people.

The Trek EU went into more detail - but the basics are still referenced in The Conscience of the King.

I'd forgotten that; fair point, fair point. Strike that one, then...



Reflecting on this, though, there is another point to raise... People just deciding to go out and fight evil or whatever is not actually unrealistic or unreasonable. I suspect most police officers, firemen and soldiers after all, of of which are in very high risk professions (and I'm sure you can think of more) don't do so due to some tragedy in their childhood, it's just what they want to do1. Realism is actually at active war with the tragic backstory, as one could argue, narratively, that is not as interesting to explore (if not over-used) - though I might personally not agree).



1And I'm personally a complete inversion of that; my "backstory" is anything but tragic, but I nevertheless chose to become an Evil omnicidal meglomanic undead abomination. (Maybe you could have argued that of I had wanted to become a doctor or something, my little sister dying as baby when I was about seven would have been... But I didn't.)

[Starbuck_II]

Some other examples of heroes without tragic backstories:

Twilight Sparkle (among others)

Bullied as a filly.


Ron Weasley and Herminone Granger

Bullied for being poor and looking funny, respectively.


The Ghostbusters (pretty much applies as far as known to either the original or reboot)

Normal Busters: No tragic revealed.
Fem boot: Bullied for believing in weird.


Static

Bullied and life threatened.

Bullying or tragicness are required.

[Cheesegear]

I believe Kyle Higgins - one of the authors of Nightwing among other things - asked a real simple question; "Why do people jump off roofs?"

Would you step in if your friend was being attacked?
Would you step in if a stranger was being attacked?
Would you step in if the attacker had a weapon? A gun?
Would you step in if there were multiple attackers? With weapons?
...and it escalates from there.

Why do people (specifically, the Bat-Family, but it applies anywhere) jump three stories off a roof, into an alley to save someone they don't even know, against multiple attackers, who probably now want to kill them? What makes someone do that? Something in their brain is fundamentally broken, usually by way of tragic backstory, that gives them the 'Never Again' mentality, not to themselves, not to anyone, if they can help it.
Why would someone - anyone - take up the mantle of Hero? What's their motivation? "Because they felt like it." is not a good story.

Superman was brought up with "With great power, comes great responsibility." Superman doesn't need a tragic backstory because he's above that sort of thing, because he's not human. Man of Steel butchered everything, and that's one of the many reasons that MoS sucks, but, the less said about that movie, the better.

Tragic backstories are also narrative shorthand for "This character is resilient and can look after themselves in a crisis situation."
Tragic backstories also make for flawed - and therefore relateable - characters.

[Aotrs Commander]

Bullied for being poor and looking funny, respectively.

Before they showed up at Hogwart's? (Because that's where backstory ends.) It's been a while since I last read the books.


Bullying or tragicness are required.

I think they really aren't.

Frequently used yes, but required? No.

Like all narrative conventions, the tragic backstory should be used sparingly, otherwise is becomes stale, repetative and boring.




I believe Kyle Higgins - one of the authors of Nightwing among other things - asked a real simple question; "Why do people jump off roofs?"

Would you step in if your friend was being attacked?
Would you step in if a stranger was being attacked?
Would you step in if the attacker had a weapon? A gun?
Would you step in if there were multiple attackers? With weapons?
...and it escalates from there.

Again, comment about police officers and such stands. Real people do do that.

And, honestly - I find people who go out an do amazing things (be they good or evil), because they chose to do so, rather than be forged into that role by circumstance to be often more interesting characters.




Superman was brought up with "With great power, comes great responsibility." Superman doesn't need a tragic backstory because he's above that sort of thing, because he's not human. Man of Steel butchered everything, and that's one of the many reasons that MoS sucks, but, the less said about that movie, the better.

Eeeh... On the one hand, yes. On the other, you could argue him being the last survivor of a dead race sent to another planet IS kind of a tragic backstory.




Tragic backstories also make for flawed - and therefore relateable - characters.

As I've said before, "relatability" is a concept that really could do with doing and dying in a fire. ESPECIALLY thse days, when it is given ALL of the weight.

I can count on the fingers of ONE HAND the number of characters across every media I've ever experienced that I can "relate" to.

[Knaight]

Like all narrative conventions, the tragic backstory should be used sparingly, otherwise is becomes stale, repetative and boring.

The bar for tragic has been set really, really low here (the bullying examples are literally just a childhood with some unhappiness in it) - and these heroes are routinely pitted against things much bigger than them that are demonstrably malevolent. A substantial portion are cast within the context of a rebellion of some form, in which they have been explicitly living in a deeply corrupt society with a deeply corrupt government with a long history of what we would now call human rights abuses. That some misfortune happens to people in this system is to be expected, particularly among those who hate the status quo enough to fight back.

[Keltest]

As far as superman goes, his tragic backstory is tangential to him being a hero, not a necessary component. He isn't driven by the destruction of his origin planet to stop his villain of the week, hes driven by the villain being a bad person who needs to be stopped.

[Aotrs Commander]

The bar for tragic has been set really, really low here (the bullying examples are literally just a childhood with some unhappiness in it) - and these heroes are routinely pitted against things much bigger than them that are demonstrably malevolent. A substantial portion are cast within the context of a rebellion of some form, in which they have been explicitly living in a deeply corrupt society with a deeply corrupt government with a long history of what we would now call human rights abuses. That some misfortune happens to people in this system is to be expected, particularly among those who hate the status quo enough to fight back.

Yeah, that is true and it does make it difficult. I held of from mentioning one example that jumped to my mind - Ash Ketchum. Dude has legit saved the world several times, because he was there and/or he felt it was the right thing to do (and he's actually like, fricken' ten properly at least on the first instance)... but does the fact his mum lives basically on her own and his father has been mention in passing once in eighteen long seasons make a tragic backstory? I'm sort of inclined to say no, given the more-or-less utter absense of it having any effect on him whatsoever.

And heck, I don't think there is ANYONE who doesn't have some Bad Things happen to tem in their lives (aforementioned baby sister, for example); but if that doesn't define them or their motivation, does that really count as a tragic backstory or just character history?

[Dragonexx]

I suppose I should have clarified. Bad things happen to everyone. That's life. What I'm kind of bothered by is the number of characters who have tragedy as their main motivating force, as if people can't just do the right thing without some sort of trauma forcing them to (i.e. most versions of batman I've seen, and come to think of it, a bunch of other superheroes). Basically, characters who let their trauma and tragedy define them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6YaEfkBtFE

I particularly like this part of the video as a representation my feelings on this.

The part begins at 7:25, though the whole scene begins at 6:40.

[Lethologica]

I only know those.

Can't say much about Frodo, not sure his backstory is really given. He's a single hobbit, friend with Gandalf, more or less close of his uncle... We don't know much.

Vlad's backstory is kinda tragic. Unknown mother, bad father who died from plague (probably for the best), lives is a hostile society he hates... He only has noish-pa to lighten this up. Also if you set up anything after the events of Phoenix, it has a tragic backstory :smallwink:

Coraline is forced to moved out, she loses her friend and her parents don't care much about her (that's actually most of the point of the story) our about themselves. Note that the boy friend from the movie was not in the book.
- No backstory means no tragic backstory.

- Fair, didn't really think about that one.

- Doesn't rise to the level of tragic.

[Aotrs Commander]

I suppose I should have clarified. I'm kind of bothered by the number of characters who have tragedy as their main motivating force, as if people can't just do the right thing without some sort of trauma forcing them to (i.e. most versions of batman I've seen). Basically, characters who let their trauma and tragedy define them.

That broadens the range somewhat.

I think, then, you could add a lot of the characters from the Belgariad and the Elenium, then - and quite a lot of the X-Men, actually. While Bad things have happened to them, they've not let it affect them. (Classic example of the latter would have to be my favorite of favourite characters, Jubilee.)

You can add a lot of the cast of Naruto (obvious exceptions being Naruto, Saskue, Kakashi and Gaara), I reckon.

Oh, obvious one that would even fit with the widest definition - Nanoha Takamachi. Fat is definitely a tragic=backstory character (actually, though, if the abuse is on-screen, does it count...) But Nanoha herself definitely doesn't have one...

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What, no mention of Saitama?

[jidasfire]

Tragedy is often used as a motivator because it's easy, but it's not the real reason writers work tragedy into character backstories. The real reason is because it elicits sympathy for the character. Writers want readers to like their protagonists enough to follow their stories, and one of the most effective ways to do this is to make us feel their pain with them.

[Norrefve]

The first person that came to mind for me was Hiro Nakura from Heroes. I suppose his mom dying from incurable disease could be tragic, and his father was a little strict (but that is common in Japanese culture, as far as I can tell), but like others have said, these things don't define him, nor are they his primary reason to fight evil. That's actually a big reason why I like him so much. He just believes in good and wants to stop bad people, while going on an adventure at the same time.

The other person who came to mind, during Raziere's spiel, is Elan. He never knew his father, but other than that he has a totally normal, happy backstory, as far as I remember. Sure, he is innocent and doesn't understand a lot of things, but that doesn't make him useless as a hero. In fact, I think he is crucial to the heroes as a reference point; "this is what good looks like". At the get go, he was not driven by tragedy or rage. He just wants to be part of a grand story and be on the side with the good guys.

[Aotrs Commander]

The first person that came to mind for me was Hiro Nakura from Heroes. I suppose his mom dying from incurable disease could be tragic, and his father was a little strict (but that is common in Japanese culture, as far as I can tell), but like others have said, these things don't define him, nor are they his primary reason to fight evil. That's actually a big reason why I like him so much. He just believes in good and wants to stop bad people, while going on an adventure at the same time.

He had occured to me, actually, but I know about him only through reputation (I never watched the series) and thus wasn't familiar enough to be able to make a call.

[Giggling Ghast]

The Ghostbusters had no tragic pasts.

Conan the Barbarian has a tragic backstory in the films, but in the novels and comics, he's just a guy who wanted to explore the world.

[Cheesegear]

Again, comment about police officers and such stands. Real people do do that.

Here's the thing though, Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered right in front of him. Bruce Wayne then goes to University, and takes classes in forensics, criminology and law, and, rather infamously, does not graduate with anything. Bruce Wayne, with all his money, and for all his intelligence, has no formal recognition of his intelligence. I've looked it up before. Bruce Wayne has no degrees, but he did attend several colleges (probably 'cause he kept failing and dropping out?). Australian POs definitely have an education. I have no idea how it works in the U.S.

First and foremost, however, vigilantes are not police officers. Instead of becoming a Police Officer, or a Lawyer, or a recognised forensic technician, or any number of legitimate careers designed to fight crime and prevent other peoples' parents from being murdered, Wayne becomes Batman.


And, honestly - I find people who go out an do amazing things (be they good or evil), because they chose to do so, rather than be forged into that role by circumstance to be often more interesting characters.

Of course. But that's not what this thread is about. Or it is. Kind of.


Eeeh... On the one hand, yes. On the other, you could argue him being the last survivor of a dead race sent to another planet IS kind of a tragic backstory.

But he doesn't learn that until he's well into his late 20s/early 30s, at which point he's already been Superman for a long time. Longer, if you decide that Clark was also walking around for a while as Superboy. Since we also know that Clark was doing good deeds when he was in high school. Man of Steel and Dad committing suicide notwithstanding (literally the worst scene in the movie, and completely contrary to Pa Kent's character in the comics).

Superman is motivated by his adopted parents telling him how to be a good person. Clark's greatest power is not having dead parents, and being part of a family that actually loves him. Man of Steel, in probably the one new thing I actually did like about it, was that the Kent household was likely a Catholic one. Judged by the fact that a crucifix can be seen in house fairly obviously. Some may see this as symbolism, but then Clark/Superman actually walks into a church and asks a Priest for guidance. Clark is a good person, and his 'tragic backstory' was never even a factor until well into adulthood.


As I've said before, "relatability" is a concept that really could do with doing and dying in a fire.

But can you empathise with them? It's not so much as relating to the characters, as it is, more important to empathise with the character. But, in order to empathise with someone, we have to at least understand what's going on. Most people can understand tragedy. Most people know what it feels like to lose a loved one, and if they don't, they've probably thought about it a lot at some point.

The easiest way to empathise with a character, is to also make them relatable. Now, you can empathise with a character who isn't relatable. But, most writers aren't that clever.

[Seppl]

Regarding Frodo: He has enough backstory in the books. While he is technically an orphan, that part of the backstory is more like an excuse of how to give Bilbo an heir while still keeping him a bachelor. Otherwise it is not really important for his hero's journey. The part that is important is, that Frodo does have a very good, happy, even somewhat pampered upbringing. And yet he still rises to the opportunity. He could always just go back, leave others to do the hard stuff, and live a good life in the shire. It is a very important part of his character that he does not, despite his happy backstory.

[Aotrs Commander]

But he doesn't learn that until he's well into his late 20s/early 30s, at which point he's already been Superman for a long time. Longer, if you decide that Clark was also walking around for a while as Superboy. Since we also know that Clark was doing good deeds when he was in high school. Man of Steel and Dad committing suicide notwithstanding (literally the worst scene in the movie, and completely contrary to Pa Kent's character in the comics).

Superman is motivated by his adopted parents telling him how to be a good person. Clark's greatest power is not having dead parents, and being part of a family that actually loves him. Man of Steel, in probably the one new thing I actually did like about it, was that the Kent household was likely a Catholic one. Judged by the fact that a crucifix can be seen in house fairly obviously. Some may see this as symbolism, but then Clark/Superman actually walks into a church and asks a Priest for guidance. Clark is a good person, and his 'tragic backstory' was never even a factor until well into adulthood.

Certainly, in the (revised) context of the thread, I would agree with you; and for that matter, I would as a general point. Supes is not really motivated by his being the last son of Krypton in the same way Bats is. Heck, you could make a reasonable arguement that the way he honours his birth-parents and Krypton after discovering his legacy is in large part BECAUSE the Kents raised him to be a stand-up, decent bloke.

Though, as I said, if you look at the context only of "how many heroes/protagonists still have all of their parents" you could make an arguement that Supes has a tragic backstory. Sorta. Maybe. But, like you say, it is really more of a "backstory with some tragedy in it" as opposed to a "tragic backstory."

But he's an unusual case. (As people have observed, though, Supes is more interesting as character because of the "man" part than the "super" (or perhaps to be blunt, as a "character" rather than a "collection of OP superpowers..."))

[Lethologica]

Regarding Frodo: He has enough backstory in the books. While he is technically an orphan, that part of the backstory is more like an excuse of how to give Bilbo an heir while still keeping him a bachelor. Otherwise it is not really important for his hero's journey. The part that is important is, that Frodo does have a very good, happy, even somewhat pampered upbringing. And yet he still rises to the opportunity. He could always just go back, leave others to do the hard stuff, and live a good life in the shire. It is a very important part of his character that he does not, despite his happy backstory.
:thumbsup: I would have gone back and amended my mobile-phone retort if I'd thought about it. It's also important because Frodo's Shire-ness, his lack of desire for power to change things or control people, is what gives him the ability to resist the Ring for so long. He just wants to do the right thing and then go home and get high live in peace, whereas a tragic bacstory is about, among other things, making 'home' a place of turmoil to throw the character out of their comfort zone and motivate them to aspire to darker crazier greater things.

[Traab]

The ron and hermione thing is, ok, first off, they are not the primary protagonist. They are a part of the hero's party but not the actual hero so tragedy isnt really a "needed" part of their story. But considering this is a story that revolves around children and growing up, their backstory of being the bullied friendless nerd and the he's just a poor boy from a poor family (tell me you didnt mentally sing those words, i dare you) and I think it counts, especially when the very first interaction we get with both is ron being mocked mercilessly for being from a large and somewhat poor family. (to hell with that, his dad is a government worker who sent 7 kids through private school on his own dime, that aint poor) and meanwhile hermione instantly displays why she is a lonely girl as she starts blabbering on endlessly about lessons and knowledge and whatnot while also being somewhat demanding of two boys she just met.

Its not some childhood throwaway mention, its a large part of who they are as characters. It shapes how they act, ron with his jealousy and low self esteem, hermione with her bossiness and almost desperate need for validation of her intelligence and rule following, and in a large part defines them for the entire series as ron slowly starts letting go of his poor (hur hur) behavior, and hermione starts learning that just because authority figures were the only ones to treat her well growing up doesnt mean she has to slavishly obey them. Had the story been about the current storyline where they are all adults and whatever, their past of being poor and bullied wouldnt count as "tragic" but such things are IMMENSELY important to the children the harry potter series was written around.

[Aedilred]

If you're going to lump together all forms of past misfortune and call any instance of them a tragic backstory, then it's probable that most heroes have one. Partly for the character development reasons mentioned: heroes need a cause or a push to make them into heroes. Some of it is probably just trying to make their story interesting. Part of it may be the deliberate elimination of emotional crutches for the character, so that they don't have their parents (or friends, or whoever) to turn to when things get grim and have to go on personal journeys and learn lessons themselves.

Even so, there are counterexamples. Reed Richards might be one, although I think he has an absentee father. Charles Xavier seemed to live a pretty privileged life and became a "hero" independently of losing his legs. And while Tony Stark did have his sojourn in the cave, and was orphaned in early adulthood, I think it would be hard to call his backstory all that "tragic" in the grand scheme of things. I'm not aware of any particular tragedy in Tim Drake's backstory before he started associating with Batman.

Oh yeah - what about Captain America? In the current MCU he has the whole "out of time" thing going on, but he was a hero in the 1940s and while his life was a bit miserable before he became Cap, there wasn't a single defining moment that turned him into a hero. He was just a good guy.

[Traab]

Its like I said, the only reason I counted things like "made fun of as a child" as a tragic backstory was because the story was about being children. An absentee father is a big deal when you are 11. Not so much when you are 40. Even less so when you are a highly successful scientist, a legend in your field, happily married to an awesome woman and have great friends around you at all times. As for charles, eh, I honestly dont recall his being crippled being treated as much more than an excuse to give him a floating chair to move around in. I dont recall any angsting or otherwise suffering over it as a part of his character. In fact, if I recall, didnt he get crippled while doing his own superhero thing fighting the shadow king as a young man? That makes it less a tragic backstory and more something that happened during his career. Batmans parents dying is a tragic backstory, losing a couple of robins is just a part of his story, if you understand the difference im trying to describe.

[BeerMug Paladin]

The thing is, tragic events happen now and then to anyone. That's just life. I could potentially name plenty of characters whose motivation isn't based on tragedy, but a good backstory free of any perceived tragic events would be unlikely, just because authors (who care) are generally going to desire verisimilitude in their work. Plus events like that in the character's past make for more interesting dramatic choices in the story arc.

The question should really be whether or not the character dwells excessively on what happened to them in the past. Whether it's their primary motivation or not.

I like Elissa Megan Powers (Empowered) as an example. Her life only becomes tragic after she decides to become a hero, but not giving up on it despite what happens to her because of making that choice is what makes her heroic. Her life before making that decision is not expounded on that much, but appears to have been mostly okay. It was not totally free of sad events, but like I said above, it doesn't really have much bearing on her actual motivation. Like Elan in OotS, she just wants to be on the side of good.


The first person that came to mind for me was Hiro Nakura from Heroes.

He came to my mind too. He has no reason to leave his life and go on a heroic journey, save for the fact that he wants to. Plus it helps his charm that he's kind of a dope. The friend he brings along with him is in the same situation.

[Starbuck_II]

What, no mention of Saitama?

Yeah, he isn't that tragic. Just a bored guy unlocking absolute power.

[Shpadoinkle]

Dor, Bink, Irene, Trent, and probably others from Xanth.

Dor was ostracized as a kid and had no friends barring Grundy Golem, who was pretty much given the job of watching after him so I'm not sure he'd really count, until he was 12.

Speaking of Grundy, he hated the fact that he was created for no real reason other than to be a tool, so he ran away, and only later realized that he wanted to become a real person.

Bink was exiled because he had no magic. Trent was exiled something like 20 or 30 years before that because he tried to take the throne by force.

Irene had no friends either because a) she was a princess, and b) she didn't have a magician-level talent (until it matured when she was an adult.)

Granted it could be argued that some later characters in the series didn't have much of anything resembling a tragic personal histories, but even by the time I quit reading the books (the last one I can recall with any sort of clarity was Yon Ill Wind, and Chlorine was explicitly pretty miserable before the book started) there were characters with pretty rough backgrounds more often than not.

Moving away from the topic of the Xanth series and speaking more generally: Characters with tragic backgrounds have more verisimilitude. They feel more like real people, and therefore they're more relateable. "Everything worked out fine my whole life" isn't an interesting or realistic origin.

[zimmerwald1915]

I only know those.

Can't say much about Frodo, not sure his backstory is really given. He's a single hobbit, friend with Gandalf, more or less close of his uncle... We don't know much.
It's Lord of the Rings. The backstory is given. The story of Frodo's early life isn't even relegated to the Appendices, it's delivered by Ham Gamgee and takes up a good chunk of a chapter.

Seppl already went into what the actual story was.

[Sermil]

Not all of Shakespeare's heroes have tragic backstories, even in the tragedies. Romeo's parents are alive; so are Juliet's. (Might have gone better for them if they weren't.) Macbeth is a successful, trusted warlord at the start of the play; Othello is a successful general who just married someone he loves. Julius Caesar's parents are probably dead (I mean, he's pretty old), but I don't remember the play ever touching on it.

Obviously, some Shakespearean heroes have tragic backstories, but only when important. Hamlet lost his father recently -- well, if Hamlet's father was alive, it would be a darn short play, wouldn't it? Prospero was stripped of his high office and exiled -- again, his quest for revenge is a major plot point.

[Knaight]

Not all of Shakespeare's heroes have tragic backstories, even in the tragedies. Romeo's parents are alive; so are Juliet's. (Might have gone better for them if they weren't.) Macbeth is a successful, trusted warlord at the start of the play; Othello is a successful general who just married someone he loves. Julius Caesar's parents are probably dead (I mean, he's pretty old), but I don't remember the play ever touching on it.

Obviously, some Shakespearean heroes have tragic backstories, but only when important. Hamlet lost his father recently -- well, if Hamlet's father was alive, it would be a darn short play, wouldn't it? Prospero was stripped of his high office and exiled -- again, his quest for revenge is a major plot point.

Even Hamlet doesn't really have that much of a tragic backstory. He's in the middle of some ugly family drama, but that's less backstory and more the current conflict. His backstory is just being the prince of Denmark until the current conflict crops up.

[Seppl]

There is a different meaning of "hero" applied here. The listed character from Shakespeare's plays are "heroes" in the sense of "protagonist". The OP is asking about heroes in the sense of someone who faces danger and fights for the greater good.

[Aedilred]

Not all of Shakespeare's heroes have tragic backstories, even in the tragedies. Romeo's parents are alive; so are Juliet's. (Might have gone better for them if they weren't.) Macbeth is a successful, trusted warlord at the start of the play; Othello is a successful general who just married someone he loves. Julius Caesar's parents are probably dead (I mean, he's pretty old), but I don't remember the play ever touching on it.

Assuming a degree of historical accuracy, Caesar's parents had both been dead by the time of his dictatorship. His father died when Caesar was about 15; his mother died in 54 BC, while Caesar was in Gaul.

The historical Caesar has an element of a tragic backstory, as many of his family and family friends were killed in his youth during the civil wars. He was initially sentenced to die at the age of 18 during the proscriptions, but Sulla was talked out of killing him, settling instead for forcing Caesar to divorce his then-wife and stripping him of his priestly offices. His youth and early career were spent in what for a Roman aristocrat was near poverty, especially after his family inheritance was confiscated by Sulla; he was at one point abducted by pirates, and on one occasion after joining the Senate had to effectively flee Rome to escape his creditors.

So his upbringing wasn't as easy as it might have been, compared to Pompey or Crassus - but he was still a Roman aristocrat with many of the associated implications and privileges.

[Kantaki]

I think Stephanie Edgley/ Valkyrie Cain from the Skullduggery Pleasant books qualifies for having no tragic backstory. Okay, there is the mysterious death of her uncle, but that doesn't fall under „backstory“, more under „kickstarts the plot”.
Her primary motivation is: cool magic? exiting adventures? I'm in.
The darkness and tragedy happens later.

The other heroes -especially the titular lich*- on the other hand...
Well, maybe not Tanith. Does it count as a tragic backstory if your parents drop you off at some League of Assassins knock-off to because that's family tradition?

*that one is enough to depress Batman

[Dusso]

I believe "tragic" is a state that can be related to almost every man, while being a hero is only for very few; thus by raising from tragic past and becoming heroic being a character is more desirable for an average consumer, as it gives a bit of hope that everyone can achieve greatness :)
That's why it's so popular in culture.

[hamishspence]

ron being mocked mercilessly for being from a large and somewhat poor family. (to hell with that, his dad is a government worker who sent 7 kids through private school on his own dime, that aint poor)

Compared to Harry's it was - the Chamber of Secrets book made a point of showing that the Weasley family as a whole has vastly less in the bank than Harry itself does.

And I'm not sure that Hogwarts counts as a private school - it seems closer to the magic world's version of a state-run comprehensive. Anyone who can't afford the school kit (wands, books, cauldrons, etc) - such as the young Voldemort, who was an orphan - get given the money to buy this stuff second-hand.

[Aedilred]

Compared to Harry's it was - the Chamber of Secrets book made a point of showing that the Weasley family as a whole has vastly less in the bank than Harry itself does.

And I'm not sure that Hogwarts counts as a private school - it seems closer to the magic world's version of a state-run comprehensive. Anyone who can't afford the school kit (wands, books, cauldrons, etc) - such as the young Voldemort, who was an orphan - get given the money to buy this stuff second-hand.

It's pretty clearly not a private school, yeah. While admission is selective, there is no mention of fees at any point, something that would almost certainly have come up had it been the case (whether it be Vernon protesting he's not going to pay them, or a suggestion that the Weasleys are struggling with them).

As for the Weasleys' apparent poverty, while Arthur likely earns a respectable salary as a mid-level civil servant, there's a difference between gross income and capital. And between gross income and disposable income. Arthur has had for most of his career to support eight dependents (since Molly doesn't work): the chances are he doesn't have much if anything left over at the end of each month.

The Weasleys have a reputation for having lots of kids, so this likely isn't a new phenomenon in their family. Given too that the Weasleys are the “blood traitor” family and the problems that causes for them career-wise are only likely to become greater the farther back in time you go, it's possible that Arthur is the first member of his family, or at least the first for some time, to have a job even of his relatively modest standard. Inheritance of capital from one generation of Weasleys to the next is likely to be negligible.

Compare this to other pureblood families we see, like the Potters, Blacks or Malfoys, who demonstrably have disposable cash available throughout the series in a different league to the Weasleys. They appear to have had only one or two children for the last couple of generations (see also Crouch, Nott, Longbottom), have family fortunes dating back generations, and can open doors by the strength of their name alone (at least until the post-Voldemort era, in the Blacks' case). Consequently they have substantial capital, are better placed to earn higher incomes, and can pass on a higher proportion of their wealth to the next generation.

Of course, the Harry Potter setting is paper-thin and scrutinising it too closely exposes a lot of holes, but, taking the setting at face value, the Weasleys' being poor makes almost perfect sense. One thing that perhaps raises a slight quandary is why the older Weasley children, who are all high flyers in their chosen fields, and who at the start of the series have no dependents of their own, don't make a bit more of an effort to help out their younger siblings. It seems it just isn't the done thing, although at least in Percy's case it was explained away by his falling out with the rest of the family. Even when Fred and George do get some money with no strings attached, it seems for whatever reason none of that gets passed to the rest of the family (iirc) apart from a relatively cursory amount to Ron, and even that at Harry's suggestion.

Another question perhaps worth asking is why no money apparently came from the Prewett side, since Molly's brothers were killed (albeit there might be additional siblings we don't know about). One of her brothers was mentioned not to be particularly careful with his possessions, which tends to be a trait associated more with people who are relatively comfortably off than those in penury. But then again, perhaps not, or maybe that money got used up fighting Voldemort, or any one of a host of other factors.

[Sermil]

There is a different meaning of "hero" applied here. The listed character from Shakespeare's plays are "heroes" in the sense of "protagonist". The OP is asking about heroes in the sense of someone who faces danger and fights for the greater good.

OK, then, Mario. Mario doesn't have a tragic backstory. Doesn't really have a backstory at all.

Nor does Captain Olimar; he's just an explorer working for a (somewhat incompetent) boss. Really, none of Nintendo's heroes have tragic backstories.

[zimmerwald1915]

OK, then, Mario. Mario doesn't have a tragic backstory. Doesn't really have a backstory at all.
That depends, I guess. Does Yoshi's Island count as backstory for other games in his series?


Really, none of Nintendo's heroes have tragic backstories.
Counterpoint: [Ocarina of Time's] Link.

[Kitten Champion]

According to the manga at least, Samus' parents were killed by space pirates when she was a child.

[Emmerlaus]

The fantastic Four didnt have a tragic backstory before becoming superheroes. The drama came after that.

Its not the first time the drama follow the superheroes but only after he became super. A few mutants in X-Men universe had a awesome childhood after all.

[Knaight]

OK, then, Mario. Mario doesn't have a tragic backstory. Doesn't really have a backstory at all.

Nor does Captain Olimar; he's just an explorer working for a (somewhat incompetent) boss. Really, none of Nintendo's heroes have tragic backstories.
Samus has the whole "family killed in front of her, adopted by a species that appears to have gone all but extinct, on a revenge kick" thing going for her, although it was added retroactively.


It's pretty clearly not a private school, yeah. While admission is selective, there is no mention of fees at any point, something that would almost certainly have come up had it been the case (whether it be Vernon protesting he's not going to pay them, or a suggestion that the Weasleys are struggling with them).

There's mention of tuition at the beginning of several books, and it comes up repeatedly.

[Kitten Champion]

The fantastic Four didnt have a tragic backstory before becoming superheroes. The drama came after that.

Its not the first time the drama follow the superheroes but only after he became super. A few mutants in X-Men universe had a awesome childhood after all.

That's actually not true - except for Reed for the most part - the rest had tragedy of some sort mark their early lives. Ben lost his brother to street crime when he was young and became a gang leader himself, his parents also died in this period. The Storms' mother died in a car crash which caused their surgeon father - blaming himself - to fall into depression, drinking, gambling, and eventually jail for homicide.

[Drascin]

According to the manga at least, Samus' parents were killed by space pirates when she was a child.

And then in that same manga her adoptive bird parents were ALSO killed, also by Space Pirates (well, Ridley personally killed one of them, Grey Voice. Old Bird was a bit more complicated).

At this point, it's honestly not very surprising she wants Ridley atomized. It's not a lot of people that lose multiple sets of parents to the same psycho. The only case I can think of is 8-Bit Theathre.

[Aedilred]

There's mention of tuition at the beginning of several books, and it comes up repeatedly.

I really don't remember that at all, and apparently neither does JKR (http://time.com/3963231/j-k-rowling-hogwarts-harry-potter/). Maybe it was an inexplicable addition to an international edition?

[Tyndmyr]

At minimum, no specific sum is given, per this list of all specific sums in HP: https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/43qv9c/lets_talk_wizard_money_a_look_through_everything/

In fairness, that's pretty normal. It's not a very financially focused series, and if you start looking at things terribly closely, they don't entirely hold together. I'd presume it was just winged because ****, poor family, lots of kids, sounds like it makes sense, time to write the next thing.

[Nerd-o-rama]

There's almost always some catalyst that makes a protagonist/hero remarkable. In violent fiction (which most sci fi/fantasy/comic books are), that catalyst is usually violence enacted upon them or someone around them. Whether it happens in the backstory or an early scene, it's ingrained in the Hero's Journey model that there's always some event that makes a hero a Hero, separate from a normal, innocent humanity by giving them a different perspective and reasoning.

Of course, this is a trope. It's not realistic. Plenty of people in the real world perform heroic acts simply because they were in the right place at the right time with the right training (or sometimes not even that) due to an infinitely variable collection of unrelated circumstances and coincidences. But narratives hate coincidences, so the everyday-hero is far less common in long-form fiction. A good deal more prevalent in film, though, since extensive character exposition is generally considered not important enough to take up limited screentime.

For some actiony film examples, we have...

Agent J, Men in Black. Just a good cop with authority issues who was in the right place at the right time with the right attitude.
Most of Will Smith's action protagonists not named Jim West, actually
Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones series. Just an insane graverobber-with-principles. He was estranged from his father, but I don't know if that's a tragedy or just Freud fodder.
Dr. Alan Grant, Jurassic Park. Like Indy, he's an academic professional with a cool hat who just ends up way over his head.
Mulan, Disney's Mulan. Her motivation is averting a tragedy from happening to her family and, once that's more or less resolved, China, with a heavy character arc about not fitting into societal expectations. Also props for being a Disney protag with two living, non-estranged parents for the entire movie.
Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-wan Kenobi, Star Wars (Episode I, anyway). Technically the whole prequel trilogy is Obi-wan's tragic backstory, but as of Episode I and compared to fellow protagonists Anakin, Luke, and Rey, these guys are pretty well off if you don't mind being adopted by an order of space wizards at a young age. Actually, Anakin was doing pretty well for himself despite being a slave, too. It's the actual course of the prequel trilogy that's a tragedy, not the backstory.

There's also video games, which even if they're not light on story, are often very broad strokes when it comes to backstory. To wit:

Mario
Like half the incarnations of Link
Non-animated/comics Sonic the Hedgehog
Mega Man, depending on interpretation
Any Pokémon kid, again depending on adaptation
Bartz from Final Fantasy V. Kind of a rarity in FF games with characters, actually.
The kid you control in Undertale is the only character in the game without a tragic backstory

[Spojaz]

I think the "heroes get a tragic backstory" trope is mostly just plot convenience.

A hero's job is expertly stopping bad things from happening, or making them right. You don't want your story to be an emotional lazy river though, so bad things have to happen, and remain, to give emotional weight. So where can you put your sources of negative emotions, without denying your audience a satisfying conclusion? One of the best answers is the past. Before they were a hero, or at least before the audience was around, you can put issues that can remain unresolved, without compromising the structure of your story.

If you can find another character attribute to add to the hero while you are back there, so much the better.

[Aedilred]

At minimum, no specific sum is given, per this list of all specific sums in HP: https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/43qv9c/lets_talk_wizard_money_a_look_through_everything/

In fairness, that's pretty normal. It's not a very financially focused series, and if you start looking at things terribly closely, they don't entirely hold together. I'd presume it was just winged because ****, poor family, lots of kids, sounds like it makes sense, time to write the next thing.

Given JKR's personal history and politics, I would, in retrospect, be flabbergasted had Hogwarts been a fee-paying school. But anyway, we're drifting rather off-topic.

[Lord Raziere]

The kid you control in Undertale is the only character in the game without a tragic backstory[/LIST]

Debatable. There is a lot of thought in Undertale fandom about WHY the protag would go up Mt. Ebott in the first place when logically if no one ever came back from it that people would stay away, as well as what might be a hint from the Abandoned Quiche ("you weren't ready for the responsibility").

[Nerd-o-rama]

Debatable. There is a lot of thought in Undertale fandom about WHY the protag would go up Mt. Ebott in the first place when logically if no one ever came back from it that people would stay away

Have you met children?

Not that the other interpretation isn't valid, of course, kid's intentionally a blank slate.

[Forum Explorer]

Have you met children?

Not that the other interpretation isn't valid, of course, kid's intentionally a blank slate.

Too much of a blank slate. I don't think you can say Frisk has a backstory at all.


But as mentioned before Nanoha is a hero and doesn't have a tragic backstory at all. In fact her backstory empathizes how mundane it is.

Tavi from the Codex Alerea doesn't have a tragic backstory, even if his birth was kinda tragic. Unless you count bullying as tragic (and I really really don't.)

Ciphias Cain HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, doesn't really have a tragic backstory either. Yeah his parents are dead, but honestly he seems to be more or less happy that happened since it got him in the Schola Progrentium.

So no, not every hero has to have a tragic backstory. Many of them do, but that's because it's a common and effective technique on establishing character motivation, sympathy, and driving the plot forward.

[Seppl]

Ciphias Cain HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, doesn't really have a tragic backstory either. Yeah his parents are dead, but honestly he seems to be more or less happy that happened since it got him in the Schola Progrentium.

That is an interesting one for the purpose of this thread. After all, his motivations are anything but heroic, he just happens to do stuff a hero would do.

[Lethologica]

Tavi's backstory is totally tragic. It's just that he also got the Idyllic Childhood trait when rolling up his character.

[Porthos]

I think the complaint is better put as it's not so much Something Bad happened in a person's life, because, as said, it's a pretty rare life where Something Bad doesn't happen once or twice. But it is a little annoying that it's because Something Bad happened that someone chose to be a hero (or rather protaganist) if it keeps happening over and over again. It cuts off the avenues for storytelling for people who became the hero for duty/altruism/right-thing-to-do.

Why folks got that way doesn't have to be tragic in other words. Maybe someone helped them at a formative point in their life. The Kindly Old Stranger/Uncle gave them a pep talk at a difficult (but not tragic) time. They saw a firefighter save someone's life at a young age and it made an impression. They were always the type of person to hold open doors for others. That type of thing.

After all, heroes are supposed to inspire (one type at least). It's not hard at all to imagine that someone got into the Hero Business by being inspired by some other hero (however one wants to describe it) along the line.