Character Traits: Why Bring It Up?

I love my father more than just about anyone in this world, but there's an unspoken rule of thumb when around him. You avoid certain topics. Don't bring up overcrowded schools, unless you want a ten-minute rant on the downfall of the U.S. educational system. Don't bring up a problem, unless you want to be asked about it for possibly the next decade ("So how IS that cyst you told me about five years ago?"). Just don't bring it up. It's not worth it. Even the most innocuous of subjects--pizza--comes with a long diatribe--don't even ask, it's not worth it. So when around my father, I have long list of "safe" topics, most of them sunny. They often involve bragging about my kids--ANYTHING positive about a grandkid is safe for discussion within reason. So Baby Girl's piano lessons are fair game for the next two years, at which point he will be asking why she hasn't moved on to the Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Op. 30 by Sergei Rachmaninoff ("And REALLY, just how good is this piano teacher anyway? What are her references?") Oldest Daughter adores my dad--and the fact that she's a musician? Well, many, many gold stars for that one in his book.

Ever meet one of those people who like to get their digs into conversation, so they "conveniently" bring up something from the past? We all know people like that. My main thought is always "WHY bring this up?" I actually once heard from a woman via Facebook who had perfect recall of a 6th grade lunchroom incident and felt the need to bring it up. Not only did I not recall the incident, I don't get bringing it up decades later.

But none of these "bring it up" scenarios apply to character development. If you bring it up . . . you better bring it.

What do I mean? It's NOT enough to make a cop an alcoholic as a character defect or flaw. Done to death, first of all. But WHY BRING IT UP unless his drinking causes him to blow a case. Causes him trouble in the very book. Real trouble, significant trouble.

In fact, better not to TELL us this flaw. Just show it anyway.

I have an alcoholic ex-priest in my work-in-progress. I show it. But, more so, when he falls completely into the bottle about a quarter of the way through the book, the female lead character faces an agonizing choice. Throw her lot in with an unreliable sometime-drunk who has demon experience (and really, how many of those are there in the world?) or . . . well, damn, she has no other choice. So she has a sense of anxiety over her once he sobers up--when is he going to crack again? And where will that leave her?

This is where I think editors talk about organic storytelling. About tacked-on traits. Quirks with no reason for being there other than to be quirky.

If the trait is there, it should serve the story. Everything serves the story.

Why else would you bring it up?

Oh . . . and one more thing I've lately come to feel very strongly about. Yes, my characters run my life. They present themselves fully formed. And it's all right for me to tell my fellow writers my characters' back story. It's all right for me to possess an encyclopedic knowledge about my characters. I have little control over that, it's just how I am. It's how they are.

What's not okay is to insert all that knowledge into the story. I CAN control that. And if story isn't running the show . . . if you aren't in control there . . . if you aren't writing to the higher purpose of story, but instead just to make characters interesting, then you can run the risk of ending up with a book of fascinating character sketches. And not much more. If you bring it to the book, it should be exploited.

Thoughts?