"Character doesn't act traumatized"
The flaw with the criticism of "this character isn't acting traumatized, you need to show how this event changed them" is that a lot of people experience EXTREME traumatic events and think it's normal. Their behavior might change in subtle ways, but they mostly just continue with their life.
This is especially true in children/young characters. See example here:
When I write traumatized characters, I ask myself two things.
When would this character naturally think about the traumatizing event(s)? What does thinking about it do to them?
What did this event "teach" them? What belief did they leave with? When would that belief be expressed?
Let's use my experience as fodder for a moment. I was a responder to a car crash fatality. My answers:
I think about the event around roads/cars. I have hypervigilance near road ways. I look for pedestrians obsessively, I won't cross a street until all cars have stopped moving. When I was having a trauma response, I couldn't communicate well because I was so focused on the source of my distress. In writing that would be "darting eyes", "tense shoulders", "inability to focus on anything other than the immediate" and "tunnel vision"
I developed the belief "cars will kill" and specifically "If i drive anyone, I will kill them (especially if the car is silver)". I drive alone for the most part and this also helps me hide any signs of trauma. If there is a trip being discussed, I will opt for the one that involves any other mode of transport besides cars, even if it's more expensive. In writing, my resistance to being near cars might come off as "obstinate, unyielding, selfish." It's only when other pushed me for an explanation that my reaction was identified as PTSD.
This is an overt trauma response as an example, but imagine a response to something less prevalent than roads. How often would the above responses come up?
Now let's apply the questions to someone who views the event as "normal" (I was aware that I was having an abnormal experience). Either they were raised around it or the people around them at the time of the inciting event made them feel like they were overreacting.
When something triggers the memory of the inciting event, how are they feeling? Shamed that they can't forget? Irritated that they can't stop thinking about it? How do those emotions translate to their actions? Do they change the subject? Leave? Stop talking? As humans, we want to avoid discomfort. Will this person lash out?
When traumatic events are normalized, many people may not realize they have a new "belief." They may feel alienated from people who don't have this belief and may not understand why not everybody just knows about it. For example, feeling like everyone should just "know" that their loved ones are going to betray them. This might be expressed explosively - why doesn't everybody know? Why is everyone acting like that's not how the world works? Or it might lead to withdrawal and further alienation.
This is very brief, but I hope my point comes across. Yes, trauma is always felt, but how it's felt, when it's felt, when it's seen differs from person to person.
When someone, especially young people, are taught to just "move on" the trauma is still there! But it will express itself differently initially. Not being able to control their emotional response to a traumatic event may become a more visible reaction than any other.
"Are you okay?"
"I'm fine."
"You look a little pale--"
"Aren't you hungry? I'll go grab us lunch. Burgers okay?"
"Uh, yes, but--"
"Text me when you're done here. I don't need to be here for this bullshit."
And when they come back, they don't mention being upset at all.
