Do characters really need to change or change all that much in a story? This is something I grapple with. I know we're told that characters need to change in some way by the end of the story and some people even do character arcs and stuff like that. But my characters don't usually go through any big character change. Maybe it's subtle or maybe it's really not there at all. I'm not so sure. In a lot of my short stories my characters seem to be chasing doom, and my stories will cut off right before they get there. That's not always the case, but it is a familiar pattern I seem to follow without really being aware of it. When I think about my short stories that have been published in some pretty cool places, I'm not sure there's much character growth. And these are character-driven stories, I would say. So, do characters not need to change in short stories? Or, again, maybe it's a very subtle change. I've written a few unpublished novels where I also wonder about the character growth or character change. And, much like my short stories, my characters have flatlined in a way before the story even begins. I think they're good stories. I'm still working on the last one I wrote which has a lot of cleaning up to do. But I'm not all that worried about the lack of change in my main character. I think it's a good story, and I think I have a good character. Is character growth and change something I should be more worried about? Does anyone else write stories where the characters don't change all that much? It seems like this can work sometimes, no? I would love to hear your thoughts on character growth and change.
Only if it's a change arc. There's also the flat arc, which I learned a lot about here. I don't think change is as important or necesary in a short story. Or rather, as I understand it, often a short story is only a small part of the character arc, like the very beginning or end of it, just a moment from it. And some might be a moment from a flat arc.
It's funny because I would typically argue that character change is necessary even in short stories, but that doesn't seem to be what I'm doing. I'm not writing slice of life stories. A lot tends to happen in my stories. And I hate to think my characters are just along for the ride.
That's an interesting question when it comes to novels, I haven't really come across any that the character undergoes no changes, that seems a bit unorthodox, or a trope from some genre I haven't read because I'm just not into it. Some characters, usually side characters, indeed don't change. I've seen those kinds of characters being called "static characters" before... You can have a static character that serves a place in the story, that's easy and more common. But for the main character? Hmm... Now that I think about it, I did write a main character who doesn't change, and with a purpose. I wrote a story in which my central heroine, unknown to her and the reader, is suffering endless death and insanity in a time-loop enforced by her antagonist. During a certain time-loop (the one the narrative covers) she unconsciously manifests the memories of her dead childhood friend as a transfer student who helps her to finally end the time-loops, and ultimately, to prevent her from going insane like in the other time-loops. She solved her own loneliness and isolation. Being only a product of her memories, I didn't really change him, it just felt wrong to give a character arc to a non-existent character. However, he was instrumental in helping the heroine overcome her own conflicts, and I also often switched the POV to him in order to develop the story beyond my heroine's POV. He had plenty of place, and I never worried about it. Plus, having a character who was dead all along made things extremely interesting towards the end, plus all the hinting I did throughout the story! But eh, that's just something I wrote, it's unpublished so who knows what the audience would think.
Sherlock Holmes, James Bond. Pretty much the lead in any ongoing series. Detectives in gumshoe fiction or noir. For superheros usually the origin story is a positive change arc and then they go flat-arc and defeat the threats to civilization as they crop up.
I was never a big movie person (Last thing I watched was The Dark Night some 6 years ago). But I know Sherlock Holmes is a series of books, and I've been meaning to try them, so maybe I finally should. I've heard of James Bond as well, but honestly, I never had much interest into him. Now that you say it, though, I might have actually come across flat arcs without realizing it. But maybe those stories never really made a huge impression on me and I forgot. I'm really into works that explore the human condition in some way, anything about human struggle.
It depends on what you want your readers to invest in, the characters or the plot. If you want to have the readers invest in your characters, then you will make them dynamic characters, i.e. they undergo significant change through the story.
I want my readers to invest in both the character and the plot. And I do think I've nailed it, doing both, at times. I mean as a reader I'm not all about of out looking for some big character change to happen. Can't you have dynamic characters without them going through a significant change? I hear what you're saying, and it sounds right to me in theory. But in practice it's not something I really do. My character change, if there at all, tends to be subtle and light handed.
Big changes can be subtle. You don't have to have pianos dropping on their heads. A lesson learned, a change in outlook, caused by some new perspective coming into their lives. Have them be responsible for something. Consider that characters who have caused the conflict in the story are much more likely to learn from it.
If you've ever watched a television series you probably saw a flat arc. As I say, it's common in series. Gilligan never really changed, nor did any of the Friends or anybody in Seinfeld or most other ongoing series. Some series do include a change arc, sometimes a different one in each season that are smaller parts of the overall long-term change. Flat arc characters can change in some ways, what's called external or shallow changes, but not in a deep profound way. Well, all that info is included in the series of articles I linked to.
Short answer for me is: no, characters don't need to change. Long answer for me is there's quite a lot of stories out there where characters don't change and it's perfectly fine. First, as mentioned above, there's James Bond and Sherlock Holmes, and I would like to add the Scooby Doo gang--they've been constantly producing stuff for 50 years I think and aside from a few key Scooby iteriations where they purposefully try to change it up, the gang are mostly the same. I think the reason why these characters are so unchanging is because it falls under "monster of the week" type narrative. Monster of the week type media is where each story is self-contained and the characters are so ubiquitous that people don't have to worry about continuity or a plot they won't like. They know the plot going in: James Bond saves the day from government spies, Sherlock Holmes solves a mystery, the Scooby gang finds someone in a monster suit--and so to have the characters change would mess with the readers' comfort/expectations. Second, most tragedies are centered exactly around characters not changing. That's what makes it a tragedy. That we can see how a character can change to solve their problem but they won't because of [insert character flaw here] is like...its entire deal. So yeah, characters don't need to change and sometimes forcing a character to change can make a story worse (I can't think specifically off the top of my head but I'm thinking of numerous rushed "redemption" arcs.)
A lot of the more recent premium cable series do involve a character arc, like Breaking Bad. Basically Walter White went through a negative arc in the first episode (his origin story I guess), when he realized he was on the brink of dying and felt he had to put away enough money to keep his family going without him. Then he 'broke bad' over a few more episodes and decided to enter the world of crime, in particular cooking really good meth using his chemistry skills. And then his arc didn't exactly flatten out, but it became much more gradual as he got deeper by stages into gangland activity, drug dealing and murder. I think it's hepful to think about character arcs like this—there isn't just one kind, there are several, and there are degrees of change as well.
Tbh, I don't think anyone is. At least for me, I'd read a book about the struggle of a new adult fitting into society. It's not the character per se that interests me, but rather, the topic as a whole. The shift of environments, the change of life styles, the struggle of adapting to the work place, the challenges... and finally how the character must change and respond to those things... and maybe the relationships made along the way. This is a very specific example but you get the point. It's the topic at large that invites character changes. And now that @Xoic mentioned it, it makes sense a mystery series would differ like that. I really haven't. I just didn't grow up doing so, and as an adult, I never bothered to explore anything filmed with a camera because I'm just not interested. I did watch things (of course I did) but that was always animation. Animation has a special place in my heart. Oh, yeah, if you want to talk anything more than books I can come up with something. Ash Ketsum from Pokemon is still 10 years old after 30 years (go figure). How much time has passed since he started his journey is the greatest mystery of all time!
By any chance any animation series? That's often what they are. If it was anime, depending on what kind, there may have been arcs for MCs, but there's also plenty of anime without character arcs.
An excellent point! Neil Gaiman summarized his Sandman graphic novels in one line: "The King of Dreams learns that one must change or die and makes his choice." Sometimes, a character's lack of change is the entire point. Though, in tragedy, that generally leads to the character's death or disgrace, so maybe we should say that it ends with an external/situational change rather than an internal/emotional one. Ultimately, there's only one change that really matters in a story, however long it is: the change it produces in the reader (or viewer, listener, etc.). Often, watching a main character change is the vehicle for that effect, but it's not the only one. I do think it's probably the most emotionally resonant way for the reader, though; when the MC changes, we can experience the emotions that they do along with them. And if the MC doesn't change much, there's often a secondary character who does change to provide that experience to the reader. Even some of the canonical examples of flat character arcs are less flat than often claimed: Sherlock Holmes doesn't change much in any particular story, but over the course of the series he does become a more whole and stable person, largely due to Watson's influence.
Since short stories can be a bit of a snapshot. I wonder if the change has already happened, or it's just about to happen. That seems common enough. Agents don't have to change to be compelling, and as mentioned above lack of change leading to ruin is in fact the compelling part of a tragedy. Discovery alone can keep the reader interested, too, where the character doesn't change but the audience's understanding of him does. I'm writing an anti-tragedy right now. Man that's a terrible term, sounds like a double negative. The main character's resistance to growth (and the consequences) are explored at length, but it ultimately aids him in overcoming the antagonist. Stopped clocks and all that.
Yeah, I kind of hesitated with using him as an example because I'm like 99% sure he does change--he becomes a beekeeper at one point doesn't he? And is reluctant to go back to sleuthing (I think, I haven't actually read the novels)--but like I really enjoy these kinds of things. Character arcs that are so subtle and so gently sewn in over time that you don't notice that they've changed until you go back to the beginning and go 'huh, wow, they're so different from when I last read them'. A++ in my opinion.
Sometimes a long-running series character will change because the series has run its course and somebody felt they needed to see him go through something. Like James Bond in the Daniel Craig movies for instance. He isn't your father's Bond. He's not exactly suave and sophisticated, he's more like a tough thug, and it's become more of an action series. And news is they're going to bring out his feminine side in future outings, now that I believe Craig is out. But the reasons for the change aren't internal, they're more politically driven and external. Another long-running series character (one most people know nothing about) is Doc Savage, from pulp novels in the 30's and 40's. He was the ultimate hero, in fact the earliest superheros were based on him. He had no real superpowers, but was a combination of Tarzan (savage) with Sherlock Holmes (Doctor). Near the end of the series he suddenly became weary of the hero's life or something (I haven't read any of these stories myself, only read about them). He turned over a new leaf and became basically more liberal and less of a hardass. He would cry sometimes. Totally unlike his former self. I'm not sure exactly what drove this change.
I just have to say I absolutely hate when movies and tv shows start popping up in writing discussions.
I wonder, is this the case for all of them? Some people, and writers, have the view-point that works which specifically want to trigger some kind of emotion are cheap. Personally, I don't entirely agree to this view point, because that entirely depends on the writer. Emotion can be triggered organically, and I mean that in the sense that a very well written piece of work which has broad perspective on whatever it covers will make you feel for it more naturally. These kinds of works always have deep characters and cover changes, because difficult situations require change. Other writers might be more interested in making you cry, rather than deliver something well written. They write so called tear-jerkers. I don't think that's necessarily cheap though, because making your audience cry isn't exactly easy either. But I suppose that would depend, as certain things I've come across are indeed very cheap and extremely shallow. They take bad situations and irresponsibly use them just to create emotion, that is the bad kind for me. They don't have any real perspective, they are just interested in being sad, rather than do any proper portrayal to their subject of interest. It's probably all a matter of balance in the end. Be responsible with what you choose to explore and making a tear-jerker is fine. I watched a lot of older animated films when I was little, especially those that were adapted from classic novels, I have good memories of them but I don't actually know their titles, there are just random images of 90s/80s animation styles floating in my head. Greek studios in my country specifically liked to translate such films, one I do clearly remember is the 1994 film adapted from the Black Beauty novel. Those foreign films were always like a gateway to a different world for me, they were all magical. Animation just hits different, and that's why I love it. I have especially vivid memories of a Christmas Carol adaptation, an older version that terrifies me to this day. Maybe I should dig into some list of the many versions to find which one it was. Imo, it wouldn't surprise me if most of them are about change and triumph. In my late teens, I did watch anime and the stuff that did stay with me was about change. I don't really watch any nowadays, modern anime is just not for me (or maybe I just grew up). If I do, I'll revisit the older series from early/late 2000s.
I think most readers knows when they are being conned. The story has to be believable, authentic, and as you say, organic, to approach a work of art. Interesting points you make about tear-jerkers. But even with those, if it's not well-written, I doubt they would work.
Something's always changing, that's for sure, or your story isn't worth writing. Even with your flat characters, the story begins when the change around them makes itself known. I'm a big believer in the moral conflict of a character, and that it's a major decision when plotting. Eh . . . I should say plotting or daydreaming draft one. However you step into a story, it's a decision that must be made. Wherever you finally put that conflict in the story, by definition it will change them. I'm trying to think of works where the MC doesn't change. I'm ignoring episodic stories too since they like flat MCs. Maybe the father in The Road? He doesn't change. His need is to protect his son, and he fights for that until his own death. Those Oakies in Grapes of Wrath are still true to each other at the end (minus the stragglers they lost upon the way). Mounting hardships don't change who they are. Back to McCarthy, the MC of No Country for Old Men claims his prize and tries to keep it without wavering. Chigurh (always want to call him Chigorin, after the chess player) is even more unrelenting. I was going to say the MC of Beloved didn't change, but I think the change occurs out of sequence. It's already happened before the story starts and then the story talks itself back to that moment. Guess that one doesn't count. The story can be about explaining the state of a character though, even though it's already decided. I've read the last Rabbit novels (Rabbit at Rest, Rabbit is Rich) and the MC is pretty much who he is. He's basically a philandering Archie Bunker, really loathsome. (I imagine Edith crying out, "Ahhchhiee, no!" She flees the house in tears.) He does change a few opinions as the story goes along, which is good. What's great though is that he dies by trying to reclaim who he originally was. He's so loyal to his true self that it destroys him. Excellent death scene from the MCs perspective. I'm not sure how Updike had these insights, but it got to me. I think that's how dying would feel. Pretty terrifying when I think about it, and I'd rather not, not at this moment. Anyway, I feel maybe you can show the lack of change as a dramatic element in itself.
Agree with @Xoic re: the flat character arc. Many popular book series seem to follow it. Readers becomes attached to those characters, how they think and act, and that's what they want to read. The books relate to specific incidents (i.e. the plot) into which the character is drawn but the character remains comfortably familiar and mostly unchanging. You may see some evolution over the course of the entire series, but often that seems minimal as well.
Well, some really can't, otherwise the stuff wouldn't be out in the market. It really depends in the target audience, sometimes writers create works for very specific people because they know there is a demographic. That's not a bad thing in itself, of course, but that strategy gives you the best chance at writing something cheap that others will buy. I've seen some real bad emotional stories, and I guess I wasn't in the demographic that they targeted, so I didn't enjoy them. In fact, they didn't even make sense. Forget about character arcs and flat arcs, I could hardly feel any solid structure in the story.
