I agree with everything but the dialog. I think a good film and a good novel would both have dialog that sounds like how the character would really talk. I was in the library today and grabbed a random book off the shelf. Had a pretty killer opening line but soon devolved into Hardy Boy's style "Your dad, bob" dialog. But just because film isn't a perfect reflection of prose doesn't mean there aren't super good lessons to transpose.
I am pretty sure there can be really good story written without any change to characters noted. But it would help and really make it more interesting if any characters and especially main ones did change over the course of the story, either or both from the inside or the outside.
I think static characters are just fine. I hope they are, anyway, because I write them myself. I have characters who go through changes, but mostly only when they've experienced something no one could go through without their outlook changing. In other words, I've scarred characters, but I've rarely taught them anything.
I guess I could try writing to have an important central character not changing through the whole story. But, what I really try to do when writing is to have things made more interesting, and what brings changes gets involved with that, and it does not seem to me as interesting without it. Learning something can be that change, but it could still be other change without learning.
To keep things interesting for a character without changing, you would have to have the MC simply reacting to events, along with the failure of their plans. Alternatively, you can have a story lesson for the MC to learn, and them refusing to learn that lesson. Humans are great at rationalization which is a way to avoid learning the lesson.
Yes. Reaction to events through a story are important. And a character central to a story does not have to change from within through the story. Many people certainly don't learn things where they really might. But change would still happen in one way or another, and it can involve change to the central character's circumstances, if not the character's condition. Any of these things would be contribution to interest held through the story.
You could always try the negative arc. As in, the story wants the character to change, but to survive/win in the end, the MC has to make sure NOT to change. See: A Little Princess.
You also have to consider the genre. Characters must change in coming-of-age stories, and the only way to avoid it in YA is to specifically build the story around character change not happening. But horror doesn't really need a character arc. It can have one, yes, but it doesn't necessarily need one. The character may overcome a weakness to survive. Or they may simply use what they already had to survive once switching from reactive to proactive.
is that really a negative arc? My understanding is that a negative arc sees the character devolve into a worse person.
