I'm finally reading up on how to write longer works and finding all of these questions I should answer about my MC like what are his fears, why can't he walk away from the conflict, and what is he going to learn by the end of the book that changes him. I've got some ideas about that, but what I have envisioned is based off the old noir detectives who pretty much proceed from one story to the next unchanged. People like (not noir detectives but a common touchpoint) Indiana Jones and James Bond, who continue from story to story without really developing. Now I know that could be seen as a bad thing, but I'm not shooting for great literature. I want to write a lighthearted urban fantasy "airport book" with the possibility of sequels. So two questions: 1) Am I mistaken that the commercially successful characters I mentioned and those like them don't have arcs within each "episode"? Could be I'm missing it, this is the first time I've looked critically at the problem. 2) If I'm right and this sort of character doesn't really change, does anyone have any suggestions on how to do it well or pitfalls to avoid in the steely-jawed (actually kind of pudgy) man of (in)action (he's got a bum leg and bad arm due to an electrical accident that thrust him into his current dodgy line of con-artistry). Thanks in advance.
some characters in plot driven commercial fiction don't really have arcs at all... jack reacher being a classic example, he doesnt change one iota from the guy he is in book 1 to book 20 or whatever
There can be so called 'static' characters that do not significantly change. Like you said, think James Bond. What is of interest to some readers is how the situations that arise around that character. The reader might learn more about the character as the novel(s) progress, but they remain essentially the same person, with the same outlooks and beliefs. Often it is the other characters that come into contact with the 'static' character that change. Sometimes those types of novels have a larger plot driven element in them. The 'static' main character dealing with a crisis, and series of upheavals, and the fallouts/successes from their efforts. Like it was said, James Bond would be a literary example. Film might be the Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry films, or any of the various John Wayne films, such as Big Jake. Also note that there are formula romance novels, for example. Readers snap them up. Will there be great literary awards? No. Will readers remember a particular romance novel twenty years from now? Not likely. Like indicated, a light or fun read, that will entertain readers, is what you're shooting for, and not a Nobel Prize for Literature. I can say that in my Crax War Chronicles, the main character is a Relic (someone who relies on roughly 1990s ear or earlier technology/equipment--or earlier, while humanity has become a space-faring race). Throughout the first tale, he remains fairly consistent in his outlook and beliefs. While it often brings on various elements of grief, especially societal interactions, and limitations, he still makes his way forward, having a small impact on the unfolding war. In the second novel, he tries to 'change' but it proves less than beneficial and he reverts back to 'who he is'. It worked for me as a writer, and readers responded well to the tale, which was both character and largely plot driven, where events happen beyond the character's control. He just has to respond and survive, and make a difference where he can. I am not sure if what I wrote directly addressed the concern.
I think the thing about Indiana Jones and James Bond is their stories are episodic. They don’t evolve much from point to point, but over the course of the episodes they experience a much more broad arc. Indi does have an arc, it’s just you only get to see a small part of it in each film. Binge the whole franchise, and you might get a better view. https://screencraft.org/2020/01/20/proof-that-indiana-jones-does-have-a-character-arc/
Characters who don't have an arc are usually called "flat arc characters" and they do tend to represent a stereotype. Those sorts of characters tend to be in very plot focused work, where the writer deliberately wants focus on plot or theme. So to pull that off you need an extremely intriguing plot or theme. Some people like these kinds of characters because they are reliable and steady, also predictable. I prefer other characters for those reasons. I find it hard to believe someone could go through a large events and not change in the slightest and sometimes, how things work on T.V don't always translate well to the page. There are more flat characters in movies than their are in books and their isn't much in true literature. I hope that was helpful.
What you're talking about is what I think of as series writing, my classic example being Gilligan's Island. You always know no matter what happens, at the end of every episode everything will be the same as it was at the beginning. It's like a complete reset back to base level for the show. Nobody is going to die or be sick long term (if they do get sick it's a plot point just for the one episode and by the end they'll be shown to be fine now). And at the end everybody gets together and has a nice friendly chuckle to show how friendly and nice and harmless the show is. Ok, your stories probably aren't in quite the same camp! Think of this as an extreme end of the spectrum. There are definitely series' with more existential danger for the protag and everybody else, and noir is a dark grim world filled with existential danger. It has to feel like the protag could die or be badly beaten or permanently damaged. But by all means, don't give him a character arc! That would just be over the line! Maybe a series arc, so by the end of it all he's changed. But probably not from book to book so much.
Just got the chance to read that link and it was incredibly helpful, thanks! The writing book I'm reading seems focused on the redemptive/transformational model of character arcs, I hadn't realized that there could be little ones in the middle.
Some writing books are awfully prescriptive, as if every good book is written to the same model... libby hawkers take off your pants is a terrible example of that... i wanted to beat her round the head with a haddock after forcing myself to finish it.... writing is an area i which one size definitely doesn't fit all
It's true that you can make an interesting static character, but it's much easier if he/she learns something or develops in some way by the end of the story. So, no need for big drastic changes, but something significant should happen to them. Oh, and just because you're going for a lighthearted tone, doesn't mean you can't be a bit more ambitious. People will appreciate it.
In the first James Bond book, "Casino Royale," JB has an arc. At the halfway point, he is so sickened by his job that he even resigns from the Secret Service and dedicates himself to his wife-to-be. Then there's a reversal (She's with SMERSH! The pinko!) and he returns to form at the end. SMERSH always struck me as a funny name. Reminds me of the Shmoo from when Fred and Barney became detectives. Hana-Barbara had a detective fetish that lasted decades. Anyway, the first Daniel Craig movie showed a bit of that too (the disillusionment, not the Schmoo). James Bond in the books is not really James Bond in the movies though. He's not superhuman. He actually has fears and screws up. Was the gal's name Vesper? I'm not looking this up. It's just from what I remember. I think she even taught JB how to make his famous martinis, or he named the drink after her, or something. Anyway, he had an arc. At the beginning of book 2, "Live and Let Die," he returns to form as if the first book never happened. I guess there's allegiances from the first book, but no change in character. So if you're using Bond as your template, you can definitely give him an arc. But it's ephemeral.
A vesper is Half gin, half vodka, straight up in a martini glass. Not what Bond drank. "Shaken, not stirred" is an anachronism now. Martinis haven't been stirred in decades. And the traditional martini was made with gin, which also made Bond's "vodka martini" noteworthy. Now 90% of martinis are ordered with vodka.
As to Iain's original question, I don't think you need to sweat it. Nobody will care about about the dynamism of the character's journey if the story is good. James Bond and Indiana Jones are perfect examples. Nobody enjoys that shit for the characterization. It's all about the story. I see a lot of amateur authors spew ad nauseum about how their character learns this and their character learns that and how their character conquers their fears and climbs the metaphorical mountain.... But then you ask them what the story's about and they're like, well, I've only outlined the character sheets so far, but by book three they're going to....
Often the story is the character arc. That is the story. The rest of it are just events nobody cares about unless it impacts the character in some meaningful way. Indiana Jones is a series of movies - I'm not aware they were books? James Bond is a series, that's true, so you're right there's clearly a niche of stories that allow for minimal character development and still engage fans globally (Sherlock Holmes I think is another such character. The classic Swedish Detective Kurt Wallander as well. Of course then there's also Jack Reacher) But I think this is far more common in series, not stand-alones. Most writers can't tell you what their story is about because most writers know zilch about story structure and what story actually is. And most of them don't care about structure and pacing because they're "writing from the heart and this is the way the story needs to be told". It's why I've taken to trying to write a query before I have a finished book, just to see where it might be going and if the story holds together.
The characters being mooted as not having arcs do learn things in their stories; James Bond and Sherlock Holmes investigate mysteries and gradually piece together the villains' plots before foiling them. There's a common approach to single stories or short series, where the protagonist has a flaw that they have to overcome in order to achieve victory. If you are going to do that over a long series of stories, you'd need the character to start off with an immense number of flaws. Instead, these iconic characters keep the small set of flaws that they start with, and the enjoyment is from watching someone who is already competent at their job rather than someone learning how to do it.
No, Indiana Jones isn't a book (unless someone novelized it) but I used the character as an example of what I was going for. Storytelling is storytelling, and there are more common touchstones in Hollywood than on the printed page just because there are more books to be read.
Uh, well, I was thinking about this the other day with the "man with no name" trilogy. Clint Eastwood's character has no arc or growth at all, and he's just like you described. As far as I can see, it's only a problem in the first movie. This is because in the second and third, He has a costar that does go through growth and change. Colonel Mortimer is on a quest to avenge his sister's death in the second, and Tuco is on a quest for gold in the third, learning (or failing to learn) a lot of things about himself along the way. The first film has no such character, and you feel like you're watching a middle season episode of a show you're not familiar with. My point is, if the character isn't learning something, then somebody else should be. Also, in your first book he should go through an arc, basically to put him into place as where he will be for the rest of the series. And if you decide to end it at some point, then make him go through another arc. The MC not changing is only a problem in terms of setup and break down. In the middle, when the reader knows what he's about, it's easier. Though I do recommend having him go through small changes. Like how Sherlock Holmes went through a cocaine addiction, but still managed to do his casework. Give the MC some things to do, like a mini-arc like where maybe he's saving up for something, or he really wants to go on vacation but can't, or maybe a love interest that ends up not working out later on. The only other type of story I've seen where the character doesn't really change is a negative character arc -- in the Little Princess the MC is tested by her hard circumstances to become a lesser person and give in to the anger she feels at her circumstances, giving up her dream of acting like a princess. But she doesn't, because she resists. This kind of arc might be good only for one book, though.
James Bond? Think Sherlock Holmes and Watson, and all the detectives in Agatha Christie. I don’t read the genre but everyone else does. If this is what you’re going for, there’s an audience for it.
I've been discussing this topic with a writer friend who is not a member of the forum. He said when he realised he could write a series of stories WITHOUT having to develop his character each time, it liberated him. He just wanted to involve this same character in many different stories. I believe the trick to this type of writing is to create a VERY interesting character to begin with. Something about that character should be noteworthy. I suppose it's possible to create a nondescript sort of flat static character, who simply experiences lots of interesting things. I'm not saying that can't be done ...in fact it might be a challenge to do exactly that. But most of the characters in these kinds of series ARE memorable in some way ...starting from the very first story they're in. People read these stories for 'safe' escapism, I reckon. The reader doesn't need to worry about whether the character will survive. So it becomes a matter of watching HOW the character deals with each situation, knowing they will ultimately prevail. It makes for comfortable reading, in a certain sense. My writer friend, whom I mentioned earlier, told me he gets very nervous if he thinks a character who has become important to him may die. So a sense of jeopardy, while it drives many stories, doesn't actually appeal to some readers. People often cite thriller/mystery characters in this 'static series' mode, and it's a popular way to write these kinds of stories. But there are also amusing, lightweight characters as well, written in this mode. Jeeves and Wooster, for example. Those two don't change. And many children's books feature these kinds of characters ...Bobbsey Twins, Nancy Drew, The Famous Five, and even Thornton W Burgess's animal stories. (I'm showing my age with this list. ) In fact, this sort of character is so common I'm surprised there isn't a universal term for them ...a simple term that means 'a static character who appears as the protagonist in a series of stories, and solves each story's problems in a similar way each time.' "Static character" alone doesn't quite describe this kind of character, because static characters exist within stories as well. The mother who scolds their child for an offense at the start of the story, then scolds the child for a similar offense at the end ...after the child has had all these adventures the adults aren't aware of. Or Miss Havisham, in Dickens's Great Expectations, who has learned nothing during the entire course of the novel. So 'static character' isn't quite the term I'm looking for. Is there a term already? One I've missed?
Watching this thread with interest. Developing characters is not my strong point, so this is a topic I need to know more about.
To add to your list @jannert , there are also the superheroes in comic books and their predecessors, the pulp action heroes like Doc Savage, The Shadow, Conan etc. They tend to be pretty 2-dimensional characters, designed for entertainment and inspiration rather than to be complex and multidimensional. As I understand it, in stories of this kind it isn't the character who changes but the situation, when he or she solves the mystery or fixes the problem. After the hero fixes the problem, the world resets to baseline, as I mentioned in my post above about Gilligan's Island. And yeah, it creates a sense of security—as long as our hero is on the case, everything will end up OK. What's interesting is to see how it's accomplished against seemingly overwhelming odds.
Did a search and ran across—guess who? Good old K M Weiland once again: How to Write a Flat Character Arc, Pt. 1: The First Act A little excerpt: The flat-arc protagonist will be confronted with tremendous opposition. He will at times be shaken [and sometimes stirred ]. His commitment to the Truth will be tested to the breaking point—but he will never waver from it. He will experience little inner conflict and will not change significantly as a person—although he may sometimes change externally... She's got a series of these posts. I know what I'mma be doing for a while.
This post made me think of Robert Langdon in Dan Brown's series. I know there is a lot of criticism about how formulaic his books are and how flat the character is, but something must work because people still buy the books and they are easy holiday reads.
A few more resources I'm finding: Create Compelling Characters With These 3 Types of Character Arcs (the flat arc is the 4th one discussed, and very briefly) SAVVY AUTHORS BLOG: TYPES OF CHARACTER ARCS CHARACTER ARCS DEMYSTIFIED – HOW TO CREATE A GREAT ONE EVERY TIME I haven't read them yet, but did check to make sure they at least mention the flat or nonexistent character arc. Edit—and, in a case of the incestuous nature of the blogosphere, these articles all mention others where they got their information from, mostly stemming from the K M Weiland blog. Well, I guess that in itself is important to know.
