Isn't it a virtue to hold onto your ideals, despite events trying to stop it? Isn't the Pilgrim's Progress, the best fiction of all time, about this concept? As I said, surely a good and worthwhile plot, and a good person, are created by holding onto your good ideals despite events trying to force you to change them. This is my first post. Sorry if it came off as too toxic.
i am not sure what you mean by this. maybe it's because i've never read the book you mentioned. but i keep wondering if you mean that stories with character development only work if the character is immoral or unvirtuous, and then the story turns them toward morality and virtue; or the character starts out moral or virtuous, and then the story turns them toward corruption and tragedy. However, I'm certain that's wrong. Can you set me right?
Because in reality people often change? And as writers we tend to imitate reality a bit? I don't think I know anyone who have retained their innocence into adulthood and beyond. Edit: Society and life changes can be quite rapid, where one may need to evaluate one's own opinions from time to time. Sticking with your ideals that may be noble when you are twenty, may not be so noble when you are ninety?
Because we like to see characters in fiction who start off with struggles, problems, etc and become better people by the end of the story. Or even the opposite. But it's usually preferred if at least the main characters of a piece of fiction (whether it's a novel, TV show, or film) change in some way. It doesn't have to be major, but the larger the development the more invested the reader/viewer becomes. It's human nature to be engaged in this kind of stuff in fiction since in real life it's...a lot more complicated. We understand (grudgingly) if a human in our lives won't change, but we loooove seeing a character in fiction find redemption. Plus, it's more fun to write.
My favorite song about characters who start doing things their creators don't plan: I didn't invent Railroad Bill (alas) but I have invented some of his relatives.
I have never read the book you've mentioned so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but this is what I think. A lot of the time in fiction, the goals and aspirations of your characters change - usually triggered by the inciting incident and developed throughout the story - especially for the protagonist. So they would have to somehow change. That could mean having to learn new skills, getting a different worldview (possibly because they didn't know about some form of truth that has just been unraveled), or simply growing up, etc. This type of thing happens all the time in real life, just less dramatically. You said people should stick to their ideals? Well, a positive character arc is not in conflict with that. Besides, let's be realistic, negative arcs exist in the real world so why ignore them? I'm not saying that all characters need to change. This so-called flat character arc happens a lot with mentors in stories (Or veterans, etc.). So sometimes we even need to have static characters and this could have many different reasons. You should see if your novel is character-driven or plot-driven and then look at the role a certain character plays through the course of the novel. For example, there was intense character development in Siddhartha (which feels pretty character-driven to me), and that's about a guy's pilgrimage. If you've read the book you'll know how boring the book would've been if he didn't change at all. But then you have detective novels where the detective has been there, done that. So in this case, you might want to focus on the crimes that are going on.
A lot of times things happen to us in life that require us to learn and grow, and if we fail to rise to the occasion then we'll suffer because of it. Life can be very harsh, and none of us have all the answers, so learning and growth are required. We all have our blind spots and naivete that we need to get over to what extent we can. So stories model this behavior for us. They show us the price of failing to learn and grow when it becomes necessary, and the benefits that come from adapting properly to life's twists and turns. It's said that when you stop leaning new things you're already dead, and there's a lot of truth to that. Life is growth. When a living thing stops growing and adapting to changes in its environment, it's stuck, often it's sick or dying. A person incapable of adapting is going to have a hard time struggling onward under false beliefs or wrong assumptions. We all have false beliefs and wrong assumptions, and life has a way of throwing situations at us that force us to confront them—to adapt and survive, or to suffer the consequences. I feel like I'm repeating myself. Must be time to stop now.
Character development doesn't require a drastic shift from beginning to end. Character development can simply mean making sure that the events of the story feel like they affect the character in a meaningful way. So in the example of a character holding onto their ideals, a story with character development would probably handle it by starting with the character having good ideals, but they're untested. The plot would then throw increasingly difficult challenges to those ideals. The character would be tempted to abandon their ideals, maybe they even do so. But by the end they realize they were right to have the values that they do, and those ideals grow stronger. In a story without character development they might still face challenges that test their ideals, but it never goes beyond surface level. It never changes them or makes them question themself. They remain flat and stable throughout. It could still hit up similar plot points, but without any sort of character development it would feel a bit hollow.
I think Pilgrim's Progress is a religious story, isn't it? One way a person can grow and learn is to deepen his or her understanding of the meanings behind religious ideas. We might start when we're young with a very simple understanding, appropriate to our current level, and as we grow older and go through new experiences and face new challenges, we come to understand the same parables or gospels or whatever they may be in a new, more complex way, with more subtlety and nuance.
Though resolve is an interesting trait, it does tend to be quite flat in its presentation and doesn't help the plot progress as much as a character that was more dynamic. Dynamic character types evolve over time and change, usually along side the story, as the plot unfolds. Usually they come to a better understanding of the world or themselves. Flat characters are the opposite. They're rigid and don't progressively change, which definitely has very specific purposes when story writing, but isn't always conducive to a relatable or strong main character. They usually work better in a support sort of station, or sometimes as a villain who can't get past their own problem. Resolve can be just as negative a trait as a positive one because of its inherent rigidity. It doesn't flex, leading to an expected result based on the circumstances. Mary or Gary-Sue's tend to fall under the negative side of rigidity because they can never do wrong and never be pressured into breaking, which becomes rather annoying after the first couple of rounds the reader has to endure it. Dynamic characters make for better main characters because the audience can change perspectives and understandings with them as they grow. The more engagement your characters have with the readers, the more likely they are to continue reading.
You just made me remember: How to Write a Flat Character Arc, Pt. 1: The First Act @ K M Weiland Blog That's the first of several blog posts about the flat character arc, where the character doesn't change (much if at all) but changes the world around them instead. They don't have the depth of a literary character or a deeper genre character, but they already know what they need to know, what other people around them fail to understand.
I think if you're writing a series of stories, in which the main character doesn't change, that's okay. In fact, it's done a lot. Think of detective stories, or stories like Conan the Barbarian stories, etc. The readers of these stories expect the character to have 'adventures' but they do not want the character to change. Did Miss Marple have a personal story arc? Nope. She was the same person in each story, and the stories were popular. However, there are also interesting ways to write a rigid character who doesn't change. (Like may people we may know and love.) Their rigidity causes others to change during the progression of the story. I suppose the most famous example of this kind of character is Scarlett O'Hara, in Gone With The Wind. She is, essentially, the same kind of character at the end, still as she was at the beginning of the story. Furthermore, there is more than a hint that she is never going to change. If she wants something, she'll go for it, and do anything to get it, and damn the consequences to other people. She is convinced she's right, and that she's also an irresistible force of nature. However, the story is not presented in a flat way at all. The other characters in the story interact with Scarlett and go away changed ...in some cases, very much changed. In some cases, dead. And even her most ardent admirer eventually gives up on her. I reckon the trick to writing a dynamic story, with a rigid character as the main character, is to show how the rigidity affects others. Certain kinds of rigidity can ruin other lives. It can ruin the life of the rigid character as well ...even if he or she doesn't admit it or even recognise it. However, we all know people who can be relied upon in a crisis, or who always seem to know the right thing to do. These people make good characters, if written well. But they usually have to struggle against all sorts of things in order to maintain that ability. So focus on the internal and outward struggles they go through, to maintain their equilibrium and be 'the rock' for others. Don't make it easy for them. And watch out for making them either extraordinarily lucky OR turning them into self-righteous prigs. You can get into bother as a writer if your steadfast character is merely 'tested' constantly and easily passes all the tests and bypasses all temptations. That's where it can get dull, and you are in danger of creating a Mary Sue. Also, if the character is driven by rigid belief in some principle or other, the story can become tiresome, because it's skirting the line between telling a story and preaching. The character never wavers because their credo wants them to remain steadfast at all times—so they do, and reap the rewards. People who like being preached to will probably love this kind of story. Others not so much.
The most I have seen "resolve" and "dedication to ideals" represented has been in a negative way, both in books and in roleplay. Mutter Courage from Bertolt Brecht comes to mind immediately, where the lack of development is the conflict, which leaves the main character losing all her children, one by one. A character without development will have to rely on its existing characteristics / status quo to be interesting. And even then, it might only be interesting to a set amount of people. Without much insult to a precarious topic, I don't consider any of the superheroes in either the MCU or the DCU any good, because they've a complete lack of development - what little they have is usually retconned or explained into an "alternative universe". In turn, some of the most famous character in literature have been those that did in fact develop. From Odysseus through Faust to Aragorn. But it doesn't stop there, some of the most famous historical figures had quite the character development themselves: Napoleon, Octavian/Augustus, Patton, Churchill, Thatcher - they all found themselves in situations where they faced heavy decisions and often (the latter is a good example) their decisions haunted/defined them for the rest of their lives. Marshal Soult is a favourite example of mine; Napoleon himself wrote about him that after receiving a dire wound on the field and struggling to survive for days in a field hospital he was permanently changed remained forever reluctant to lead battles from the frontlines. Staying at the age but moving over to literature, the most climatic scene / message in War and Peace is there in the salted potato / gunpowder as salt - part of a series of experiences that permanently change the "main" character (the captivity during the Moscow campaign & route). It also makes a character feel lively, just like how developing settings leave a world feel alive. Don't just think in the political opinions of characters; think also in how careful or careless they are, patience, curiosity, optimism. So much can change and drive a development arc.
Not true. Thor has a good deal of character development, from a self-centered rebellious adolescent in his first movie, through loss of all his family and loved ones, to loss of his eye (symbolic of becoming more like Odin his father, who lost an eye to gain wisdom) to a strong leader capable of being a king. Iron Man developed from a narcissistic weapons manufacturer, literally a warmonger profiteer making millions by selling weapons of mass destruction, to a hero (still narcissistic) and then it turned into a negative character arc when his fear led him to 'build a suit of armor around the world', resulting inadvertently in Ultron, the most destructive thing the world had seen. He then became the leader of the movement to make superpowers illegal in Civil War, where Captain America led the opposite faction. As Robert Downey Jr was so fond of saying in the beginning, Iron Man was the heart and soul of the MCU. He had the greatest depth and was the most humanized. But when he started going 'off' Thor stepped up. I think they started to realize Chris Hemsworth was capable of excellent and subtle acting in both comedy and serious parts, so they started writing for it. I can't say if DC characters have had arcs or not, I can't really bring myself to watch the movies aside from the 1st Wonder Woman. But it seems like each new movie in a particular franchise is a sort of reboot, so hard to get in any character development that way.
I recently watched The Flash, and it's the best DCU movie I've seen so far. There's a definite arc for The Flash, from selfish child to selfless hero, and it's a large part of what makes the movie enjoyable. I don't think the problem with the DCU movies is a lack of arc, so much as having poor ones. In Batman Versus Superman, Batman wants to kill Superman. When he finds out that Superman's mother has the same first name as his, he realises that he's wrong and becomes a better man. That's an arc, but it's a terrible one.
The vast majority of what you listed is development before they became superheroes (or during); it's the "how Harry got accepted into Hogwarts and how that changed him" not "How the return of Voldemort affected Harry during his 4th year at hogwarts". With this in mind, that's more background than actual development. Perhaps that's the reason why origin movies are more successful than sequels (and why origin movies are being re-made over and over).
Ok, true for Iron Man, but not for Thor. Through his 1st 2 movies they couldn't figure out what to do with him, how to fit a Norse god into a realistic setting, and the writing was ridiculous. But starting with Thor: Ragnarok and then in Endgame the character really came alive and developed some depth. Plus Iron Man's negative arc didn't start until after the 1st Avengers movie. So hardly 'the vast majority', more like 1/3 of what I said.
There's a deeper problem than that (probably many). It seems like they were late starters but they wanted to hurry up and 'catch up' with Marvel, but the way they did that was to ignore the good character building Marvel (under Kevin Feige's amazing supervision) did, starting from the origin of each hero and putting them in several movies before pushing them into any kind of negative arc. But DC wanted to start with Batman already in Dark Knight mode. I didn't see the Superman movies, so I don't know what they did there. But in Wonder woman they did start with her origin and made her a charming, likable character. They just screwed up the villain and the end.
Imagine if Luke stayed a whiny little whomprat-bustin' farmboy, or Han stayed a not-giving-a-f**k-about-anyone-else rogue, or Darth Vader an evil looming darklord, or Chewbacca a moaning fuzzball... ok, maybe not that last one. Would make for a very interesting movie series, let alone a first movie!
Agreed. The DCU movies have several problems, and character building was part of that. The MCU started off with a very likeable Tony Stark (sure, he was an arsehole, but a likeable one). It made him a powerless man at death's door before he became a superhero. The DCU movies seem made more for DC comics fans, whereas the MCU seemed to take characters from the Marvel comics and introduce them to a wider audience, starting from nothing. And I think that if anyone at the DCU suggests ending a film by having the hero(es) fight a huge CGI monstrosity yet again, they should be fired on the spot.
Not only that but he was multi-layered. On the surface vain and self-obsessed, but underneath broken and self-loathing. And that's what burst through after the events of the 1st Avengers movie and created the negative character arc. It can be easy to miss some of that.
I'm actually pretty fed up with Avengers movies ending with massive fights against nameless, faceless identical CGI clones. They did that in some of the Marvel Netflix series too, namely Daredevil with The Hand (though they weren't CG).
I think his character developed quite a lot in Endgame: there was the whole thing with his daughter, going back in time to meet his father, making the sacrifice that he made to go fight Thanos, etc. Edit: and in Civil War, which I admittedly don't remember too well, his character got some depth from the flashback scenes with his parents.
I love that his dad Howard Stark is the Tony Stark of the comics from the 60's and 70's. He has the thin Walt Disney mustache, wears a suit, and always has a glass of liquor in his hand. My friend noticed that and when he told me I almost choked. Too freakin' cool!
