Character arc?

It's the thing the characters go in, two by two, to avoid the flood.

JimmyB27 said:

It's the thing the characters go in, two by two, to avoid the flood.

Click to expand...

LMAO

Very funny.

If it's a serious answer you're looking for...

A 'character arc' is the development of a character through the story. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure it's right.

Oh, we're just playing around, you two! I had no idea what it was!

I think the character arc is the way the character develops through the story. It's like saying, "Yeah, I used to be afraid of bugs until one day..." and then you tell that story and how tyou learned not to be afraid because of that story is the arc.

But I hate that term, "character arc." Sometimes the character doesn't really change, he just "survives." Then other writers in your writing group say, "Your MC needs more conflict..." and then you say, "But the conflict is that everyone's trying to kill him." And then they say, "Yeah, well anyway." And then you're like, "What the f***?"

That my two cents.

Star said:

Well if the hot guy were you, you'd be fully forgiven.

Click to expand...

LMAO!

Star said:

Gee, and I thought this was the "nice" board.

Since I'm fairly new here, is it standard practice for more than one writer to laugh and jeer instead of answer the question?

Click to expand...

Yes. This community of writers loves to play with word (arc/ark) and if they can get a joke out of it, so much the better. It's not intended to be offensive, just a little light-hearted fun at, in this case, no one's expense (that I could see).

To me, a character arc works the same way as a story arc (or plot). The character has experiences that either change or reinforce his belief system. He grows and learns and comes out, if not necessarily better or wiser, at least in some way changed by those experiences, even if the change is subtle and only internal.

My English teacher in high school gave us a really good definition of that...she used it in Hamlet, but I'm going to use Mean Girls...OK, so in the beginning we had the sweet little girl, and she slowly starts to hang out with the other popular kids...and so she began her descent, finally bottoming out (I don't know, say...the party). After that, she starts to become like she was before, but she's never quite who she was again. She drew it on the board, even if I didn't describe it very well, it looks like a fish hook (I'll try but no promises)
___
.....\
......\
........\....................._____
..........\................../
............\............../
..............\........../
................\____/

Well, it's kind of close. Ignore the dots...it's the only way I could get it to look right. Sorry if it was confusing and I hope it helps!

althrasher said:

My English teacher in high school gave us a really good definition of that...she used it in Hamlet, but I'm going to use Mean Girls...OK, so in the beginning we had the sweet little girl, and she slowly starts to hang out with the other popular kids...and so she began her descent, finally bottoming out (I don't know, say...the party). After that, she starts to become like she was before, but she's never quite who she was again. She drew it on the board, even if I didn't describe it very well, it looks like a fish hook (I'll try but no promises)

---\
......\
........\....................._____
..........\................../
............\............../
..............\........../
................\____/

Well, it's kind of close. Ignore the dots...it's the only way I could get it to look right. Sorry if it was confusing and I hope it helps!

Click to expand...

You substituted Hamlet with Mean Girls?

I believe a flogging is in order.

CaroGirl said:

Yes. This community of writers loves to play with word (arc/ark) and if they can get a joke out of it, so much the better. It's not intended to be offensive, just a little light-hearted fun at, in this case, no one's expense (that I could see).

Click to expand...

Plus it's Friday - yay!

Our office is always a bit more chaotic on Fridays - longer, sillier non-work conversations, occasional bouts of thrown missiles... (I working in IT!)

story arc...

... is the transition the character endures during the story. the idea is to have your character develop on a fairly even arc so that there is no abrupt shift in the character of the character.

Think of it this way. A character of ill repute begins his path to redemption. If he is redeemed on the first page and does not develop anymore for the rest of the 200 page story, you have a flat, one dimensional character.

It is a process where you build, destroy, and rebuild a person. Finding the correct arc is one piece of the art of writing.

Works for me. YMMV.

RLSMiller said:

You substituted Mean Girls for Hamlet?

I believe a flogging is in order.

Click to expand...

I actually thought it was easier to see in Mean Girls than Hamlet. Oh well, call me lame.

althrasher said:

I actually thought it was easier to see in Mean Girls than Hamlet. Oh well, call me lame.

Click to expand...

Hmm, nice girl goes mean then back to nice.

Slightly crazy dude goes off the deep end in to MoreCrazyville.

I agree. Mean Girls.

Jump to light-speed

No abrupt jumps?

Not sure I agree with that part. How often have we seen the hero's family/lover/friend gunned down, the hero immediately picks up a gun and heads out to apply justice to the bad guy(s)?

ie: Luke Skywalker and 3/4th of the westerns ever written.

Isn't it more dramatic if the arch is a roller coaster ride--ups and downs--not so even?

Certainly romantic novels require change in the MC since without it, the book is just a diary. But as Ziljon observes, so-called 'flat characters' have brought us some great fiction. I've just re-read Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man. I didn't notice any change in any of the characters. Same with Holmes and many, if not all, of the film noir-type detective stories. Maybe this is reserved for the M/S/T genre.

Is the 'change' seen in these 'flat' characters simply that their personalities are exposed, and we are surprised by how they act?

Per Uncle Jim, didn't I read that all of the (presumably major) characters should have an arc? They all 'star' in their own lives; have individual motives, etc. We see changes in Luke and Hans, the Lion, Tin-man and Scarecrow in Wizard, but the other MCs don't show change? (There must be better examples, but, hey!, it's Friday!)

Althrasher: why is the fish hook lower at the end and not higher than the starting point? If the MC sinks into chaos, then rises to redemption, shouldn't the end point be higher than when s/he started?

Internal conflict is what creates or maybe demonstrates progress in the character arc, right? At the beginning the character has a stable 'personal mythology' of who they are and what they do in the world and why this is right or why it's bad but stuck that way. But then interaction with (usually) another character causes them to question their assumptions and be torn. Should they feel guilty or righteous? Should they act dominant or submissive? Should they lie or tell the truth? Should they open their heart or be defensive?

This arc has its own climax, which happens before the climax of the overall plot. It has to happen before because the plot climax is triggered by the character's finally changing or refusing to change. The plot climax shows the great things the character's new viewpoint or new resolve enables them to do, or the tragedy that results from their bad viewpoint. Then in turn, the plat results of the climax end the character arc by removing or solving the motivation which was propelling the character through the story.

Because in a novel people end up somewhere different from where they started. Perhaps rising above the original would work better, but after something happens, often people are never quite the same, or even go back to the good person they were before. I mean, it's certainly not for all the time...by all means, some chacters don't follow the arc as I've presented it at all.

kg_crow said:

Certainly romantic novels require change in the MC since without it, the book is just a diary. But as Ziljon observes, so-called 'flat characters' have brought us some great fiction. I've just re-read Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man. I didn't notice any change in any of the characters. Same with Holmes and many, if not all, of the film noir-type detective stories. Maybe this is reserved for the M/S/T genre.

Click to expand...

It's common for series characters not to change, and M/S/T books are often series "starring" the same detective/secret agent. They can't change too much,

a) because the character might lose the qualities the reader likes (although more recent examples like Robert Parker's "Spenser" do develop gradually over the series)

b) a strong character arc is usually best covered in a single book (or at most, a trilogy) - if the series detective has such an arc, what the heck do you do with him in the next one?

If they're about any character's inner journey, it's more likely to be the murderer or a major suspect (who is usually a one-off character) than the detective.