Should every pov have an arc?

Not necessarily an arc, but every PoV needs a purpose. Why are they in the story and important enough that they get space in the narrative.

I'm inclined to say yes.... for the important characters in the story, even if they don't have a POV. But it depends on what your book is going for. I'm taking character arc to mean a character changing in some way.

My first book has 3 POVs. The protagonist gets the most page time and has the bigger, deeper arc. The second POV character doesn't transform nearly as profoundly as she does, but he does learn a thing or two by the end. The third character, who has very few POVs but plays a big role in the story, also changes quite a lot by the end. The antagonist has his own arc though he has no POV. The reader sees him change only from the outside.

On top of that, two other characters who are important to the story but are not present ( one is dead, the other in a faraway prison) sort of have arcs as the protagonist's view of them changes based on what she discovers about them.

Characters who change are what fascinate me in fiction. So yeah, if you're going for that in your work, it's great to have different arcs running through the story.

Sometimes an arc can be hinted at if the character isn't a major one. So as not to clutter the story, maybe that 5th person could just do or say something later in the book hinting at some change? If it makes sense for his character as a whole.

My antagonist is actually a false antagonist. I love those. He's not a classic villain, just a person pushing the hardest against the protagonist, and for very good reason.

I'm also inclined to say yes, because it's hard to imagine the point of giving someone pov time if there isn't something important going on internally with that character that can't be shown through the eyes of another pov.

As with any rule, though, there will likely be exceptions. The only time I might be tempted to break it would be if a minor character does something that drives the plot at one point, and it needs to be shown so it doesn't feel like things just came together for the main character(s) for no reason. Still, there may be other ways to get the information across, and there's a risk of having the reader wonder who this guy or gal is and why are we seeing this scene through their eyes after chapters and chapters of a predictable cast.

I've put down the occasional book because they force an unwanted pov on me at some point, after I thought I knew who the protagonist(s) were. Can we please get back to the real story? Wait, this is the real story now? Forget it then.

Not every character in a story needs an arc -- minor functional characters don't need one, for instance. And even characters who get significant time on-stage don't necessarily require much in the way of inner life or change, if it doesn't serve the story, though it's nice if they do.

But POV characters, almost by definition, are significant to the story beyond their mere contribution to the plot mechanics. We're in their head, seeing through their eyes, sharing their thoughts and feelings. They have goals, motives, fears, desires that shape their experience of the story - if they don't, there's no point to giving them a pov at all, you should just go camera-view. The "arc" of lesser POV characters doesn't need to be as developed or dramatic as the MC's, but there needs to be some way in which their experience in the story affects them. Otherwise, get out of their head and bring in a camera.

I believe so. IRL people change, I think they should do that in our writing. The arc would certainly be more obvious in characters that play a greater role in the story.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but over the course of a series, I want a gradual change. So gradual, for minor POV characters, as to be imperceptible. Otherwise, a major change per character per book is going to lose readers, as the characters flip and flop from book to book. You may well change characters in ways that readers don't like. And, it seems rather didactic: like plot coupons for qualities. Or, Dorothy in 'The Wizard of Oz', stretched out over a series: 'Get brains, get courage, get to go home'.

No. I've read plenty of books told from the POV of characters without an arc, and they worked out just fine. Let the Right One in had a scene that was told from the POV of a squirrel in a tree, and I thought it worked great. Not to mention, that is my all time favorite novel. My advice for this is like with anything in writing, if it works, it works, regardless of how much the "rules" are bent. It's all in how you execute it.

In the case of the series, since I'm dealing with this myself at the moment, I try and give everyone a trajectory at least. They started here, and ended there. Over the course of X number of books, you want to be able to chart the path of the major characters.

Is your story a transformative experience for your MC? If so, then there's an arc. In terms of a series, I would look at each book the same way I look at chapters in one book - each a step from the beginning of the arc to its conclusion.

ETA: regarding the supporting cast... I suppose it depends on the length of time they have within the story. If it's brief - probably no arc. More important characters should grow and change in response to what happens to them, and their relationship to the MC.

Odile_Blud said:

No. I've read plenty of books told from the POV of characters without an arc, and they worked out just fine. Let the Right One in had a scene that was told from the POV of a squirrel in a tree, and I thought it worked great.

Click to expand...

I loved that book but I completely forgot about that scene. I really need to reread that sometime.

As to the original question, I think the protagonist should have an arch but for everyone else it's optional. It all comes down to what serves the story. If you feel like you're shoehorning in an arch just because characters are supposed to have one, chances are you don't need it. It also depends heavily on how much time you're spending in the character's head.

It's also worth noting that an arch doesn't have to be something big and dramatic; the change can be subtle but still significant.

In any story, there will likely be some static characters who play a support role. They either don't change as a consequence of the events in the story, or any change they undergo isn't important enough to the plot to happen on camera.

Sometimes protagonists can be static too. This happens in long series sometimes that are focused on actions rather than internal states to create conflict and resolve the plot, or when the focus of the story is entirely on external events, or when the static-ness of the protagonist is actually what drives the plot or story.

I think there can still be an arc of a sort, even with relatively static characters. The arc may be more about them getting something they want (or not) or solving a problem and being rewarded for that (or not). Does James Bond change in any meaningful way in a given movie?

Most of the stories I've read that let the reader inside the heads of many, many characters of wildly varying importance are narrated in omniscient, though, and it's really the all-knowing narrator who is showing the reader snippets of information in passing. This is different from dropping the reader into the world view and voice of many different characters in succession, some of whom play extremely minor roles.

Harlequin said:

So many good points, many thanks all So many well written responses, too.

MCs definitely have clear arcs (esp after revisions) for mine although I am mindful of that extreme effect frimble mentioned.... tv shows often suffer from this, like Battlestar Galactica. The show trying to shoehorn in too much change. James Bond occasionally changes, but not really. The books aren't shooting for much depth though, from what I remember.

I think in the case of my Guy 5, reactive with no arc for this MS perhaps, and have a closer look at his overall trajectory across the series.

Click to expand...

Bond is kind of a fantasy figure though; enough of a cipher for the reader to imagine themselves in his place. The focus is more on the plot rather than him going through a character change.

Harlequin said:

Even for supporting cast? I'm leaning towards yes, but obvs thoughts welcome.

In context of multi pov story ofc. However, could also apply to single pov story with strong supporting cast.

Click to expand...

All my POV characters do.

There's no rule about this, of course, but it would be my preference in reading as well, for first-person or third-person limited POVs. Naturally, omniscient operates differently.

Good question. I am going to say no. Certainly a POV character should have an arc, but every character?? I don't think so. Where do you draw the line, at 10, 20, 25? A beta complained that one of my characters - who plays an important role but has no POV - should have had an arc. I was quite surprised.

However, the beta's comments did make me think, and here you are, making me think again.

I assume everyone is talking about a CHARACTER arc, a change in the personality of someone over the course of a story. (Settings and plots can have arcs as well. An example is in the Lord of the Rings, where the settings go from green and lush to brown and barren. And the plot goes from relaxed and ambling to tense and hurried.)

Most people change as the result of events, though the change may be small. This includes the walk-on characters. We never see them again, so we never see their arc. But it's there. So I'd say that if we want to write realistically ALL our characters need to have an arc.

The more story time we spend on a character, the more time we need to think about their arc. It's up to us as artists to decide how much to highlight or shadow the arc so that we create the reader experience we want to.

In a short action-oriented novel we likely want to focus our spotlight on one character, or maybe two or three if it's a team at the center of the story. An epic-sized novel with a big cast of characters (maybe spread out over a trilogy) can have a major arc for each key character.

I'd also say we want to decide whether to create a major or a minor arc, with big or little changes to a character. As others have pointed out, a continuing character in a series of a dozen or three dozen books can't change so much that they become a different person.