Is character development really necessary?

It doesn't have to be the main character that changes, it can be one of the others. But as the plot gets closer to the climax and the stakes rise, the main character does usually get more intense along with it. A character who has tried to be patient and calm might finally lose his temper, a character who has tried to avoid conflict might realize a direct attack on the antagonist is the only way to protect herself and others, a whiner might get tired of hearing themself whine to no effect and decide to keep their mouth shut... it doesn't have to be a fundamental change of personality, could just be a change of habit/approach. And, the character might revert from this change after the climax.

Is some kind of character arc really considered essential for any fiction longer than a short story?

Click to expand...

I don't have one in mine--and someone actually asked what it was when they were critiquing my query. I had to think about it, and realized that it didn't. But then, I'd followed the pattern of the thrillers I'd read, and they didn't either.

I don't even have character-oriented subplots (when I tried incorporating them, I had a horrendous time making the work. I would get stuck for months trying to make the subplot work). The subplots are all plot-oriented.

Can't a character be deep and interesting without going through personality changes between the prologue and the epilogue?

Click to expand...

Again, going back to thrillers and mysteries, a lot of those have characters who are the same person when they finish. In fact, I got turned off from a writer because she pushed her characters to change, and they changed so much that it destroyed the thing that drew me to the story.

My characters don't grow or change over the course of the story, and yet, they are three-dimensional. Each one has very distinct personalities, and they are simply themselves in the story.

Fredster said:

I think it depends on the genre, personally. I don't go into something that's heavy on action and adventure expecting a great deal of change in the main character. Something else, more literary, maybe so.

I like the fluff more, though.

Click to expand...

Ha! I like fluff, too. Sometimes I just want to be entertained by a story that isn't very grandstanding and filled with adventure and intrigue. I can relate more to the "fluff." I especially enjoy that fluff if it's set in an earlier time period.

Is character development really necessary?

Click to expand...

Yes.

ishtar'sgate said:

Character development doesn't necessarily mean personality change.

Click to expand...

James D. Macdonald said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

LOL /thread imo

Well stated, ishtar.

Linda Adams said:

Again, going back to thrillers and mysteries, a lot of those have characters who are the same person when they finish. In fact, I got turned off from a writer because she pushed her characters to change, and they changed so much that it destroyed the thing that drew me to the story.

Click to expand...

That's the thing...we shouldn't push our characters to change. That just means having your character do things out of character to satisfy plot. I see it a lot, particularly in mysteries. Development doesn't mean forcing your character into some life changing thing.

Any changes that occur should occur naturally. They can be subtle. They don't have to be huge. But if I, for instance, am a detective and I'm working on a case where a murderer has been killing and torturing children, there is a very good chance I'm going to be influenced by that in some way. Maybe the story is so plot oriented it doesn't get brought up, but it's probably happening (good non-book example here would be the differences between Law and Order and SVU).

Even if the conflict is something minor, like a breakup or fighting with family members or something like that, chances are those conflicts are going to influence the character. Maybe by the end the character has learned something. Or maybe by the end we realize he's a complete egotistical prick who will never change (in which case we're probably disgusted with him anyway). That could work, too, if it's true for the character.

I actually get more frustrated at characters who go through incredibly traumatic things and don't seem influenced in the least. It just strikes me as unrealistic. Now if it's plot driven and the story isn't really about the characters and it isn't focused on, I'm a bit more forgiving, but if you give me a good story with lots of characterization, and then your characters are the same happy-go-lucky people they were before after the psychotic bastard goes around trying to murder you...well, then I have a problem.

I think character development is really just a matter of practicality.

Say you come up with a really interesting character. Well, he's fun and entertaining, but after a while the reader has seen everything there is to see with that character, and how they react to just about anything. At this point, to maintain interest you basically have two choices:

1. Make them change, or

2. Kill them off*.


* This can also be replaced by "and they lived happily everafter, and by the way, there's this other character I want to talk about now..."

Kristiina said:

Depends on the story, maybe. It certainly makes the story seem more significant if it is something which changes the protagonist in some way.

Click to expand...

Agreeing with Kristiina!

HOWEVER I don't think character development is necessary, and can definitely enjoy a story without it - so long as we are revealed more about the character as the story wears on, so it feels like we're 'getting to know' them. That way there is still a journey through the story.

Sam Spade undergoes major character development in The Maltese Falcon.

Beware_of_Italics said:

Ha! I like fluff, too. Sometimes I just want to be entertained by a story that isn't very grandstanding and filled with adventure and intrigue. I can relate more to the "fluff." I especially enjoy that fluff if it's set in an earlier time period.

Click to expand...

Me too but probably a different kind of fluff. My life, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, is full of stress. When I'm really feeling it I want to escape into something light. For that, I love Agatha Christie. Character development isn't there in the sense that characters change, it's there in the sense that we learn who they really are throughout the story and why they did what they did. Plus there's always a puzzle to solve, something else I'm always drawn to for entertainment. When I'm not so stressed I'll read something with more depth to it but when life is getting too much, give me an Agatha Christie every time.

Perhaps "character developemnt" is the wrong term?
How about "character presentation?" The writer letting his reader know who the characters are so they can "see" and empathize with them.
This has been one of my problems and, at last, I think I see what must be done to improve my work to make it more interesting.
I just finished beta reading for someone on another website and, while I found the story line interesting, entertaining and informative, the writer did NOT present his MC fully to me. All I can get is that he's a wheelchair-bound old guy but I can't SEE him. The same holds true for the other characters in the book. For example, he talks extensively about Babe Ruth but he never SHOWS him to me!

I hope that makes sense. It's just my personal opinion, of course.

I would like to congratulate Libbie on using the words ‘a static character drifting through a static world’; those few words are what I remember from reading through the entire thread, because they say it all.

Character development, especially the main characters’, should come naturally in a story, often culminating in a ‘trousers down’ moment, when the cowards start to quake and the heroes come alive.

The trick is to delay the trembling lips and the firm jaw until the moment is ripe, and then surprise the reader, without upsetting him too much.

lvcabbie said:

Perhaps "character developemnt" is the wrong term?
How about "character presentation?" The writer letting his reader know who the characters are so they can "see" and empathize with them.
This has been one of my problems and, at last, I think I see what must be done to improve my work to make it more interesting.
I just finished beta reading for someone on another website and, while I found the story line interesting, entertaining and informative, the writer did NOT present his MC fully to me. All I can get is that he's a wheelchair-bound old guy but I can't SEE him. The same holds true for the other characters in the book. For example, he talks extensively about Babe Ruth but he never SHOWS him to me!

I hope that makes sense. It's just my personal opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Sometimes characters are supposed to be stereotypical (or as the writer would have you believe, symbolic)- but that's mainly in political or comic novels. Wasn't Babe Ruth an old baseball player? That's just an allusion.

Character development is something that happens to the character. He doesn't need to have an epiphany. He doesn't need to be Scrooge from "A Christmas Carol." The character remains the same person throughout, and if you do a good job, all of his actions need to be true to that character.

But he should reveal something about himself over the course of the plot. Even if he doesn't learn anything about himself, the reader should learn something interesting about him.

How will he react to the loss of something he cares about? How will he respond when he's placed in a situation outside his comfort zone? How will he handle a difficult choice? How will he resolve a conflict?

Every character should have some kind of a secret that maybe the plot will force him to reveal. Every character should have some interesting contradiction.

If something interesting happens, and the character responds in an interesting way, that's development.

djf881 said:

Character development is something that happens to the character. He doesn't need to have an epiphany. He doesn't need to be Scrooge from "A Christmas Carol." The character remains the same person throughout, and if you do a good job, all of his actions need to be true to that character.

But he should reveal something about himself over the course of the plot. Even if he doesn't learn anything about himself, the reader should learn something interesting about him.

How will he react to the loss of something he cares about? How will he respond when he's placed in a situation outside his comfort zone? How will he handle a difficult choice? How will he resolve a conflict?

Every character should have some kind of a secret that maybe the plot will force him to reveal. Every character should have some interesting contradiction.

If something interesting happens, and the character responds in an interesting way, that's development.

Click to expand...

Of all the answers in this thread, this one particuarly rang true, pulling together all the threads of what others were saying and put it into a neat compact 'AH HA' moment for me.

As discussion wound around, Indiana Jones stuck firmly in my head as being a character that doesn't go through character development. Or does he?

I used to think he didn't, that he was an example of a quest plot (as set down in the book 20 Master Plots) and didn't show character growth throughout. Then I started thinking. *waves away the smoke*

He doesn't change dramatically through the story, no. But we do see some softening around the edges for Marion and a bit of a shift for him. It could be said he still underwent some character change, then.

So it doesn't always have to be an overt, in-your-face change for there to be some development.

Very interesting thread. I hadn't thought at all about character development, only the plot, for my NaNoWriMo novel, because I'm just trying to knock out a story real fast. But getting closer to the end, I discovered to my great surprise that the protagonist has made a huge change, a complete 180. Not in personality, but in her outlook on life. It had to change because of the events that unfolded through the story. This was an epiphany moment for me. The character change came automatically and naturally from the way the story unfolded. That was when I knew that I had the right plot.

bearilou said:

Of all the answers in this thread, this one particuarly rang true, pulling together all the threads of what others were saying and put it into a neat compact 'AH HA' moment for me.

As discussion wound around, Indiana Jones stuck firmly in my head as being a character that doesn't go through character development. Or does he?

I used to think he didn't, that he was an example of a quest plot (as set down in the book 20 Master Plots) and didn't show character growth throughout. Then I started thinking. *waves away the smoke*

He doesn't change dramatically through the story, no. But we do see some softening around the edges for Marion and a bit of a shift for him. It could be said he still underwent some character change, then.

So it doesn't always have to be an overt, in-your-face change for there to be some development.

Click to expand...

If you watch "Raiders of the Lost Ark," Indy has a relationship with Marion Ravenwood that develops over the course of the narrative. He faces his fear of snakes. He has to choose between the girl and the MacGuffin. He's tempted by the power of the MacGuffin, and he resists the temptation.

Over the course of a plot in a genre story, perhaps even moreso than in a literary story, a character will be faced with a series of problems and choices. How he attempts to solve his problems, and how he makes those choices should be consistent with and revelatory of his character.