Characters that don't learn their lessons...

You just described French drama, at least in the movies. The characters start out at A, go through B to Z, to end up back at A, with, usually, one tiny change, but essentially staying true to who they really are.

I dunno -- loved it when I was in school. Like everything else, if you do it well, believably, enjoyably, well, if that's where the characters are, then so be it. Maybe your characters are all about the journey and not the inner change. And, really, there may be nothing at all wrong with that.

NicoleMD said:

So characters are supposed to change by the end of the story right? Well mine flat out refuse to. I'm not sure why, they get close to figuring things out and overcoming their obstacles, but they always revert, fatal flaws shining brightly.

I think subconsciously I dig the rise and fall setup, rags to riches to rags. Thus my characters tend to end up right where they started, or worse off. It's sort of cyclical in my mind. I'm tired of fighting it, and I think I just need to embrace it.

Anyone else write like this? Or have any examples of books or stories that do a similar thing? Does a character REALLY have to change?

Nicole

P.S. It's past my bed time...

Click to expand...

If it doesnt feel natural to you as the writer....then it wont feel natural to the reader. Often a reader can tell when the story is forced.

Perhaps this is the nature of your characters ...roll with it and see where the adventure takes them and you.

I don't think that characters necessarily have to change. I agree with Krishna: Roll with it. If your characters refuse to change, perhaps you've just created a realistic--and stubborn--character. That's not a bad thing.

Some do, some don't. I've had the bad guy remain the bad guy, I've had them have an awakening. I've had characters not learn, to continue with their own demons. I think this is real life. How many people in our society repeat the same mistakes and vote for the same type of self centered incompetent politicians over and over, or go for the same type of mate that has hurt them in the past, or a dozen other types of mistakes they don't learn from. People have a tendency to repeat their mistakes cause to deal with the truth means they have to admit their decision process was flawed in the past. I actually had this concept played out and take a role in my novel FORGOTTEN CHILDREN. I think its realistic, and I think it depends on what you're trying to say with your story. Just my view of course.

Take your characters wherever they may go. Just don't screw your reader.

One of my favourite novelists writes heartbreaking stories with dreadful endings. Naguib Mahfouz. Somehow there is sometimes change that just doesn't lift the character as much as it should. They realize they're in it up to their ears and the change is almost that they accept the sh*t... revel in it. He does not write happy endings, but you are left so extremely satisfied... it's like you get a glimpse into what turmoil some lives never get out of. Heartbreaking stories.

Oh, and THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG. There's a character change for you... from bad to worse. But you are left clutching the book to your heart in the end.

Let your characters decide if they are of the ilk that would change. If not, than let them wallow.

I'm facing a similar dilemma with my current wip. I'm planning a sad ending and I don't think the MC will change much. Hopefully it'll all work out. I'm still pretty early into it so he might do something unexpected and things will change.

Hmm.....I'm kinda trying something like that...
a person who, after all these events happen to him, he still relatively acts the same.

Character change does not have to mean reversal. The bad guy doesn't always see the light and mend his ways. But the events of the story should have some effect on the characters, even if it's that they think more carefully next time they encounter a similar situation.

Growth can occur in baby steps as well as leaps across the chasm.

Also, some genres and types of characters don't lend themselves well to character change. For example, consider detectives in mystery stories. Sherlock Holmes doesn't change much, but the stories are still captivating because of the events.

The character is the boss of you, or should be. Mine certainly don't pay any attention to me. They do what they want. My WIP's MC is in such denial over what she wants, pretending that she's changed, that she's running in the exact opposite direction. In the end, she's going to be right where she started. That's where she needs to be.

Namatu said:

The character is the boss of you, or should be. Mine certainly don't pay any attention to me. They do what they want. My WIP's MC is in such denial over what she wants, pretending that she's changed, that she's running in the exact opposite direction. In the end, she's going to be right where she started. That's where she needs to be.

Click to expand...

My characters are the same way. They walk all over me. They don't give a shit what I think. I started my WIP trying to tell two of my characters who they were going to be and they just refused. I told them what they were going to do. Refused. Finally I just let them run and my characters turned out better and more life-like than I ever could have "forced" them to be. If they change, it will be entirely up to them.

KTC said:

Oh, and THE HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG. There's a character change for you... from bad to worse. But you are left clutching the book to your heart in the end. .

Click to expand...

Good call.

And yes, "character changing at the end" is just one type of story. You can have characters who go back where they come from. You can have someone going from bad to worse (Daniel Plainview from Oil/There Will Be Blood, for example). As long as it fits the story and the characters are vivid and riveting.

JeanneTGC said:

You just described French drama, at least in the movies. The characters start out at A, go through B to Z, to end up back at A, with, usually, one tiny change, but essentially staying true to who they really are.

Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like one of my French pirates, and I don't watch French movies! He's an immature trickster who thinks people shouldn't get mad at him for playing tricks on them. His tricks have also screwed up his non-existant love life (chasing girls with dead animals and getting cats drunk is not sexy). He does learn a lesson, though, after one of his lust interests almost kills him: don't pester the women. Or at least not that particular woman. Maybe they could be just be friends. Or maybe in a few years she'll be more receptive to his advances.

Isaac Espriu said:

I've never been a huge fan of happy endings. For me they are annoyingly unrealistic - and my cynical nature (a cynic is almost always a crushed idealist by the way ) tells me that life never has happy endings. Even if things go well for us, at the end of the day we still gonna die.

Click to expand...

I used to think that way. Then I changed my mind. The ending of the story isn't the end for the characters and the reader knows that, so it's really just a matter of choosing to end on a high note or a low note, and neither of these is unrealistic because life contains both. It's like snapping a picture with a camera. You're capturing a moment in time. The concern isn't what happens after that moment. It's just that moment. I just hate it when the happy endings are forced (I've read books where the author brought people back from the dead seemingly just to make a book end happily, and I thought that was going too far).

As to character changes, it doesn't have to be dramatic. The point is that the events of the story have consequences for the character, not that they are necessarily going to turn them into a completely different person. In some stories the changes are internal (character becomes a better person, or a worse person, falls in love with someone, etc) In some stories the changes are external but may have some internal consequences (character changes jobs because they realize that their original job isn't right for them, character moves because they've now dealt with and put to rest the issues that were keeping them where they were. Even in detective stories they solve the crime and then move on to the next one, so they're not in exactly the same place). A story with absolutely no character change gives me the same kind of feeling as a story that ends with "it was all a dream." Oh, none of that meant anything? Well then why did you bother writing about it in the first place? Characters can get worse. Then can get better. Then can get neither and simply step in another direction. But if they stand still that's a problem, at least for me.

By the way, not every character has to change but at least one of them should. We should know that the events of the story affected someone's life. For instance, in a mystery story where the detective solves a murder maybe the detective doesn't seem to change, but solving the murder might help the murder victim's family find peace, and thus there's a change in their status that lets us know that the story had meaning. The problem is getting to the end of the story and seeing that nothing changed at all and everyone is the same as always so that the story feels like it meant nothing, not even to the characters. That's the feeling you want to avoid.

My chars learn some things, refuse to grow the way I think they should and want something other than what I do. Fine you %^#%$@! So that's the way I write.

There are a few characters that don't change.

Harry Potter, Charlie and Willy Wonka, Jack Sparrow, Gollum(Not so much.), Stuart Little. The list goes on.

Harry does change. I recommend reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and looking at what he says about Snape in the epilogue.

Queen of Swords said:

Harry does change. I recommend reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and looking at what he says about Snape in the epilogue.

Click to expand...

That's not really changing. It's just changing a view of something or someone. He's still passive and weak. I wanted to see if he can do things because he wants to, not because Hermione or Dumbeldore told him to. He never did anything, not even try and find Voldemort and kill him himself. I really wished no one would be holding his hand.

The Epilogue sucked(Sorry, it did.) He's naming his own children, Albus, James, Remus, and the other name I forgot. I don't know, it's awkward, and it's not really creative. I liked the series, but at least make me satisfied that I finished the book, not make it awkward.

(I don't mean to ramble. I think I'll keep quiet.)

BlueLucario said:

That's not really changing. It's just changing a view of something or someone. He's still passive and weak.

Click to expand...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that, since I think changing one's viewpoint of a person upon being given evidence to the contrary (rather than clinging to one's hatred of that person) is not weak.

SPOILER

Blue, are you telling me that Harry choosing to have Voldemort kill him in order that someone else (Neville) could destroy him was passive?

I think you also have to remember that while people influence our decisions, the ultimate decision is our own. Dumbledore himself explained to Harry when he was concerned the sorting hat could have put him in Slytherin, that it was Harry's decision not to be put into Slytherin that makes all the difference. Harry may have had friends to depend on, and Dumbledore guiding him, but in the end he had to take care of himself. In the end he chose to "rescue" Fleur's little sister in the second challenge at the tournament. He risked his life to bring Cedric Diggory back to his family after his encounter in the grave yard. Harry dumps Ginny end of book 6, and at first insists he go after Voldemort himself, so as not to endanger any one close to him. He also figures out which wand he has and . . . you know . . . destroys Lord Voldemort, all on his lonesome

And even though he does a lot of stuff on his own, to me it's the stronger person who can listen to others, and ask for help.

I know this is a little off topic, because we are talking character arcs etc. Bit of a fan you see.

Toothpaste said:

SPOILER

Blue, are you telling me that Harry choosing to have Voldemort kill him in order that someone else (Neville) could destroy him was passive?

I think you also have to remember that while people influence our decisions, the ultimate decision is our own. Dumbledore himself explained to Harry when he was concerned the sorting hat could have put him in Slytherin, that it was Harry's decision not to be put into Slytherin that makes all the difference. Harry may have had friends to depend on, and Dumbledore guiding him, but in the end he had to take care of himself. In the end he chose to "rescue" Fleur's little sister in the second challenge at the tournament. He risked his life to bring Cedric Diggory back to his family after his encounter in the grave yard. Harry dumps Ginny end of book 6, and at first insists he go after Voldemort himself, so as not to endanger any one close to him. He also figures out which wand he has and . . . you know . . . destroys Lord Voldemort, all on his lonesome

And even though he does a lot of stuff on his own, to me it's the stronger person who can listen to others, and ask for help.

I know this is a little off topic, because we are talking character arcs etc. Bit of a fan you see.

Click to expand...

I knew I should be keeping my mouth shut. But when Harry was chosen to participate in the TriWizardTournament, it wasn't clear to me that he wanted to go. and I wonder why the whole series didn't end in four.

Dumbeldore had been holding Harry's hand from book one to seven. It's like the guy had been pulling the strings the whole time. He knew what was going to happen.

And about the Horcruxes, it wasn't clear to me either that he wanted to find them. I'm quoting this from the book, "Dumbeldore's orders."

Again, I'm going to keep silent, because I feel that I am disrupting the discussion.

Characters only need to change if you're telling a character-type story. They begin in an intolerable situation and over the course of the story either improve their situation or come to accept it. They have to change for the story to end.

Other types of stories don't require character change but they can certainly handle it, with the exception of idea stories like detective serials (as in the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes). Those stories actually depend on the character not changing at all, or very little.

Milieu stories like Lord of the Rings usually have stereotypical characters, so there is little characterization required and usually no need for the characters to change much. However, nothing says there can't be a few strong characters who do evolve over the course of the story, it works fine as long as the focus of the story remains the setting, the world. There's a reason LoTR doesn't end with the destruction of the Ring or with the return to the Shire, it goes on until the Age ends and the world changes.

The other story type is the event story. These stories begin with the world out of joint in some way and the story tells how order is restored or how a new order is established. Again, characterization isn't required but it can certainly be present as long as the focus remains on the changing world.

I'm paraphrasing from Orson Scott Card's Characters and Viewpoint. It's the best description I've found for the different story types.