Growing Characters

[skip.knox]

Characters should grow, especially the protagonist. That's axiomatic and I have no argument with it. I am encountering some difficulties, though.

One way, I suspect the most common way, is for the author to know about where the character starts and about where he ends. That's the case with my WIP. My protagonist is the son of a famous general, so naturally he grows up hating the Army and the Empire and everything to do with imperial politics. Through the course of the story he winds up in command of a legion. While he doesn't learn to love the Army, he does come to care about his men and even to care about what happens to the Empire. I'm reasonably content with that arc.

The thing is, there's a lot of action in this story. I find myself deliberately creating situations where this "growth" can happen and I worry it's contrived. Well, of course. Everything in a story is contrived, isn't it? But you know what I mean. Contrived poorly versus contrived well. I could just chalk this up to a writing challenge and not worry about it.

But I have another story in early development. I have a notion as to the characters (it's a group of kids) and today I found myself sketching out their story lines. This one, formerly timid, learns something of courage. And so on. Then I stopped. Is it important that I do this? Or can I just forge ahead with the plot, letting the characters participate, and see how they turn out?

Sure I can. But what happens if nobody grows?

I suppose we can view this as a sub-set of the broader question of pantsers versus plotters, but I thought I'd ask here and let The Assembled post their thoughts. In the end, I'll write the only way I know how: by stumbling about, writing twice as many words as I use, and generally cursing the whole process. But I'd love to hear from y'all.

-= Skip =-

 

[Feo Takahari]

A character not growing at all isn't the worst-case scenario, and while it's often something that bores me, there's a dedicated niche for it. (I lasted through twenty episodes of Fist of the North Star, and if the remainder were anything like the rest, I doubt Ken changed at all. Given how many people still remember that show, there are certainly worse things you could mimic.)

To me, the absolute worst-case scenario of character development is when all the good guys develop into the same character. You see this a lot in religious fiction, utopian fiction, and especially religious utopian fiction--the author believes in a strict moral code, and each character is defined by their code-violating flaws, so once they grow enough to escape those flaws, they become completely interchangeable.

However, a more common bad scenario (which can overlap, but often doesn't) is when the hero changes so much that he's no longer recognizable as the person he used to be. All of his initial traits are lost, even ones that weren't all that bad (e.g. a skew sense of humor.) Unless your character consists entirely of flaws (in which case I question why they're the viewpoint character), there was probably something about them that initially appealed to readers, and completely changing them is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Your case is nowhere near worst-case, though it could potentially be detrimental. What it sounds like you're not doing is allowing the protagonist to grow unevenly, as people in real life often do. For instance, maybe he learns exactly the wrong lesson from a particular situation, tries to apply it, and sees horrible consequences, forcing him to rethink what he's learning. Or maybe he learns a lesson on an intellectual level, but continues acting on instinct when faced with the related problem, and needs to grow further in order to actually apply the lesson.

 

[Mythopoet]

Character growth, while a good and desirable thing, is not necessary. There are whole series, like many series of detective novels, where the whole point is for the main character to be essentially the same in every book, just faced with different situations. Most TV shows depend on the characters not changing much from episode to episode. From what I understand, the entire premise of Arrested Development is about a bunch of people who never grow: their development is arrested. There are plenty of readers who enjoy stories that do not focus on character growth. Just tell your story they way it feels natural to you. There is not one single element of storytelling that is completely necessary.

 

[Scribble]

There are stories where the character doesn't change where they may be tempted to change, or put into situations because they refuse to change. I am thinking of the stoic warrior, the kung fu master, or the chap who chooses to "remain true to himself". The character can deal with the consequences of remaining the same, he may question changing, he may feel pressured to change, but in the end he doesn't.

The character must be wise (or naively wise) at the beginning, and remain that way.

Maybe not a perfect example, but Forrest Gump comes mind when I think of naive. He does come to some realizations about the world, and himself, but his character does really change? He matures, he deepens, he gains some wisdom, but he is essentially the same character he was at the beginning. His constant parroting of his mother's wisdom is kind of emblematic of that.

The other example I can imagine is the samurai warrior who faces adversity, he is pushed into hard situations because he must remain strict to his code, to the death. He may even commit seppuku at the end of the story. That is drama, he can have meaningful challenges because he refused to turn from his ways to save his skin. I'll admit that it could be argued that he transformed from being a live samurai to a dead one. You can have a very strong story like this, but in these examples you must have a very strong character.

Being There by Jerry Kosinski might be another stretch, this is similar to Forrest Gump, as it stars a simpleton, and also was a movie. Some people might argue that Chance is not the protagonist, though he is the main character. It's a great book and I propose that he doesn't change at all. The plot centers on that fact in a way, and it makes for a good story.

 

[Mara Edgerton]

I find myself deliberately creating situations where this "growth" can happen and I worry it's contrived. Well, of course. Everything in a story is contrived, isn't it? But you know what I mean. Contrived poorly versus contrived well. I could just chalk this up to a writing challenge and not worry about it.

I'm a big fan of authors challenging their characters. I wouldn't worry, in either the example you give above or the example of the group of children, that you're creating contrived situations in the name of character growth. Granted, this advice is coming from a hard-core outliner, lol. Nonetheless, give me a compelling situation that forces your character to change and grow, and I promise that as a reader, I won't be thinking about whether it seems contrived! I'll be far too caught up with the character to care.

 

[SeverinR]

Growing characters?
Heavy on nutrients, light on fertilizer, and shine a little light on the right aspects.

I think you need to know the main character/main villian fairly well, the supporting character/supporting villain well, then lesser supporting characters enough to know how they will act when facing their crowning achievement in a certain situation in your story.
All persons involved in a story should respond in their own way, even if some of the time, it might seem the same.

 

[The Dark One]

In a one-off story a POV character should probably grow, or change, in some manner. But what about a series? How does a character continue to grow in a satisfactory and plausible way across several books without losing his original charm?

One of my favourite literary characters is Flashman. There are about 13 books in the series and Flashy is always the same, and you wouldn't have him any other way.

Obviously there are some writers who can manage the growth over several books (not least GRRM) but you could arguably say that, for the relevant characters, the story arc has continued beyond any one (arbitrarily determined) start/finish of a single volume. Unrelated stories featuring the same character growing would be very difficult to achieve.

A problem I currently have is that there has been some call for a sequel to my first (and most successful) novel. The difficulty I have is that I can easily put the main character in new situations which fans of the first book will enjoy, but he's already been through his hero's journey, and I find it hard to artificially give him new setbacks to conquer. My heart just isn't in it so the draft sits at about the 50 pp mark and I haven't touched it for a while. Meanwhile, my new book is out shortly, and whenever people ask about it, they are invariably disappointed to learn it isn't a sequel.

 

[Feo Takahari]

A problem I currently have is that there has been some call for a sequel to my first (and most successful) novel. The difficulty I have is that I can easily put the main character in new situations which fans of the first book will enjoy, but he's already been through his hero's journey, and I find it hard to artificially give him new setbacks to conquer. My heart just isn't in it so the draft sits at about the 50 pp mark and I haven't touched it for a while. Meanwhile, my new book is out shortly, and whenever people ask about it, they are invariably disappointed to learn it isn't a sequel.

While I don't know your character, it seems like you might be able to get some mileage out of changing some variables. The conventional example is the child hero--he'll face entirely new challenges when he's an adult, and some of the lessons he's learned may no longer apply. This can also be a character who's in a new location, interacting with a new culture, or facing a new kind of foe.

(The alternate approach is to look at how the first book seriously messed your protagonist up. See: Persona 3 FES, the "Answer" part of which explains how each character failed to cope with a certain major death in the "Journey" part.)

 

[The Dark One]

Thanks Feo. In fact I left the first book in a place set up for a sequel and I've mapped out the entire thing. But we're talking about growth here. He's already gone from a really bad situation to being on top of the world (and with a woman he loves). The only way I can get him to grow/change is by taking these things away.

I did leave some questions unresolved in the first book (and a bad guy undefeated) so the sequel would to some extent be about that. But it feels a little contrived, and I pride myself on originality.

 

[skip.knox]

Just wanted to step in here and say thanks to all; it's been interesting reading your comments. I wasn't looking for a solution to anything, just to hear others' experiences. I thought I should speak up so folks know that I'm not one of those who post and never come back.

Continue talking among yourselves....

 

[Scribble]

Just wanted to step in here and say thanks to all; it's been interesting reading your comments. I wasn't looking for a solution to anything, just to hear others' experiences. I thought I should speak up so folks know that I'm not one of those who post and never come back.

Continue talking among yourselves....

Some encapsulating thoughts on this thread...

While there are good cases here for a lack of change in a character, it seems to work notably well only in particular genres such as detective stories. I think we can safely include adventure stories like Conan.

(Am I wrong? Has anyone read Robert E. Howard stories recently? My memory of those stories goes back to childhood.)

These are very plot based genres where the action is solving the mystery, the slaying of monsters, or the stealing of objects.

That's what it appears to come down to: plot story versus a character story. If the character doesn't change, then the plot has to be driving the whole thing. At the other extreme end, a pure character story, I suppose... is a story where everything happens in a conversation, or within someone's head. They may in fact be in a war or playing tennis, but nothing outside the character moves anything. It's a series of realizations, insights, emotions, etc... unattached to external forces.

I'm thinking of Waiting for Godot, in which nothing appears to happen. I'm still not sure what that's about.

Most fiction falls somewhere between these poles.

What are some genres besides detective and adventure where plot can drive the entire story and be interesting?

 

[Weaver]

I cannot imagine writing a story in which the protagonist did not change to some degree.

Currently I'm reading the latest in C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner series. The protagonist is essentially the same person he was in the first book, with the same basic personality and values and all, but his circumstances are quite different, his views on some things have changed a lot, his associations have changed (See, I'm even thinking like that character -- one does pick up the speech patterns of Ragi-translated-into-English rather quickly, a result of long familiarity with this story and these people), and he has a lot more responsibilities than he did at the start. His entire worldview has changed somewhat due to people he has known since that first book.

In my own writing... Sometimes characters change quite literally. Fantasy fiction, y'know? These things happen. Sometimes characters change how they relate to other people after long struggle with their past experiences. Sometimes characters have responsibility forced upon them and change to deal with that. Sometimes characters change in response to learning that the world is a much bigger (and weirder, and more dangerous) place than they realized.

I dislike stories that leave me feeling as if the entire thing was a waste of time for the characters as well as for the reader, stories that, after I'm finished reading, make me think, 'Well, what the point of all that?' If there is no change, nothing happened. Even making the decision not to change is a small change for the character, because he/she has faced the choice of whether to do so or not.

 

[Svrtnsse]

What about immortals, or really old characters?

There's a saying that goes along the lines of how you can't teach an old dog new tricks; would that apply when writing old characters as well?
As you grow older you start to get used to your habits and eventually you get a little set in your ways. This happens in the real world where humans rarely reach a hundred years of age. Would the same thing apply to elves and other characters that grow thousands of years old?
There's only so much you can see and eventually you'll end up in a place where (you think) you've seen everything. It will take some truly monumental events to change your personality or your world view under such circumstances - or so I believe.

Should I let my elven characters stay just the way they are to reflect that or should I let them grow just like humans or anfylk to make for more interesting character development?
I'd say both are viable options. Leaving the elf character static while the others change will accentuate its difference. At the same time I don't think most potential readers will question that the elf picks up new habits even if they're thousands of years old. Most people won't be able to relate to that kind of age.

 

[Feo Takahari]

What about immortals, or really old characters?

There's a saying that goes along the lines of how you can't teach an old dog new tricks; would that apply when writing old characters as well?
As you grow older you start to get used to your habits and eventually you get a little set in your ways. This happens in the real world where humans rarely reach a hundred years of age. Would the same thing apply to elves and other characters that grow thousands of years old?
There's only so much you can see and eventually you'll end up in a place where (you think) you've seen everything. It will take some truly monumental events to change your personality or your world view under such circumstances - or so I believe.

Should I let my elven characters stay just the way they are to reflect that or should I let them grow just like humans or anfylk to make for more interesting character development?

Now that I think about it, the most interesting stuff I'm familiar with that uses long-lived immortals as protagonists puts them in situations where they're forced to learn something new. The quintessential example is Planescape Torment ("What can change the nature of a man?"), but I've also seen it in terms of a new enemy, a new romance, or simply a new discovery.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Now that I think about it, the most interesting stuff I'm familiar with that uses long-lived immortals as protagonists puts them in situations where they're forced to learn something new. The quintessential example is Planescape Torment ("What can change the nature of a man?"), but I've also seen it in terms of a new enemy, a new romance, or simply a new discovery.

Yeah, it would have to be something like that; a situation the character hasn't experienced yet. What I'm pondering is how often that really happens to characters that are thousands of years old.

...then again, assuming that more short lived characters are the ones who drive scientific, social and political progress it may not be that uncommon.



Also: Wohhooo! Ding! I'm a Mystagogue!

 

[Mara Edgerton]

Thanks Feo. In fact I left the first book in a place set up for a sequel and I've mapped out the entire thing. But we're talking about growth here. He's already gone from a really bad situation to being on top of the world (and with a woman he loves). The only way I can get him to grow/change is by taking these things away.

I did leave some questions unresolved in the first book (and a bad guy undefeated) so the sequel would to some extent be about that. But it feels a little contrived, and I pride myself on originality.

Do you have to take his wife and position away in order for the character to change? Sometimes small, incremental changes in a character can be just as satisfying as big, dramatic ones. Maybe your character is changing as he adjusts to marriage? Maybe his wife (or children, if they're in the offing) will challenge some of his ideas and force him to grow?

 

[JSDR]

It depends on what kind of story you're writing, which is your promise to the reader.

Are you writing about a character? Are you writing about a world? Are you writing about a catastrophic event the character is trying to stop or cataylse?
They type of story you want to tell may dictate how much/little your character changes. Frex, in a story where the overarcing storyline hinges on what the character decides based on how much he's changed since the opening chapter might require broad strokes in terms of character development.
But if it's something like a fantasy mystery, in which the main storyline requires the character to just go around collecting information, it might require very little character development.

This may be one of those instances where you have to step back and decide what you're trying to deliver to your reader so you can tell at the end whether or not you've kept your part of the bargain. Did you satisfy the reader? Did you promise them it would be about a character who enters the classic conflicts (man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. self, etc) and changes or resists change? Or did you promise the story would be about discovering what lay beyond the boundaries of Darkstone Realm?

If the character grows, was it because plot conflicts required him to grow?
Or does it feel like he's resisting growth no matter what he has to face?
Are you giving him challenges that come from other characters growing?
Or are you forcing confrontations because the character refuses to do what you want him to do?
Does he exist in a vacuum? Or does he feel powerless in the middle of chaos?

To directly address some of your OP questions,
I personally don't think you *need* to have a character's growth development charted before writing the story. In fact, with some writers I've worked with, having an endgame has hurt the story because the character growths become predictable. The characters play to tropes rather than being interesting. Like the classic "timid becomes brave" character, the "lady's man becomes considerate lover" character, etc.

Surprise me. Tell me a story I've never heard before. Help me *understand* a person I've never met. That doesn't mean I have to love or hate the character or the character has to change and grow, but I want something in *me* to change because of what *you* have revealed. Maybe in order to do those things, you have to let the characters surprise *you*.

 

[Mara Edgerton]

It depends on what kind of story you're writing, which is your promise to the reader.

Are you writing about a character? Are you writing about a world? Are you writing about a catastrophic event the character is trying to stop or cataylse?
They type of story you want to tell may dictate how much/little your character changes. Frex, in a story where the overarcing storyline hinges on what the character decides based on how much he's changed since the opening chapter might require broad strokes in terms of character development.
But if it's something like a fantasy mystery, in which the main storyline requires the character to just go around collecting information, it might require very little character development.

'Fantasy-Mystery' is the genre I'm writing in, but to me, in order to be satisfying, it requires character growth.

Heck, my favorite non-fantasy mysteries include character growth. For example, Robert Parker's Spenser character started off as a womanizer way back when, but grew into a man with a mature, monogamous relationship. Meanwhile, Josh Lanyon's Adrien English character gradually adjusts to a new perspective on life and death with his changing health, and his relationships with both his family and his boyfriend develop over the course of the series.

So, for me, I suppose character growth is a necessity. But I can understand that some people read for plot--so, maybe I agree with you overall, in so far as it depends on what you promise your reader, and who your target audience is.

 

[wordwalker]

I think the classic mystery can function well without the MC changing, because its so-called "plot-centered" sequence is all about character, the other people-- who's got a grudge, who's got a seamy past or a murderous weakness, and all the ways those play out. The whole investigation could be read as "(this time) money's a motive for murder, but jealousy's a better one, but good old revenge is (this time) the best of all," and that gives the story enough human insight even if the MC doesn't evolve. (Plus, it can evoke the idea that a detective who's seen so much humanity has little left to learn about himself-- whether that means he's mature or just cynical.)

But then, that's just to say a mystery can do without a changing MC more easily than some plots. Of course it can use it too.

 

[The Dark One]

Do you have to take his wife and position away in order for the character to change? Sometimes small, incremental changes in a character can be just as satisfying as big, dramatic ones. Maybe your character is changing as he adjusts to marriage? Maybe his wife (or children, if they're in the offing) will challenge some of his ideas and force him to grow?

Thanks for asking Mara. No of course you don't have to do those things but, given the type of story it is, the readers would probably be disappointed in a sequel that showed our hero incrementally adjusting to domestic bliss. The story is very plot driven but readers seem to enjoy the main character (after whom the first book is named) and wouldn't want him to change too much. He will be forced to grow/change a little (if I do get around to writing the sequel) but...I guess I won't say too much more.

Funnily enough, character growth is behind a major twist in the book I have coming out in a couple of months. The reader doesn't realise the (rather deplorable) character is changing at all - until bang, there is a sudden revelation and they realise they had completely misinterpreted most of his more recent actions. But I shouldn't say any more about that one either.