Character progression or lack there of

[Deathfrommassive]

Can you have a story/novel/book where the main character doesn’t change at all but stays constant while the rest of the people around him/her are? Or is the whole point that he main character needs to change?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Rincewind is a perfect example of a character who never changes regardless of his experiences ; in fact many chracters are like this

Sometimes that's the whole point - the character changes the story , whilst in other cases the story changes the chacter ; sometimes both at the same time. There are many examples of each.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Usually, yes, they should change in some way. But the change can be subtle, and it may simply be that they learn new things or gain better understanding, or display facets of their personalities that were always there but it took the events of the story to push them into putting those qualities to use.

If they remain too static, they will probably not be the most interesting character in the story, and may not be suitable as they main character.

 

[badjoke]

I guess it depends on what is going on in the story, but I think that in real life every experience changes you, even if it's only slightly, so it would seem unrealistic for a character to pass through the events that make up a novel without having changed at all.

 

[goldhawk]

In SFF, the main character is likely to change but in other forms of fiction, this may not happen. In murder mysteries and detective stories, the investigator or detective almost always stays the exact same from story to story. This makes it very easy to write a series.

In science fiction, some works, like Heinlein's, are coming-of-age stories where the MC definitely changes and others, like Star Trek (any series), where they change little.

In fantasy, you have stories like Conan and Tarzan, where the MC changes little, and others, like The Lord of the Rings, where they change a lot.

In short, there is no requirement for the MC to change; just do what you think is best for the story.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In murder mysteries and detective stories, the investigator or detective almost always stays the exact same from story to story. This makes it very easy to write a series.

But in some of the best and most enduring series the detective (amateur or otherwise) does change. Lord Peter Wimsey, Inspector Roderick Alleyn, both go through enormous life-altering changes in the course of the series.

Also, the detective is not always the main character. I noticed this recently when I was reading some of Georgette Heyer's mystery novels. The first part of the story can be all about the people involved in the mystery and everything that happens to them leading up to the murder (or other event), and the familiar detective character only comes in later and even then does not dominate the book. Each story in the series may have a completely different protagonist, although the detective character is continuing from book to book.

There are no absolute rules in fiction writing, except to write something that people will want to read. A protagonist who goes through changes is one factor that usually contributes to that goal.

 

[Messatsu]

I guess it depends on what is going on in the story, but I think that in real life every experience changes you, even if it's only slightly, so it would seem unrealistic for a character to pass through the events that make up a novel without having changed at all.

I agree. Not every character change is profoundly obvious. This is also very realistic. In reality, when your girlfriend leaves because you are a slob, or your boyfriend leaves because you are emotionally cold, do we, as real people actually have after-school-special epiphanies?

Also, one of the major themes in Neon genesis Evangelion is a very interesting philosophical point - 50% of us is how others perceive us. The average free-thinker (myself included) is reluctant to accept this, but look at it this way:

You step into the elevator. A woman begins to step in after you, looks you up and down, and then visibly chooses not to get into the elevator.

This affects you, whether you want it to or not. The effect is different depending on each of our circumstances. Maybe you are dripping grime and she has on a Vera Wang, maybe she's racially motivated, maybe you're a stalker. Either way, that moment has some ramification on how you finish out that day. Maybe you lose your mind, maybe you never tell anyone, but in the end, you are affected.

Life is a long stream of actions, reactions of others, and then your reaction to those reactions--and no reaction is, in fact, a reaction, often one of the strongest.

Characters that change subtly are difficult to render. The author must have a more fine control to stop them from being boring, or getting the "stagnant" label or poorly developed label. Honestly, many well-developed characters (i.e. Holden Caufield, Gatsby, O'Brien in 1984) don't change much, if at all, but their lack of change is kindof the point.

Also, becoming dead is a change, and it happens to many characters who refuse to change with their environment.

 

[uncertain_absolutist]

This is a question I also had and was planning to ask. Namely, if the overall point of a my story is essentially no matter what effort we may put forward change is impossible because everything is ruled by causality, is it alright if some of the main character do not change at all? For example, while different scenes reveal different parts of their personalities and show different sides of them, their worldview and ideologies are rather profound and unchanging as such is required for the mission they have. So much so, did I try to make one of them unchanging, that when confronted by a seeming point of change, they outright reject it clinging to what they understand themselves to be.

I was wondering this because I have two unchanging characters, though perhaps the change is subtle, paired with two other characters who do explicitly change.

 

[Anne Lyle]

One of the most useful concepts I got out of Dramatica, back when they were giving away the theory book for free (don't know if you can still get it), is the idea of the Main Character vs Impact Character.

The Main Character is your main viewpoint (and usually the protagonist of the story), and at some point they will meet someone who challenges their view of the world. During the course of the story, one of them will change - but not necessarily the protagonist. If the hero is Steadfast, it's the people around him who will be changed - which is maybe what happens in your book?

In movies, there's nearly always a moment where the hero and the impact character say "We're just the same" or "We are nothing alike" (or some variant thereon). There used to be an amusing YouTube video montage of these moments knocking around, but I can't find a working version any more. Pity - it was very funny!

 

[R M Tobias]

Sometimes the best stories are the ones that take five hundred pages to get their character to move an inch, provided there is enough drama in the barriers that prevent he/she from moving in the first place.

I guess you have to ask yourself whats in it for the reader.

There is a British film called Happy go Lucky where the main character does not change internally, but has her world view challenged by a series of events. Things, events and relationships in her life change but even at the end fo the film she is still essentially the same person.

 

[Colbey Frost]

This is a hard question to answer but as you write, maybe it's something that will develop anyway?