Do I need to resolve character arcs in the book in question

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm starting to come to terms with the idea of character arcs, and overarching story arcs, and the sense there should be a resolution of the central premise for book one in book one etc. But, if a character arc is a small part of one book, alluded to because it's going to be more central in the next book, is that okay, or does the reader want resolution by the end of the book in question.

So eg, two characters start to become friendly, might move towards a relationship at some stage, but it doesn't happen in book one, does the reader accept that, or want something to wrap it up in that book? Even a temporary wrap up?

 

[Kylara]

I'd accept that, in fact a temporary wrap up would probably bother me as it would seem forced...unless the arc is to drift to and from...character arcs are allowed (imo anyway) to span numerous books, I'd much rather have one big arc than lots of little arcs trying to make a big arc fit into many books...

 

[Bowler1]

I'd accept a character interaction not being fully warpped if the ending of the book was a good one and it was clear that a second book was due. I'd still perfer a tidy ending just in case I never bought book two, but I'd live.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I would say no, you definitely don't have to resolve a character arc, or any other kind of story arc, in the same book as where it is introduced. Series are for arcs to span over more than one volume, after all. And a character that keeps evolving over a series is just a good thing, in my opinion.
It might be a good idea to finish each book in some natural way, to draw a line where it makes sense, between different parts of the story. However, it doesn't have to be the end of one specific arc that makes this natural line drawn between the books.

That would be my initial position on the matter, anyway.

 

[The Judge]

As long as there is some movement in the character arc, so the main characters are in some way changed by events in book one (and thereafter in subsequent volumes) it doesn't matter how many books it takes for the arc to be completed. Otherwise you'd get everyone's journey complete in book one and the sequels would be static.

 

[Dozmonic]

If every arc was closed at the end of a book there'd be no incentive to read the next one.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I think it's fine to carry it over to the next rather than resolving it pronto.

As has been suggested already, if it felt rushed or concluded too rapidly that'd be much worse than letting it take its course into the future.

 

[C. A. Mitchell]

Might be worth mentioning in some subtle and sophisticated manner that you, the author, know the arc is still to be resolved, so it doesn't look like you've forgotten about it. Would only be necessary in first book I'd say, because by the second the reader should know they're in safe hands.

 

[allmywires]

I'm a non-resolver (though I think the way I do it is wrong). I think there's value in having some unanswered questions but of course all books have to be able to stand alone. Relationship arcs I think you have more room to play with anyway. Also think that it needs to look like you've been thinking of it from the start - not just got to book 2 and thought, hmm, let's pretend something completely incidental was planned all along! (Though naturally I don't expect such a thing from you springs )

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I'm totally fine with having B-stories and character arcs span several novels in a series. But be careful. Write that first book as well, and as complete as you can. Anything you want to say with those characters, in that world, get it said in that first book. There's no guarantee it will sell itself, much less spawn a series.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

A concensus, yay! It is referred to by the mc at the end of the book as something that needs resolved, so it stays active i think.

 

[hopewrites]

I would also venture to add that, as a reader, unresolved secondary or tertiary characters increase the "replay" value, as its called in video games. You know what I mean? Everything in the story is complete and satisfactory, but I just have to trawl it over and over catching the nuances and between Tue lines character and story development, getting to know the sub-characters.

The stories that spread from word of mouth wild fire.

 

[Brian G Turner]

"Save the Cat" makes the interesting point that the difference between a protagonist and an antagonist, is that during the telling of a story, the protagonist changes and grows, whereas the antagonist remains unchanged.

There's no need to resolve every developmental arc, as it's a given that in a series this offers the chance for various changes. However, as The Judge mentions, the protagonist should really be affected by the changes in the story of a first novel in a series, to such a degree that emotional development can take place, along with a degree of apparent conflict resolution (though in a series the conflict that affects a character at the start of each book may be different).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Book one is brought in a complete arc, and is finished. (I hope... please, please let it be finished), but the events in book one are shaping book two, and one of the character arcs from the fall out are not known by anyone other than one pov character. At the very end, it is sussed by the main pov character, which is when it spills into book three. So, I think looking at this, it sounds okay, provided I make it clear I have a handle on it.

 

[Mouse]

I'm with everyone else. I'm fine with unresolved stuff (I'm fine with unresolved stuff even in standalones!). But I'm trying to work out which character you're referring to and have no idea!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with those who say that there doesn't need to be a resolution -- and that's why you have a series.

If it moves the plot forward in some way, that's ideal. And I agree with Brian that protagonists should be changed by the end of the story, but I think they can still be fighting that change by the end of book one. It's when they change too suddenly and I don't see it coming at all -- and I look back and I still don't see the progression -- that it bothers me.

If you had characters doing that all of the time (and you don't), the book would feel more like soap opera than space opera.