 |
| According to Jack Miles, even He changes. |
To me, it depends greatly on the kind of character, circumstance and length of the novel. Flowers for Algernon without character development is a ridiculous idea. He has to change - the development is the plot, the gimmick, the engine for social criticism and introspection, and for the experiment of the prose. Its fame is largely from readers having strong reactions to the character development, and whether they prefer his rise or fall in intellect, or hopefully, having deeper reactions than just "liking" it.
That extreme example points us toward how good change typically works: being appropriate to the personality and circumstance. I don't want Bilbo Baggins giving into blood lust and singing war songs. He adapts to his circumstances, is forced to assert himself more, grows confident and capable, but is still timid, anxious, and by the end of the The Hobbit, is actually opposed to the greed that stirred him in the beginning. He is a better person for going through this arc, and the novel far much richer for it. If he became a ranty pacifist, it would have gone too far in that direction. If he became just another warrior Thorin could rely on, it would have gone in a less imaginative and compassionate direction and damaged the book. Bilbo goes through changes that we buy and that help the book.
Brad wondered if audiences didn't only like certain kinds of change, specifically positive change. Certainly Bilbo changes towards the heroic or the moral. Yet audiences love Batman and Breaking Bad, which are respectively about an innocent boy becoming destructively consumed with revenge, and a cancer patient becoming a meth tyrant. A frightening number of Breaking Bad fans are still rooting for Walter White in the final season, more attached to him than ever. My brother is one of them.
While I want Walter to fall from disgrace, his development has been superb and worthy of the attention its gotten. Breaking Bad is originally about Walter White's transformations, and the stages of his character are earned. That's what I want. Gandalf can be the same guy all the time for his role and his personality traits, and I won't mind. Lupin the 3rd can always be that lecherous thief. But an affecting novel usually puts its characters through some sort of development, or at least reveals more of who and how they are over time. The notion of readers being opposed to character development scares me more than any change itself.
Character development (or its absence) is hugely important to me. The changes don't have to be positive, but they do have to be consistent. And a book without any development is two dimensional and doesn't hold me. I may still read it, but I won't reread it, and when it is shut it is gone...
ReplyDeleteI'm also open to negative changes. It can be too much, depending upon the narrative, but doesn't everything seem to depend on everything else?
DeleteI think character development is essential and my my own books reflect that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Walter is concerned, while I've been fascinated with the series, I am hoping he gets his in the end. His death will be the only really satisfactory ending for me.
The older I get, the more of an outlier I think I become on killing characters. My profound hope is that he falls, loses, but rather than dying, has to live with failure, perhaps in a solitary confinement for the rest of his life. He's become so despicable and mendacious that I want him to live and think on the failure his path took him to.
DeleteI think it depends on the character and their role in the story. In essence I agree with you and the example you gave. Bilbo has is changed by events and I as reader need to see and believe in that change. Gandalf on the other hand fulfils a different role and can remain the same. In fact most mentor/master characters don't change in fantasy stories.
ReplyDeleteFramed that way, I'm trying to think of mentor characters who really develop. Arguably Gandalf has two phases (Grey and then White), but it's a rebirth more than character development. Can you think of any mentors or such figures who grow with their heroes? Perhaps Alfred in some version of the Batman mythos?
DeleteI'm glad you mentioned character revelation in the last paragraph. A favourite novel of mine is Mrs. Dalloway, who doesn't so much develop as reveal that she is not just the two-dimensional matron people might see upon meeting her.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think there are times when character development isn't welcome, at least for some characters. Characters like the Helper, the Demi-God (you mentioned Gandalf), or even the Lover often don't have much or any of a character arc, and no-one seems to mind so long as the plot is sufficiently engaging and their attention is sufficiently directed at the Hero (or Band of Heros).
At first I thought you were talking about Helper from Venture Bros, for whom even cosmetic changes made me unhappy. That'd be a sign. Perhaps more of an arc for The Lover would be a good angle to write fresh fiction (500 Days of Summer? I don't know...).
DeleteThis is exactly the way I see it Katherine, (not so much change as revelation).
DeleteThis is a terrific conversation you started John. Before reading the replies I was ready to spout the ridiculousness of anyone thinking there's an actual story there without there being character development, but after reading the examples of those we "need" to remain the same, (such as Batman), I can better understand why a reader would think that way.
Obviously there are good reasons for both sides. But I will always rather read a character who changes throughout the story because we all do and that makes [the story] more realistic to me, an absolute must to be considered any good at all.
I'm about to begin rewriting the third Accidental Sorcerers story, because I realized a couple weeks ago that there's no direction in the character development. One crit reader did say that Sura stayed true to who she is, which was encouraging. But what has she (and Mik and Bailar) learned from their experience?
ReplyDeleteSo in my mind, yes it's important. Enough that I'm doing the work.
Character development can be subtle, or obvious, but can a genuine person emerge unchanged from a great conflict?
If someone could come up with a story about a character central to a huge conflict and coming out unchanged that was still interesting, I'd like to read it. That seems like a great challenge. The only examples I can think of are accidents or the products of obviously deficient character-plotting.
DeleteVery good piece, here, John.
ReplyDeleteCharacter development, the progression of character at least, is the third most important thing to me after interesting characters and intriguing story/idea, but it tends to depend on the format in my opinion.
For instance, character development is hard to get in comics, your example of Batman for instance. When you have characters whose tale goes on for the lion's share of a century, it's no easy task as a reader, much less as a writer I'd imagine, to accept changes to a beloved character that don't mesh with your paradigm OF that character. Batman DOES NOT have a kid, he is ONLY Bruce Wayne, Ben Affleck is neither Batman OR Bruce Wayne, etc. (Not that it really matters a whole lot with comics, with all the retconning every few years anyway, but I digress...)
With television, again, for me at any rate, I think it's easier to watch characters grow, but it has to be consistent growth. It's never fun to watch a character develop for three or four episodes only to have it all disappear in one episode because the writers wanted to tell a particular story. I haven't seen Breaking Bad (yet) but I hear great things on the development front. (Or the fall, I guess) With the trend to have a finite story to tell, though, again, I think it's easier to progress a character.
Oh, wow. This is a really long reply I've got going here, and I'm not even sure I'm speaking to topic anymore.
Sorry!
I guess what I'm getting at is that yes, I think a lot of readers/viewers need the characters to grow, but they only seem happy when those characters go in the direction that they want to see.
Very thoughtful comments, Aaron. Thank you. They're a pleasure to read.
DeleteI cited the "Batman mythos" because there are so many takes on the character. I'd argue that Jeph Loeb's Batman does develop across Long Halloween and Dark Victory - 24 issues of comics by one author with distinct goals in mind, and a great artist to support him. Though I can't actually argue that Alfred develops in that run. However, overall, you're right that Batman tends not to develop too much, or tends to have his developments retconned.
Television has become a safer place for character development since syndication ceased to be the only model. We couldn't have Lost, The Wire, The Newsroom, The Killing and Breaking Bad before the DVD box set and streaming markets took over. I'm a big fan of this change.
The extended fantasy series seems to do interesting things to character development. Quite often, the default setting seems to be to bring the main character back to more or less the same place again at the end, or at least by the beginning of the next one.
ReplyDeleteI think as long as the character stays true to who they are, as long as the fundamentals don't change, development is good, otherwise I have to agree with Rothfuss. If I love someone- why would I want them to change?
ReplyDeleteLove your Bilbo analogies :)
ReplyDeleteI tend to be the opposite of this... it's when characters don't change and grow that I get annoyed and walk away. I hate that television has programmed us to believe that a character changing would be the worst thing ever. It's hard to do, and therefore has to be done exactly right... but I think the shows that have allowed their characters to grow and change are the ones that end up working the best.