Is it a requirement that a MC must change dramatically or even moderately in a novel?

Jack Reacher. Every one a best seller and Reacher never really changes. So no, it isn't 'necessary'. However, a story often requires change in its MCs. So yeah, the answer is a definite 'depends'.

A character doesn't need to change dramatically - simply learning to become more responsible is a very common theme.

But it's also worth noting that a lot of protagonists tend to be young adults - which means they are unlikely to be fully self-realised. That's an important point to understand because it means there's plenty of room for personal growth, not least through challenging existing ideals.

Quellist said:

Jack Reacher. Every one a best seller and Reacher never really changes.

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Some series of books are written to be standalone novels, to be read in any order, and this is especially true for many detective/thriller books. In such instances, character and plot arcs that span more than a single book can present problems for reader enjoyment.

However, in The Enemy, Lee Child took us backwards in time to when Jack Reacher was still an army MP. Although he's still hard-assed, he has real boundaries that he has to work with - something that doesn't restrict him in later books. In that regard, Reacher can look more restrained and purposefully less developed in that book than in later novels.

Additionally, if you put The Enemy, The Killing Floor, and Without Fail together, there is really interesting emotional development of Jack Reacher's character with regards to his family. In The Enemy, Jack can barely be bothered to even call back his brother. In Without Fail, he's desperate to connect with him.

Star Trek was mentioned before, and it's worth pointing out that it was a condition of the Original Series and Next Generation being commissioned that they could be viewed and enjoyed by viewers in any order. This was the norm for TV action adventures through to the 1990's - The A-Team, Airwolf, Knight Rider, etc, etc.

It was Babylon 5 that really challenged this with its developing backstory and characters, and showed that this format could work successfully on TV - something that has now become the norm. Perhaps we should thank Babylon 5 that Agents of Shield didn't became just another The A-Team.

So, overall, character development isn't always necessary or even constructive - if you're writing standalone novels where it could be a problem. But there's room for a degree of development with any story, and there's an argument that readers may become far more engaged by characters that do show any convincing degree of change.

2c.

Toby Frost said:

I'd accept that drastic changes can happen to people, although I've seen very few, and the ones that I have seen have generally been religious or of that sort of politics that closely resembles religion.

Click to expand...

But in fiction -- particularly SFF -- characters often go through such drastic experiences, find themselves working through such drastic circumstances (far beyond what most of the people you and I might know would experience). If they come from fairly settled circumstances before that, would it make sense that their conceptions about the world and their place in it didn't change drastically? Of course it wouldn't be sudden, but it would add up bit by bit until perhaps there was a tipping point. To others it would seem abrupt, but the process would really be gradual.

Depends on the genre. Most modern fiction is character-driven, and character-driven novels pretty much need a character arc. Plot-driven (Flashman) or setting-driven (The Dying Earth) stories don't necessarily need a a character arc. Allegorical stories (Watership Down) don't need one either. Sometimes, drama comes from the revelation of character, rather than change in character (Drood) In some stories the protagonist is weak or passive, and mostly watches other characters struggle and develop (I, Claudius). And others take place in such a compressed period of time that there's no scope for character change (The Killer Angels).

I could agree that you could have both a character that changes and one that doesn't; but in the long run it remains more complex than that.

What I mean by that is that if you have a character that never changes then his actions become predictable; and though it might seem like a comfort to some readers, it comes close to violating something vital to the story. Your character should have agency and by that we mean a free will to make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad and though your character will appear to have choices, if you have them become static then their choices are already made for them: which makes for a rather bland character.

So then you will need to focus on the negative impact (consequences) of some of those decisions so that the reader once again gets the impact of how these decision are not so cut and dry and that the character has to weigh the disadvantages against his insistence to not change. And there has to be some balancing act to keep pulling him in the other direction and some reason or purpose behind his insistence to continue to do the same thing each time expecting different or better results. Or at least some demonstration at some point as to how much worse things could go if he changed his usual response. Because those are the things that make the story work if you have a character that doesn't change at all for the better or worse to any appreciable or visible effect.

I just personally have a hard time picturing a character that isn't somehow affected by their decisions and choices and the consequences to a point where they wouldn't consider changing or growing in some direction. Things happen and things change us on a daily basis. And if that's not what the story is about; then what is the story about?

Sure you can have a plot that is not centralized on the character, but if your character is going to be predictable throughout and probably always come out on top, then the plot better be a killer plot.

Ronald T. said:

Is it a requiement that a MC must change dramatically or even moderately in a novel?

I would like some input on this issue if you're willing to share your thoughts.

I've noticed that some people feel very strongly that a MC should have an altered outlook on life by the end of a story. In some cases that is probably what a reader is looking for. But to my mind, that is only true in certain types of stories. For the most part, I disagree with that sentiment.

Let me explain.

I read a book, or a book series, because I enjoy the MC and the various supporting characters. I have no desire for them to be someone different by the end of the story. Too often, when that happens, I'm not all that impressed with who they've become.

Just think about your favourite TV shows and movies. At the end of the episode or movie, don't you almost always find that the MCs are the same people they were when the story began. They usually have more information and a stronger experience base, but they're still the same person they always were. They don't vary from who they were, and that's because most people read about those characters, or continue to watch certain TV shows or movies because they like the MCs just as they are.

A handful of times, the writers of a TV show I enjoyed decided to be clever and change the MC dramatically. And in those few examples, I lost interest and stopped watching the show. It was no longer the show I found entertaining at the beginning.

Perhaps I'm a bit of an anomaly, but I want my MCs to be true to their nature. In other words, I have no desire to see a major character-arc shift in the MCs. Too often, it has the potential to ruin things for me.

But what do I know? I'm just a hermit in the woods.

As always, my best to you all.

-Ron-

Click to expand...

Think about this. If they don't change, then what was the journey worth? Life is change and life is struggle.

Novels, plays, and movies are always about the same thing, regardless of their plot or content — the human condition.

The human condition is a dynamic affair and there must be a transition from one state to the next or it is meaningless.

However, maybe you should reexamine the meaning of your favorite movies, shows, and books. In the end it wasn't really about the main character's changes, but how it changed you!

tinkerdan said:

What I mean by that is that if you have a character that never changes then his actions become predictable; and though it might seem like a comfort to some readers, it comes close to violating something vital to the story. Your character should have agency and by that we mean a free will to make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad and though your character will appear to have choices, if you have them become static then their choices are already made for them: which makes for a rather bland character.

Click to expand...

A lot of comedy -- particularly situation comedy on the TV -- depends on characters not changing; many also depend on the main characters' lack of agency, for if one or more of them had agency, the situation would crumble away.

This can be done well, giving a bitter-sweet feel (or even a harder edge) because we can see that the characters are trapped in their situation, with relief only arriving with little victories** for one or other character. It can be done badly: where even I have, just before turning the programme off, shouted, "All you had to do was X*** and your problem would go away."


** - The UK comedy, Steptoe and Son, about a father and son who run a scrap dealership, was a masterclass in this: neither could escape the other or their situation, yet either father or son might get one over the other in any given week, or both might overcome that week's particular problem. (Oh, and it was well written and very funny, which helped.)

*** - I recall (the first few shows of) a UK radio programme where the situation was that a woman who worked from home -- at least I think she did -- kept being interrupted by callers at the door. Now if she had secretly wanted to be interrupted, it might have worked, but she didn't. Why can't you just ignore the caller once in a while? I thought. If you went out to work, no-one would be there to open the bl**dy door. But no. So I engaged my agency and stopped listening.

The question of how much character development you need depends entirely on the type of story you are trying to tell.

Any character-centered story needs character development. That's sort of the whole point of a character-driven story. In a Campbellian "Hero's Journey", the hero must be changed by his experience. The coming-of-age story requires the adolescent/young adult to be changed by his/her own adulthood.

On the other hand, there are plenty of non-character-driven stories out there. Plot-driven stories ("Sherlock Holmes", "Jurassic Park") use relatively predictable characters almost like chess pieces in a plotline. Extensive character development is often undesirable in a plot-driven tale, because the plot has to keep moving to maintain the reader's interest. Having a protagonist navel-gaze and question themselves could just bog the plot down.

Millieu-driven stories can go either way. Old-school High Fantasy allows a few characters (say, Frodo) to develop and mature while keeping most characters entirely archetypal (Aragorn, Gandalf, Sauron). New-school High Fantasy often spends much more time on character development (Jamie Lannister always pays his debts). Millieu-driven sci-fi tends to be much less character-focused, possibly because so many characters end up being tools of an Ancient Cosmic Evil, Ancient Cosmic Guardian, or other universe-spanning superintelligence.

I want to thank you all for your well thought-out responses. I appreciate them very much.

However, I may not have made my point clear at the beginning. What I mean by 'change' refers to a change in their basic nature -- that part of them that makes them who they truly are.

Anyone can change how they react to most stimuli, or modify it to fit gracefully into societies 'so-called' normal behavior. In fact, to get along in life, it's almost a necessity. But those are superficial changes made in order to reduce emotional strife and physical confrontation. That sort of change should never be confused with changing one's fundamental nature.

Basically, I have to disagree with those of you who believe MCs always 'have to change'. In certain types of stories I would agree with you. But I think there are so many stories in which that's not the case at all. If the reader is getting bored with a MCs repetition of certain actions in his/her life, it's because the writer somehow failed to keep the action entertaining.

There are numerous stories on TV and in movies, where the MC is almost, if not exactly, the same at the end as they were in the beginning. Here are just a few examples of such stories and their MCs: Sherlock Holmes; Hercule Poirot; Adam Dalgliesh; Miss Marple... I could go on for ever in this genre. So let's consider tough-guy stories: Liam Neeson in the TAKEN series; Vin Diesel in the RIDDICK series; Uma Thurman in the KILL BILL series; Denzel Washington in THE EQUALIZER; Timothy Oliphant in HITMAN; Keanu Reeves in JOHN WICK... I could go on and on with this genre as well. None of these characters change in any noticeable way. They experience various adventures, they learn certain new information, but their basic nature doesn't change. Does that make these characters boring? I think not. They are who they are, beginning and end. And the same can be said of almost all TV dramas and comedies. The audience keeps coming back time and again, even though the MCs are exactly the same at the beginning of each new show. Why? Because people want their MCs to be who they expect them to be .

And I definitely don't believe most people change very much in real life. I'm 67 years old, and because of an unsettled childhood, I have always been a 'people watcher', an observer of human behavior, because not being that sort of person could've cost me dearly. And I can say, with very few exceptions, people don't change their basic nature.

Sure, they can change how they respond to a particular situation but, deep down, they are still the same person they always were. I know we all would like to think we change fundamentally as the years go by, and hopefully, we strive to do so in a good way. But I believe that what we see as fundamental change is nothing more than a superficial shift in how we avoid conflict.

Who we are fundamentally, what our basic natures are, is merely a function of DNA. It is an unchangeable aspect of that double helix which was installed in our genetic structural make-up from the moment of inception. We can change how we act, but we can't change who we are. That's what I mean by changing our basic nature. We are who we are, and that's what makes us unique; that's what makes us interesting. If we strive to take away that tendency to remain our quintessential selves, then we're betraying who we were meant to be. That goes for real life people, as well as for the characters in our written stories.

That's just my personal belief. And although I know it sounds crazy...it's possible I could be way off the mark. In fact, I think I can remember that I was wrong once -- but that was a long time ago. So this post is merely a product of my own DNA structure, mutated though it might be.

But what do I know? I'm just a hermit in the woods.

As always, my best to all of you.

-Ron-

Ronald T. said:

I could go on and on with this genre as well

Click to expand...

I already mentioned that the MC not changing is ordinary within the detective/thriller genre, so that they can be sold as standalones.

Outside of that genre, protagonist development is far more common.

It doesn't have to be a big change, but some kind of learning or improved understanding is commonly used.

And this tends to become the norm even in thriller cross-overs where there is a story arc over multiple books.

As always, it's simply a case of understanding your genre. And where possible, look to novels for guidance on structuring novels.

Well, have you not changed through the years?

Have returning soldiers not been changed?

Have you changed after being tested by some trial?

Everyone changes. It's what happens through life. Change isn't constant. It happens in increments and spurts. Some changes are small, some instrumental to your being.

Events change your perspective on life and as such will impact your core principles. It's, in part, called wisdom.

What do you think readers want to see after they read the last page?

Ronald T. said:

I can say, with very few exceptions, people don't change their basic nature

Click to expand...

I agree, but I would add the caveat “Except in novels”. Novels aren’t realistic depictions of human life, even the ones that purport to be, because human life is generally quite dull and does fit into an interesting shape for a story. Novels are really a caricatured, squashed-up version of real life. People want to read about certain sequences of events and certain emotions, it seems. This, I suppose, is why romance readers like to read about people who hate each other on first sight and then end up together, which rings completely untrue.

I think there is a sort of person – perhaps a rather empty one – who will always be having massive changes of belief, moving from one religious or political creed to another. In times of upheaval, they probably become quite common. But I think this requires a certain mentality, different from the believer who remains faithful to their beliefs (and isn’t “always changing” a bit like “staying the same”?). And they are comparatively rare and probably don’t make for great heroes. Also, consider the number of things that have happened to, say, Captain Picard over the course of Star Trek. He should be a psychological wreck by now. The writers are entitled to tone this down to keep the story going, and also to say “Well, it’s not that kind of story”, just as the writers of detective stories and action films do. The level of reality required in those sorts of stories is different to that in others.

Which isn’t to say that I think you’re wrong. I think we are confusing the change that comes with gradual experience (very common) with the change that comes from drastic change of direction (rare).

Toby Frost said:

I think we are confusing the change that comes with gradual experience (very common) with the change that comes from drastic change of direction (rare).

Click to expand...

This.

And in many works of fiction, the gradual experience is condensed (in reading/watching time) -- either by putting the characters through something traumatic or because the narrative covers a long period of time -- so that the gradual type of change is (or appears to be) accelerated; but that still doesn't mean that it isn't the gradual type of change.

Toby Frost said:

I think we are confusing the change that comes with gradual experience (very common) with the change that comes from drastic change of direction (rare).

Click to expand...

I find it strange that the latter would be presumed to be implied in terms of technical writing.

I think it's generally implied that change means to grow and develop - become more self-realised as a character - as a norm.

My thanks to you all for your thoughts on this subject. It's always interesting to hear your various opinions about certain issues. As it was intended, it creates food for thought -- for me and, hopefully, for all of you.

And by the way...I apologize for the use of 'inception' when I meant 'conception'. Sometimes my thinking gets ahead of my typing and I fail to notice the mistake. I promise -- I do know the difference. I simply suffered a brain-fart and failed to clear the tainted air before hitting 'post reply'. Unfortunately, it's happened before and is likely to happen again. When it does, I hope you can be sympathetic. It is a problem almost all writers must deal with. However, it's still a bit embarrassing when it happens.

As always, my best to all of you, And I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season.

From the hermit in the woods.

--Ron--

Don't worry. I've just realised that I wrote "does fit" in my last post when I meant "doesn't fit", so you're not alone!

To me I think it depends on the the story and character themselves. there are a lot of variables I think, like character's age and what they are going through in order to finish the book. An easy example is the Hobbit, Bilbo was completely out of his comfort range, having to survive situations he never thought he would have to. Thus causing him to change completely, but if it's a character that has had this type of adventure before than the idea of changing the mc in a dramatic way wouldn't make a lot of chance. Take The Dresden files for example throughout what I've read he been stubborn and bullheaded throughout. There have been some minor changes but all in all he has been the same character. It all depends on what you want.

Brian Turner said:

I already mentioned that the MC not changing is ordinary within the detective/thriller genre, so that they can be sold as standalones.

Outside of that genre, protagonist development is far more common.

It doesn't have to be a big change, but some kind of learning or improved understanding is commonly used.

And this tends to become the norm even in thriller cross-overs where there is a story arc over multiple books.

As always, it's simply a case of understanding your genre. And where possible, look to novels for guidance on structuring novels.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what Brian said. As the author you are totally in control of what "change" your MC can undergo. It could be subtle like gaining an understanding or insight into something, learning something new, going on the hero's journey and returning home, etc.

Ronald T. said:

Is it a requirement that a MC must change dramatically or even moderately in a novel?

Click to expand...

It's not a requirement, and it depends what your MC's role is in the universe that you're building.

Station 11 had an MC who basically never changed, and that book won the Arthur C Clarke award for 2015. The characters who did change the most (the Prophet especially) weren't the focus of the story.

With the exception of Elijah Bailey, I don't really think of Asimov's characters as changing much over the course of their stories. On the other extreme you have Paul Atriedes in the original Dune trilogy. He evolves from a neophyte politician to a war leader, then prophet/emporer and eventually pariah.

So, what kind of stories do you want to write? What is your MCs journey and role? The stories that I want to write are about MCs overcoming problems. My current work in progress, the captain gets separated from the ship and goes on his own life-changing journey. But while he's gone, the second in command must learn to be a leader, and when they're reunited, they conflict because of the changes each has experienced.

Ronald T. said:

Just think about your favourite TV shows and movies. At the end of the episode or movie, don't you almost always find that the MCs are the same people they were when the story began?

Click to expand...

That's been a constant knock against episodic SciFi TV shows like Star Trek (TOS much more so than later ones). The characters rarely grew. But this was because the networks wanted a show that the audience could join at any episode and not be lost, for syndication purposes. Later, non-network stories like Battlestar Galactica are remembered for just how much they continually changed the status quo. In many of my favourite TV shows - like Galactica, The Wire, and Rome - the MCs must adapt to life altering experiences, and grow because of that (or fail, and pay the price).

So, no, it's not a requirement, it's a storyteller's choice.