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

[Ronald T.]

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-

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think they can be true to their nature but still change, if that makes sense. A change doesn't have to be radical, it can be a strengthening of beliefs, or an understanding that matures them. I'd hate to see someone who changed so utterly they were a different character. But, frankly, I'm not the same person I was a year ago and it hasn't been that traumatic a year, compared to what most MCs face.

 

[ratsy]

I think they do need to have some sort of change, whether its just something as simple as an outlook change. We need a dynamic character rather than a static, unchanging one.

My book's MC is an accountant thrust into having to save the world, so while staying true to himself, he will go through some serious changes as he learns what he is actually capable of doing when forced.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Haven't we already had this discussion lately? Does anyone know where the other thread is so that we can link to it? Those who haven't seen it and are interested in the conversation here would probably be interested in also reading the opinions expressed there.

 

[SilentRoamer]

There are the books where the unchanging nature of the MC is part of the draw - that's worth thinking about.

Gemmells Legend is a good example. Druss is always an awesome badass who would die for innocents. His core self never really changes despite all of the difficulties he faces - which is part of his allure.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

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.

Totally depends on genre, kind of story, character, etc (Teen vs mature Adult).
What ever works for your story.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

There are the books where the unchanging nature of the MC is part of the draw - that's worth thinking about.

Gemmells Legend is a good example. Druss is always an awesome badass who would die for innocents. His core self never really changes despite all of the difficulties he faces - which is part of his allure.

Ummm...

Spoiler: Spoiler

He does kind of change through the book, doesn't he? I mean, he's not the same at the end as he is at the beginning.

 

[Brian G Turner]

@Ronald T. - it's more ideal in a genre story to have a protagonist who wants something, overcomes adversary to get it, and be somehow changed in the process.

Serial novels and TV series don't tend to apply it so much - unless they have a developing story arc in the background, in which case, many characters can undergo some sort of change as that backstory progresses.

Gemmells Legend is a good example. Druss is always an awesome badass who would die for innocents. His core self never really changes despite all of the difficulties he faces - which is part of his allure.

This is actually a good example of change - Legend is the story of Rek, a young man who at the start avoids responsibility, but by the end of the novel is willing to sacrifice his life for others. Druss is only a supporting character in that novel, and so is not expected to change.

 

[Kylara]

I find the ones I like the most are when characters may not necessarily change, but smaller parts of themselves become more pronounced - for eg due to trials and tribulations, they are more willing to stand up for others/less likely to get in a fight/think more/show a little wisdom/etc etc. They haven't necessarily changed, just that aspects of their character you can see at the beginning of the novel/series/etc become much more pronounced. I would offer Garion of the Belgariad series as an example of this. He is the same at the end as he was at the beginning, but he is more. He is more thoughtful, more caring, less impulsive, more in tune with himself - no big dramatic change, just more happy with himself and who he is.

 

[Tim Murray]

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-

The MC can stay the same inside while having to perform actions that's contrary to their nature, due to circumstances. Their basic personalities stay the same with growth of the soul inside, positive or negative. Having a MC perform actions opposite to their beliefs because of outside influences creates interesting story lines and tensions.

 

[Toby Frost]

I too am fond of the "more developed but not fundamentally different" approach. I would be suspicious of a character who ended up saying "No, I've got it all wrong" and immediately took an opposite view, unless it was clear that the author was trying to make a point about such drastic conversions. On the other hand, I find the deliberately cynical "Nobody truly changes" message of some darker novels both cynical and literally false.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I too am fond of the "more developed but not fundamentally different" approach ... On the other hand, I find the deliberately cynical "Nobody truly changes" message of some darker novels both cynical and literally false.

I totally agree with both of these statements.

I would be suspicious of a character who ended up saying "No, I've got it all wrong" and immediately took an opposite view, unless it was clear that the author was trying to make a point about such drastic conversions.

But I don't feel the same about this. Drastic conversions do take place in real life and I don't see why including one should make any sort of point about such reversals, if the character has seen enough and experienced enough throughout the book that he would have to be stupid not to completely change his views. A person who hasn't seen much of the world can be quite ignorant without being in the least stupid, so opinions that were formed in ignorance might radically change simply by seeing more of the world. It would have to be handled in a way that was believable, though. If it seemed like the author had an axe to grind and had been too obviously manipulating characters and events to bring that character to that point, then it would feel cheap and disappointing. And it would be fun, for a change, to see this kind of growth from ignorance to knowledge in an older character instead of a young one.

 

[SilentRoamer]

@Ronald T.
This is actually a good example of change - Legend is the story of Rek, a young man who at the start avoids responsibility, but by the end of the novel is willing to sacrifice his life for others. Druss is only a supporting character in that novel, and so is not expected to change.

Yes of course you are right, I'm not thinking of Legend, I'm thinking of Druss: The First Chronicles. Where you see his iron code of morals at the start that drag him into the epic journey he goes through. Whatever adversity he just kept going and that was the core of the story for me, Druss' iron will.

Just got my Gemmell novels mixed up. I have read them all though Maybe it's been too long...

 

[hopewrites]

There are many different 'typical' changes a character can go thorough.
Comming of Age changes where the characters dependence on others is altered.
Scrooge/Grinch changes where the character realizes that they'd been focusing on the 'wrong' aspect of life and alter their outlook.
Diamond in the Rough changes where the character is polished and presented as the wonderful person they always were for less discerning eyes to perceive and properly admire.

The thing I find fascinating about characters who dont change is whether or not they become anachronisms in their lifetime. If not, what kind of stasis bubble are they existing in? If so, how do they, and those around them, deal with that?

 

[Jeremy M. Gottwig]

I think that main characters need some sort of arc. These are generally processes that bring about some sort of change, but transformations can come in different forms.

In writing, I think that compelling characters often go through natural changes (with relatively little work on my part). A character that doesn't arc is sometimes a sign of a wooden character.

In TV, I think that arcs tend to have distinct milestones. You may notice very little change until something major happens (often related to a pivotal episode or season finale). Then the next season comes around, and the arc is often forgotten until another pivotal episode. Stargate SG-1 (an excellent show, by the way) is a good example of this phenomenon in action.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Characters who don't change can become too predictable, too predictable can become boring -- as Jeremy says, wooden. This is true of the bad guys and of the good guys. If you always know what they are going to do because they are incapable of even the smallest change, then reading about them becomes an exercise in boredom.

But if their personality itself is of someone unpredictable, impulsive, sly, cunning, adaptable, then you will never know what to expect of them next. Although even that can become tiresome after a while. Anything can become too much after a while.

So for a single novel, or a short series of medium-sized books, then it might not matter so much. It always depends on the specific character and the specific book, of course. If it is a long series of doorstop books, then a character who doesn't change can become either a bore or a bit of a joke. Or both.

 

[Dave]

Doesn't the Hero's Journey kind of story invite some kind of change within the journey (which is usually a personal journey as well as a geographical one?)

It must also depend upon the length of the novel/Saga?

What I mean is that everyone in life starts out as an idealistic, naive, excited, banner-waving, change-the-world, young man, and then slowly becomes more of a realist, until he ends up reflecting upon a life in which little has really changed in the world, and questioning the meaning of his brief and seemingly insignificant existence*. You can see this when reading diaries that have been kept for any length of time.**

*Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man soliloquy, Queen's We Will Rock You, Cat Stevens's Father to Son
**I've been reading John Evelyn's diaries. (Going to the Samuel Pepys' exhibition today.)

Sometimes I wouldn't want my characters to change though. What would Flashman or Lovejoy be like if they grew likable?

 

[Toby Frost]

Drastic conversions do take place in real life and I don't see why including one should make any sort of point about such reversals, if the character has seen enough and experienced enough throughout the book that he would have to be stupid not to completely change his views.

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. (I'm not counting the "I'm sorry I thought you were a traitor but I was wrong" type of changes where a mistake is corrected). Most of the changes I've seen in people have been rather gradual and grudging. The only point I'd make is that I'd steer clear of them in novels unless the novel was substantially about that change and its effects: a big change would be such a massive upheaval that you'd need a lot of "space" to discuss it without seeming to brush it off.

 

[Ursa major]

Drastic conversions do take place in real life

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'd just like to point out that we've seen, just recently (and for quite a few years previously), how literally true this can be. And not necessarily because those involved have matured and become less ignorant.

For example, some of those who've adopted a very rigid view on "morality" (albeit a "morality" that many would refuse to see as any sort of morality at all) and how it should be applied -- suicide bombers/killers (and those whose attempts were thwarted) -- used to be petty criminals. I suppose something at their core may not have changed -- they might already have been sociopaths concerned only with themselves -- but it's hard to believe that they haven't changed a great deal.

To be fair, these are at the extreme end of people changing, and I have mixed views on characters being modified, simply because: 1) some people seem immutable; 2) having everyone alter in a "that's what they all do" is as unbelievable as having no-one change much at all. Characters should be as varied as real people (although I accept that fiction doesn't have to -- and probably shouldn't -- mirror real life too closely if it's to maintain the readers' interest).

 

[Stephen Palmer]

It depends what level of characterisation your novel needs. Some novels need more, some less. If your is the sort that needs more, it is usually better for them to follow an arc. But some novels don't need that sort of development.