The kids were watching Scooby Doo the other day while I was working on our sump pump, and I could hear them laughing upstairs whenever I paused and dried my arms off. Perhaps working in a well filled with near freezing water was an odd time to be pondering writing, but inspiration seldom comes on command. Of course, ol' Scoob had something to do with my thoughts.
For a cartoon franchise that originated in the late 60's like Scooby Doo, the concept of characters evolving over time was completely alien. In fact, I could argue that the earliest Scooby Doo episodes were the best, as the writers were still figuring the characters out. I read somewhere that the series as originally conceived was meant to be a serious show, but the producers converted the cartoon into a comedy. After having seen the two seasons of Scooby Doo, Where Are You? I can see where the writers had some issues with that change; the result, however, was some good writing for a Saturday morning cartoon.
Later incarnations of the Mystery Inc. gang caused the characters to regress; you rarely -if ever- saw them break out of the stereotypical mold: The Brainy One (Velma), The Golden Boy (Fred), The Damsel in Distress (Daphne), and The Scaredy Cat and the Comic Relief (Shaggy and Scooby taking both roles). You never saw development of the characters over the long run of cartoons.
Maybe that's asking a bit much of a cartoon -particularly one with a talking dog- but compared to many of the other Hanna-Barbera cartoons of that era, Scooby was actually pretty brainy. (Funky Phantom, anyone?) Why they couldn't have taken that last step and allowed the characters to evolve over time I have no idea.
Switching from celluloid to the page, how does one create change in a character? How much is too much too fast? When do you expect a character to not change? If you pick up a novel and start reading, do you expect some character growth between the first and last page? Why or why not?
I've read some works where -even after five full novels- the characters don't grow or change at all. Or maybe the main characters do, but everyone else remains exactly the same. On the flip side, I've read novels that have the main character changing so much that you wonder if it would have been easier for the author to spread things out a bit.
Which is realistic? Or maybe a better question should be "which makes sense?"
Take falling in love, for example. My own experience was that it happened gradually. Sure, I had a crush or two along the way, but when I finally did fall in love, it was a process over weeks to months. For other people such a process may take years, and still others mere hours or days. (I did see the latter happen, so yes, it does exist.) If you ask which process is realistic, well, all of them are. However, are we now conditioned to expect the "over months" method, and anything else seems contrived?
Another example I can think of is the impact of violence on a character. Real people react differently to a violent act on their person or someone close to them, but what are we conditioned to expect in a novel? And does it make sense when a character deviates from our expectations? And if you throw character death into the mix, all bets are off.
I suppose you could use a psychological reference for writers -I've read at least one of them- but I wonder if those books are channeling us into a certain set of expectations.
What do you think? How should characters evolve and grow in a story? Or should they?
- On Consistency
-
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7)
mtlawson- January 24th, 2010
thoughtful
2010-01-25 02:51 am (UTC)
I think the answer is, when it's right, it's right--whether a love story or a character evolution. Take the characters from Seinfeld--they don't evolve at all. They are the same self-centered, shallow characters in the last episode as they were in the first. I think it's why it works so well in reruns.
When a character evolves, he can't just change. Stuff has to change him.
2010-01-25 05:21 am (UTC)
Okay, now I know two couples who had it happen! Congrats!
Take the characters from Seinfeld--they don't evolve at all. They are the same self-centered, shallow characters in the last episode as they were in the first.
Ironically enough, that's why I hated that show. I felt like I was watching people who refused to become adults, and I see enough of that around the neighborhood without having to see it on my television. Some of the best sitcoms out there -MASH, Cheers, Friends, and All in the Family among others- had characters who evolved over time. Watching Seinfeld's characters waltz through life without any apparent impact on their psyche drove me nuts.
When a character evolves, he can't just change. Stuff has to change him.
Very true. I can't say I've read a novel wherein something doesn't happen to a character, but how that character reacts to the stuff around him is a different story.
Some novels have a character rapidly evolving; these tend to have an action packed Hollywood-esque feel to them, where the person is thrown into the fray and rises to the occasion. A movie like Enemy of the State comes to mind, with Will Smith's character thrown into the fray like he is and coming to the top.
Other novels take a more leisurely pace. Okay, in terms of the novel the change may be dramatic, but the timespan of the novel could be over many years, which is more than enough time for a character to gradually change. A good example here is The Hobbit, where the main action covers enough time for Bilbo to be declared legally dead. I deliberately avoided LOTR because it's big and sprawling enough that more than one character takes center stage, whereas The Hobbit is shorter and focuses primarily on one character.
Both approaches work, but does it make sense that Will Smith can rise to the occasion like he did -other than that he's Will Smith, of course. I guess it does if the circumstances are right, but trying to toe that line and avoiding any pitfalls that will make a reader throw up their hands and say "this is ridiculous!" is more than a bit hard.
2010-01-25 06:38 am (UTC)
I think characters should change, evolve. And given my psychological background, I can spot when things just don't jive. I know people respond differently based on their past experiences and a host of the other things. But there is a range, a "norm" if you will. I think the type of story dictates the pacing. I think with love stories, I do want to see why the people love each other. If it happens on the first date, what was so great about the other person that led you to love? Was it how they talked to the five-year-old at the next table? Was it how they addressed the server? Was it how they opened the car door? If you can show me what led to the change, I ain't buying it.
You know I finished the Percy Jackson series. My one big gripe about it was the slow growth of Percy Jackson. It was not until book four, leading into five did I feel like Percy was finally moving beyond a 12-year-old. I kept thinking, "Okay, PJ, you know you're a half-breed, when are you gonna start studying up on the gods and monsters." But then again it starts when he is 12. So from 12-14 you have those middle school years. It can be a virtual blackhole for many kids. But if you know you're being hunted my monsters? I would think you'd change your MO.
2010-01-25 12:12 pm (UTC)
There have been couples I've known that I sit there and wonder the same thing: just what is it that s/he sees in this person? Why do you stick with them when you look like you should know better?
In some ways, it's easier to identify things to dislike about a person than love about them.
Speaking of dislike, I've often wondered if the person expressing the obsessive dislike of something is often the last to know about their behavior.
2010-01-25 01:15 pm (UTC)
If this is what you mean, yes. It is easier, more agreeable, to our psyche to see the flaws in others than to address them in ourselves. But the irony is, we can do nothing about other people and their flaws. We can only change moi.
But if you meant something else, and I have gone off on some philosphical prattle, I apologize. I will answer your comment when I return from work.
2010-01-25 01:40 pm (UTC)
I agree with the Monday sentiment. Coffee is calling me right now.
I'm thinking about people who gripe about how they dislike someone, yet never notice their dislike has slipped into obsession. I've been guilty of that in the past, and it took someone telling me to cut it out for me to notice.
2010-01-26 12:49 am (UTC)
I tend to be Pollyanna about people. I find something to appreciate. And if those things are few and far between, I just let that person deal with their own crap and move on (i.e., either don't talk to them much or when I do talk to them, keep in mind their 'issues'). I think the good thing about my profession is, I learn how to not take on other people's stuff. I know my personal flaws, and I know when they rear their ugly heads. And I am fine with apologizing when they do. But I only apologize for what is mine.
2010-01-27 12:21 am (UTC)
Hmm. I was thinking about dislike up above -as far as a character does for another, anyway- and whether it makes sense that they wouldn't have a good answer for why they disliked -or loved, for that matter- another character.
2010-01-27 12:26 am (UTC)
2010-01-27 12:30 am (UTC)
2010-01-25 01:21 pm (UTC)
2010-01-25 01:40 pm (UTC)
2010-01-25 12:46 pm (UTC)
I think they should change as a result of things that happen to or around them, just as in real life.
From a story point of view, I'd go so far as to say that (for me at least) a fundamental change in one or more characters is the difference between a potentially good story and a potentially great one.
Thanks for sharing :)
2010-01-25 01:42 pm (UTC)
Can you give me an example of a fundamental change that turned a good story into a great one? I'm sure you must have something in mind...
2010-01-25 02:25 pm (UTC)
Can you name a great story in which one or more of the main characters doesn't go through a fundamental change?
2010-01-25 02:34 pm (UTC)
Hmm....
The only one that I can think of offhand might -might- be Hamlet. Hamlet himself had already decided on his course of action and was determined to follow it through to the end, so any change he had was done prior to the opening act. The only exception to the other major characters might be Ophelia, assuming that a) you count her as a major character and b) you take her descent into madness as a fundamental change.
Now that I think about it, you could argue that Hamlet's resistence to changing himself and his thirst for revenge was his downfall. And the entire point of the play.
random commenter
2010-01-25 08:23 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-25 09:00 pm (UTC)
Part of what draws me to a story these days is the development of the main characters, and the arc within an arc concept is a great descriptor for that. Now that I think about it, there are plenty of examples of the main characters growing and changing throughout the story, but no so much the villans. (Assuming you see that point of view, of course.)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-25 11:19 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 12:38 am (UTC)
SFF kind of has its own issues with characters becoming archetypes. It seems way too easy in SFF for the characters to follow the Hero's Path, and avoidance of that path can become a huge issue.
as which often happens with villians...they are simply evil..and therefore, not exactly human.
In the case of some action movies, that is often literally true as well. ;-)
Finding villans who can grow over time seems to be a hard thing to do. I can't think of that many off the top of my head, which is a shame. Perhaps they are villans because they are incapable of growing or changing.
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 07:33 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 08:21 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen a Joss show.
I've got copies of Firefly around, loaned to me by my sister-in-law's husband, but I haven't popped them into the DVD player yet.
I know all about Buffy and Angel fandom, but I've just never watched the shows. ::scratches beard:: Maybe I ought to do something about that.
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 08:35 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 10:38 pm (UTC)
I hear stories about how Joss kills off characters in his shows; is it just so that he can show that "we're being serious!" or is it done to advance the plot?
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 11:31 pm (UTC)
lol, now you have two people on you about watching Joss :0)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-27 12:12 am (UTC)
Hmmm. If Joss tends to have a decently sized body count, I wonder if he's had a huge influence on the increase in the number of deaths in SFF novels these days. When I last was reading the genre back in the early 90's, there weren't that many character deaths in the books. Nowadays...
Re: random commenter
2010-01-27 06:16 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-27 07:19 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-27 10:52 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-27 11:27 pm (UTC)
So... When is television going to go through a minimalist phase? ;-)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-25 09:02 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-25 11:09 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 12:28 am (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 07:37 pm (UTC)
Re: random commenter
2010-01-26 10:03 pm (UTC)
2010-01-25 10:56 pm (UTC)
Not to say there aren't book series like this as well. As much as I love James Bond, and I do mean the books, not just the movies, he's not much different between the different novels. He rolls in and rolls out of situations without any changes to his personality. Of course he's already completely hardened before we meet him so none of the torture makes him blink an eye nor question his motives, or question M. I love the stories, but he doesn't evolve. I'd have to run over to LeCarre for a spy who 'grows'. And the people who read LeCarre expect or the Bourne books expect something very different than when they pick up Bond.
So it really depends on what the reader is looking for when they pick up the book. The unwritten 'contract' between the writer and the reader is what decides whether the characters should or should not grow. For though I wouldn't mind reading a James Bond where he questions M, and *gasp* aligned with SMERSH if written well, many, many, MANY fans would be beyond horrified.
2010-01-25 11:05 pm (UTC)
Another series where the characters don't really change much -personality-wise, anyway- is David Eddings' The Belgariad. Sure, Garion grows up a bit, but his fundamental sense of self doesn't change and his reaction to certain events don't change either. That's not to say the series isn't an enjoyable read (when I returned to it last year in the event of Eddings' death I found the series still fun), but no sense in not calling a spade a spade.
(Oh, and the adverbs. Good Lord, I had no idea Eddings used so MANY adverbs.)
2010-01-26 09:23 pm (UTC)
"how does one create change in a character?"
I think you create change by using a cause and effect type structure. The things a character encounters and has to overcome eventually lead to the change of the character.
"How much is too much too fast?"
I think the greater the change, the slower that change has to develop. I think people have a slow tendency to change. It takes a lot of energy to break a habit.
We build habits and forms of acting that we do without thought. These actions are built up over years and years and become very difficult to break.
The first part of the process is realizing that you need to change. The second part is making the change. Both can take a while to figure out.
"When do you expect a character to not change? If you pick up a novel and start reading, do you expect some character growth between the first and last page? Why or why not?"
I think it's based on the story. Some type of fiction is character centered ( I expect change ) other types of stories are plot centered ( I don't necessarily expect change ).
For instance, Sherlock Holmes. How much did he change over the course of his stories.
2010-01-26 10:36 pm (UTC)
Hmm... You've got me thinking here about the energy needed to break the habit. Could the energy needed come from a particularly traumatic event in the character's life? If you've spent 20-30-40 years doing one thing, and there's a huge devastating event, could that event all on it's own provoke an involuntary change?
I think it's based on the story. Some type of fiction is character centered ( I expect change ) other types of stories are plot centered ( I don't necessarily expect change ).
For instance, Sherlock Holmes. How much did he change over the course of his stories.
You have a good example with Sherlock; I think he did change just a little over the course of the short stories, but it was more him kicking the cocaine habit than any other changes to his personality.
2010-01-27 06:17 pm (UTC)
I think so. Sometimes tragic events can trigger instantaneous change if it is painful enough. The event would have to cause an immediate shift in the persons mentality.
However, I think instantaneous change is less common. Most people are not disciplined enough to do it ( conciously ).
I wonder what you think of her suggestion that all of the potential changes that could have happened to Bond occurred before we see him first walk onto the stage.
That is probably true. It's kind of like watching children age. The jump from child to adult takes years, but the changes that occur along the way are very easy to notice, at least the physical ones. Yet, there are just as significant mental ones that occur.
So if someone who hasn't seen the child in years visits, the child has gone through a lot of growth.
Once we become adults, we change less quickly. Who we were, is who we are. That's how we see ourselves and that becomes how others see us.
When we try to make radical changes as adults, people start to wonder if you're going through a mid-life crisis.
2010-01-27 07:24 pm (UTC)
So if someone who hasn't seen the child in years visits, the child has gone through a lot of growth.
Once we become adults, we change less quickly. Who we were, is who we are. That's how we see ourselves and that becomes how others see us.
I like the way you put that.
When we try to make radical changes as adults, people start to wonder if you're going through a mid-life crisis.
Ha. It just occurred to me that my starting this LJ last year probably qualifies as a mid-life crisis moment. At least it's cheaper than buying a sports car. ;-)
2010-01-29 10:53 pm (UTC)
But there's a whole body of literature in which characters do, and must, have the potential for change. Even if they decide at the end not to change.
(came here via jongibbs)
2010-01-30 12:20 am (UTC)
Which type to you prefer to read and/or write? I used to think that I'd like the Nancy Drew/James Bond/Sherlock Holmes type of story the best, but there are plenty of ongoing series where the protagonist does change over time that I have a harder time just going back to the other style.
2010-02-01 03:14 am (UTC)