The concern with "character growth" in popular fiction

Post Reply New Topic

. . . But then, "Star Wars" is a coming-of-age story. The flaws Luke needs to overcome in his hero's journey -- naivete, impatience, etc. -- are flaws that a young person is generally expected to have. Under the philosophy I'm talking about, in order to have a "proper arc," Luke must realize he's been a terrible person all along and change into somebody totally different. . .

That's a good scene.

Honestly, I usually hate movies where nothing happens unless the characters are really interesting and the dialog is very sharp.

Note, though, the variety of different scenarios that the screenwriting coach suggests. It isn't just "protagonist learns they were wrong about everything and becomes an entirely different person" and that's it.

Also, while the people in question don't usually discuss movies like "Adaptation," I can imagine them saying:

"Charlie starts out wanting to write a screenplay and at the end he writes a screenplay. That's not an arc! That's not 'Want vs. Need!' Screenwriting fail. 0/4 stars."

That last part is a good example of what might happen if a person tries to apply a fiction “rule” in a mechanical fashion.

Storytelling and the art form itself is subjective, but in the context of 'Adaptation', the aim in that seminar is to create a good enough screenplay and story that it can be sold and earn you money and a potential leg up the industry ladder.

Hardly a screenwriting fail to those that would imagine it to be. What about the relationship with Donald as well as Susan and Amelia? And the psychological growth within Charlie? You can be your own worst enemy, and especially for me, with my experiences of Autism and Mental Health, learn to live with or overcome those demons within you.

These sorts of stories can be made engaging in a plethora of creative ways, but are only seen as 'nothing happening', because there is no physical action being portrayed. It's all about different tastes. It's still a story, still with an arc.

Yes, people do boil down the primary plot, and negate the sub-plot, but only if they're not willing to engage enough into it or aren't being piqued by it to begin with.

But again, that's all down to their preference of films. If they don't want to watch a film of this calibre because "Nothing happens" then so be it.

Even Documentaries have a narrative. A passage of time that passes with some sort of change happening within. Fly-on-the-wall documentaries where you watch a conversation between people progress. Even if said conversation meanders or comes to a stand-still, that ironically is still a change, be it minute or massive.

. . . 'Adaptation', the aim in that seminar is to create a good enough screenplay and story that it can be sold and earn you money and a potential leg up the industry ladder.

Hardly a screenwriting fail to those that would imagine it to be. What about the relationship with Donald as well as Susan and Amelia? And the psychological growth within Charlie? You can be your own worst enemy, and especially for me, with my experiences of Autism and Mental Health, learn to live with or overcome those demons within you. . .

[Originally posted in the Writing forum, but as the examples I've used are from film and TV, I think it goes better here.]

Lately, I've noticed a great deal of concern in online fiction discussion with character arcs and whether or not the protagonist "shows growth" over the course of the story. While there are plenty of great stories that focus on that sort of arc, it's taken to such a degree that people claim protagonists without one are "flat" and that their stories are not even stories at all. Furthermore, protagonists that do explicitly have arcs are accused of not having one, because "they're still the same person at the end of the story."

Recently, I was in a discussion with someone who claimed that Aang from "Avatar: The Last Airbender" didn't have a proper arc but had "plateaus," or in other words, that he didn't show continuous growth. He also claimed that the show "violated Writing 101" because Aang starts and ends the show "not facing problems directly." "If a character starts out doing X, then generally they should not end doing X," he claimed. This guy was a lot more polite and reasonable than a person from another discussion, the director of the film "Happily N'Ever After 2," who claimed that Disney's "Little Mermaid" violated these rules because Ariel didn't learn an overt lesson. When I questioned the reasoning behind this, he replied, "I'm not your professor. Take a writing class."

I'm just wondering, in this philosophy, is there ever a time to like a character for being themselves? Or only for who they can potentially become after their ceaseless "growth?"

Also, the idea that it's always the protagonist who must have the arc is interesting to me. The protagonist represents the audience perspective. I feel like the idea is that they think the reader/audience member must learn that they have to change into a different person. I also think this is why so many people identify with the antagonist these days, claiming they're "misunderstood" and were right all along, because "the rules" say the protagonist must change, but they don't say anything about the antagonist having to change.