| Home | Updates | Stories | WORKSHOP | About | Links | Contact |
|
I've got another theory rant for you guys, one I've been sitting on for a little while now. It's actually not a lot in the way of tutorial information, but it's a reclassification or redefinition of a well-known concept, one I'd like to disseminate to all y'all masses. I'm sure you've all heard of the term "character development." Well, it's what I'd like to talk about. In fact, I'd like to propose a re-definition of character development as the following: "Character Development is the act of changing The Reader's understanding of a character." This seems pretty simple, and maybe even self-obvious. "Okay, so, the character changes over the course of the story. So what?" But that's the thing. That's why I'm defining the concept the way I am. Let's take the average story you might find on an erotic website. Usually there's a guy and a girl; usually they have sex. Sometimes there's character development. With that mind, here's what I consider to be the archetypal porn plot: the coming-of-age story. Our young man, Samuel, meets someone attractive at school (I could name her Samantha if I wanted to be cruel, but I'll relent and name her Mary instead). He likes Mary, but she's got... problems. Maybe she's an ice queen. Maybe she has a controlling mother. Maybe she doesn't like being touched. Whatever, you can pick whatever sounds most tragic to you, and we'll be on our merry. In any case, Sam has to try and worm her way through her defenses... while simultaneously confronting his own insecurities and demons, because Mary has some pointed things to say about his own actions. Sam grows as the story goes on. Boom, character development. But what about Mary? She hardly changes much, but Sam learns about her past. Maybe her parents are controlling and demanding. Maybe she got burned during her first romance with the hot jock who's been terrorizing Sam all story long. Maybe she was raped. ("Rape" is the new "Dead parents.") She gets over some of her traumas and learns to be a little more balanced, but she doesn't really evolve or change. So, nope--no character development there. I can hear you now: "Okay, CWatson, that's not true." And my answer to you is this: It sure is, according to your definition of character development. According to yours, a character has to evolve. Since Mary doesn't evolve, she didn't have any. And it's this blatant inaccuracy in the definition I'm trying to address right now. The simple fact is that there's two chronological directions you can go when explaining a character: forward, or back. This seems obvious, but it's profound when you think about it. TV shows like Battlestar Galactica and, much more especially, LOST made a science of their flashbacks, taking long periods of time to explain who their characters were and what got them to be that way. But none of them ever changed. Kate never learned not to do what she did. Saul Tigh never stopped being a drunken jerkass. We just learned to love them as they are, because their actions got enough context to make sense. This is character development too, even though the character him- or herself did not actually evolve. I'm trying to redefine "character development" as a blanket term for two connected but separate techniques. One involves showing the character evolving from the present into the future. The other involves showing how the character already evolved from the past into today. In only one case does the character actually become a different person... but in both caes, the character becomes a different person in The Reader's mind. This is also critical because some characters don't need to change. Here we get into the question of Static Characters vs Dynamic Characters. You could suggest that, because everyone evolves in real life, all characters should too, but in a story that makes things needlessly messy. Keep some characters static. You may have noticed in "Arie & Brandon Naked in School," for instance, that Meredith doesn't change. We learn new things about her, but her personality does not evolve. Later, when it's her turn in the limelight, she evolves, but for the first two stories she's static. Better examples include Cool Old Guy types like Gandalf the Grey, Albus Dumbledore and Uncle Iroh from the excellent Avatar: the Last Airbender cartoon property (not the movie, which was a travesty of incompetence). None of these characters evolve because their whole purpose is to be fonts of wisdom, experience and (if necessary) Badass Grandpa antics. You turn to them to get the job done; they are reliable givers of shelter, and character development would threaten that that function. So instead of evolving them, you give them flashbacks. (And really good ones too. I cannot watch Uncle Iroh's segment of "Tales of Ba Sing Se" anymore, because both times it's reduced me to helpless tears.) You don't explain where they're going, you explain how and why they got here. It works. What I'm trying to suggest is this: almost every character needs what I've decided to call "Character Exploration" - backstory development, flashbacks, explanations of how they came to be who they are. But only important characters need "Character Evolution," which is the more stereotypical description of "character development." But that brings us to another fact: characters can have both. That's when you start having really rounded and well-developed characters: you answer not just who they were, but who they are now, and where they're going. Generally, your main characters have to have this level of development, but secondaries can settle for only exploration or evolution (depending on what you want to do with them). Yes, it is indeed possible for characters to evolve without much back story behind them - Luke Skywalker, for instance, with Leia and Han as even more extreme examples. And in some rare cases, you can even have mains who get only exploration, as in the shows mentioned above - and as in real life as well, a place where most people don't actually change all that much. But to do this you have to be able to create well-rounded characters, ones who can be interesting even without changing. And this is an advanced technique, so I recommend being careful with it. And again: what do all these things have in common? It's not necessarily that the character changes; no. It's that our understanding of the character changes. Zuko is still an anti-hero pursuing the Avatar without mercy, but at least we understand what drives him and in fact begin to sympathize for him. (Later, Zuko also gets evolution--more evolution, in fact, than the other four mains of Avatar: the Last Airbender combined. Not coincidentally, he's by far the most popular character of the show, surpassing even the titular Avatar / last Airbender himself.) Apollo is still a naive dunderhead, but at least we respect the idealism that drives him to be so. King Robert is still a slob and a poor king, but we understand his urges and don't blame him for finding it hard to put up with a crown he never wanted and a wife who can't replace his long-lost first love, the one he won the crown for. What an empty life that man leads. Of course he's miserable. It doesn't excuse him being a lousy king, but it does explain it. And he's self-aware enough to know he's a lousy king, which in my book scores him major points. (Don't recognise him? Robert of House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord Protector of the Seven Kingdoms, comes from George R. R. Martin's mind-blowing A Song of Ice and Fire... or, if you prefer, the currently-running HBO series Game of Thrones. If you've never read or seen, I cannot recommend them enough. Just, hold on to your hats. The end of the first episode will knock them off.) Characters do not have to change to become more interesting. We just have to learn more about them. Doesn't mean they can't change... just means they don't have to. Don't limit yourself as a writer. Use whatever character development techniques would best serve the story. Free your mind. |