Are there times when delayed character development is acceptable in fiction?
In my screenplay, I have my female protagonist wear Prada, and perhaps drop other hints of her character, but not act like Miranda Priestly for the first two acts, until she gets a promotion at the end of Act II. In Act III, having arrived, she lets loose her inner Miranda, perhaps surprising the audience.
A female critic of my script said, in effect, that the late character development is interesting, but did I have to wait so long? Does the plot (as I have outlined it) justify or support such a format?
In most movies I've watched, or screenplays I've read there is a strong burst of character development as early as the first Scene of Act I. Is there a "conventional wisdom" for writers as to when, or how early, character development should take place?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/17240. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
I think there's a difference between character development and character depth. Development means change. You can have an interesting villain who is only ever a villain, but still has backstory, motivation, relationships, and hobbies. That's a deep character who doesn't change.
But if your character acts like a boring, shallow buffoon for two acts and then suddenly gets hit with a Plot Ball and turns into La Maupin, she's not going to be believable, and your readers will wonder where this fascinating spitfire was for the first two-thirds of the book.
Unless there's some compelling, in-character reason that she deliberately wants to hide her candle under a bushel, try to dole out hints of who she really is from reasonably early on. You don't have to give away the whole game, or reveal her to the other characters, but the readers should realize there's more to her than what the other characters think.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads