Character Arcs - What if the character doesn't overcome the big lie, flaws or wounds?
I've been reading a lot of books about plot and character arcs. Most structures—and I believe this is generally good and true—require that the character come back from their journeys changed, usually for the better, by overcoming the very things that hindered them at the beginning of the story. But what if the character doesn't overcome and in fact the story continues, more like in life, w/o a happily ever after, and w/o some greater internal victory or inspiring revelation, but rather a submission or acceptance of life's disappointments?
Eg. a child of divorced parents, wants to go live with the other parent, but realizes by the end of the story that it's not possible, and instead has to continue living with the other parent, who is more abusive or unloving. A tragic example maybe, but I can think of many more realistic endings that don't have a happily ever after and don't also end with positive growth (maybe the opposite, a new wound).
How do you structure a good story like this? I'm looking for plot and character advice to make a tragic story, still interesting and even entertaining, even if it's not especially hopeful. In reality, this new wound would follow the child (into the next story maybe) as they would be too young to overcome it (but maybe they would as an adult). How to approach and structure this kind of story?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/46842. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
Stories do not require growth of a character; there are many series (Detective series being the most prevalent) in which the MC doesn't really change much at all, even if they do have emotional experiences. They may or may not grow during the series. Often these are adventure series or "mystery" series (the main crew has to solve some mystery).
You can recognize this most readily in TV and Movie series. I don't detect much change in Jack Sparrow of Pirates of the Caribbean, or Sherlock, or House, etc. James Bond doesn't change much. In the Ocean's XX movies, I don't see much change in the main characters; the movie is about conning somebody out of a fortune, in an entertaining way. Very few episodes of Bones, or House, or Elementary involve any MC actually changing (as distinct from having an emotional experience). For actual Novels, the Rex Stout series about private detective Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin will suffice, I read those when I was a kid and don't think the two main characters ever changed. But the mystery was always very challenging and well written (I thought).
I will agree with Galastel's insights, posted before this; but I don't think character change is absolutely necessary at all; some stories can be just about a clever adventure and interesting characters solving a fascinating puzzle.
0 comment threads
A character coming to understand that what they want is impossible and instead learning to live with what they have, is a perfectly reasonable character arc. The character overcomes something (wishing for the impossible), learns something, while their life is not perfect, it surely is somewhat better as a result - those energies invested in trying to attain the unattainable can instead be invested in improving the existing situation. Probably the character learns how the existing situation can be made tolerable.
A tragic character arc is also perfectly reasonable: it's possible that your character starts out believing in endless possibilities, and his arc is learning that sometimes life is painful, unfair, etc. The Lord of the Rings offers a mild example of this: Frodo sets out expecting a "there and back" journey - to have an adventure, and then come back and settle down in a happily ever after. As his story progresses, he comes to realise that his trials have changed him, there can be no happily ever after for him even if he "wins".
0 comment threads