Dynamic vs Stagnant Characters

3 posts
User avatar
Gender Female
Points 1030
Reviews 1260
Hello. Today I am going to talk about character, and what character means throughout the course of your story. In my Plot & Rising Action essay, I talked about rising action, and how the conflict becomes more and more a part of your character's life.

This should have an effect. Your characters are supposed to be developed well enough so that they feel like real people, not cardboard cutouts, and let's face it - when we go through traumatic experiences in our life, it changes us.

And besides, if you have a stagnant protagonist who is the same person on page 1 as she is on page 500, you can't help but think: What was the point of going on that adventure? To make a long story short, stagnant characters are unrealistc. Just take a long at these examples:

Isabella Swan in Twilight: When we meet her, she is a quiet, awkward bookworm who falls in love with Edward - without realizing what she's getting into. In New Moon, she never gets over Edward (Perhaps she should have thought back to James and realized that she should have just gotten a normal boyfriend)?. Were in her thoughts, so we can see that she still wants to be with Edward and she's learned nothing from he dangerous situations that she's been in.

Peter Pan in Peter Pan: I would consider Pan to be a borderline character. He does undergo change, but not that much of it. For example, his change, his character arc, is that he accepts the fact that Wendy and her brothers want to return to London. However, throught the movie, he's stil very much the same character - fierce temperement, a womanizer, and a boy who likes to mock his opponents.

In the case of the latter, stagnant protagonists like Peter can work if they are done well. Peter had a reason not to go back to the real world and grow up - be he is the boy who dosen't grow up.

Now, in the case of villans, they can be stagnant or not - either one works. I prefer dynamic villans, such as Darth Vader, because you sympthasize with the character and really want to know the story and background more, but stagnant villans (once again, if done correctly), like Lord Voldemort or the Joker can be done just as well. In the case of Voldemort, he is somewhat of a lesson to show where you can end up if you don't want to expierence love or friendship, and how you can throw your life away over little things.

So, how do you create a dynamic charachter? It's simple. Pick one major flaw, and make it become your character arc. It dosen't necessarily have to be a flaw, for example, in LoTR, the quest makes Frodo grow up a little bit more. The change dosen't neccesairly have to be good, for example, Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode III or Lucy Westerna in Dracula. Here are a few examples of dyamic characters, done correctly:

Wendy from Peter Pan: She's a somewhat typical child when we first meet her, who complains about growing up. After she meets Peter, she realizes why growing up is neccasry, and the expierence brings out the more womanly side in her.

Johnathan Harker from Dracula: When we first meet him, he's a curious young man who will play around with other women even though he's in a committed relationship. He's somewhat slow and stupid, but after he meets Van Helsing and marries Mina, and Lucy has been vamped, he realizes that his woman is important, and he becomes brave, quick, and a lot more wise.

Your character's personality dosen't have to change completly, because you want the reader to believe your protagonist isn't an entirely different person.

That's all for now. Stay tuned for future articles.

All our dreams can come true — if we have the courage to pursue them.

-- Walt Disney




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 3225
Reviews 365
Great article, dear, but I think you mean STATIC characters. Not stagnant. :]
Odi et amo. quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior.
-Catullus, Carmen 85




User avatar
Gender Male
Points 4054
Reviews 27
Great article, dear, but I think you mean STATIC characters. Not stagnant. :]


They pretty much mean the same thing. Actually, stagnant is probably the more eventful word.

About the article, its decent but does a somewhat lackluster job of teaching the reader anything. If anything, saying that a character should have one major flaw to form a character arc is (in my opinion) bad advice, because the metamorphosis at the end is so dull it would actually mean more if the character didn't change (you'll notice I like to spit in the face of conventions a lot). Characters should have multiple flaws which change, and in addition change should not always mean changing to something better. Coming of age stories, for example, are perfect examples of change, but not flat change. Its arguable whether 'mature' means better, of course. I also think your missing the point of some stagnant characters. Some of what you would call 'stagnant' characters undergo subtle but meaningful changes, powerful but not underwhelming. Some 'stagnant' characters, like the Joker, are made dynamic by what has happened in the past, and their lack of change shifts focus to that instead of just being bad writing. It's because the Joker doesn't really change in The Dark Night that makes him interesting and influential. And some characters are more 'symbols' than characters, like Voldemort (evil) and The Joker (chaos), and thus there purpose is not to change (unless it represents something) but to affect the other characters.

Good article for younger writers, though. Any tips are definitely appreciated, actually. Just keep this sort of stuff in mind.

Adios.
Spoiler
I like people thinking that I have something so scandalous to say that I put it in spoiler tags, and I'm sorry that because of this selfish desire you were roped into reading this for not real lasting value.



If a story is in you, it has to come out.
— William Faulkner