In _Story_, Robert McKee insists that the notion that the character changes as a result of the events of the story arc is incorrect. Character does not change, he says, character is revealed.
It is an interesting argument. I am convinced that the TV series House MD was written based on McKee -- not just on the book but on his famous workshops. Where most workshop leaders try to project warmth and compassion, McKee is grumpy and irascible and loves to find excuses to throw people out of the multi-day workshop. I think the creators of the series based House's character on McKee (as they based his talents on Sherlock Holmes). And House's manta is "People Don't Change" (that and "Everybody lies"). And, indeed, House doesn't change. He is the same in the last episode as in the first.
But his character certainly is revealed. As are the characters of his associates (none of whom change either) and of his patients -- every patient is a character study as much as a medical mystery. And I think it is notable that House never visits a patient for medical reasons -- relying on his stuff to test and treat. He only visits them when he becomes interested in their behavior.
And it certainly worked. House was the biggest show on TV in the heart of its run.
So maybe the character arc is not about change at all. Maybe it is about revelation. (Either revelation to the reader or revelation to the character themselves, as we are often deceived about our own characters.)
But if this is the case, your analysis of Mortal Kombat seems just as valid. From what you describe (I have not seen the movie) there is no revelation of character either. He just gets beaten down to the point where his magic button gets pressed.
And maybe it works for the anime characters you mention as well. Character change is a problem for a serial, which basically sends its characters on the same quest every week. You can reveal character progressively, of reveal it again and again, but you can't change it again and again.
“Character does not change…character is revealed.”
I like that! That’s an awesome insight.
And yeah, I think you’re right about series that have that “problem of the week” format. You’re more likely to see a revelation of character rather than a specific arc.
It seems that series with a plot thread that runs through an entire season and an overarching plot for the series as a whole tend to have more of a traditional arc. I’m thinking of Jack in Lost going from a man of logic to a man of faith. Sawyer going from a scoundrel to a leader etc. But in the case of Sawyer, maybe it was less change or more the revelation of the man who existed beneath the scoundrel he’d learnt to become.
What you described with Goku and Edward is called the “flat arc.”
Instead of a character changing through their journey, they hold fast to their principles and change the world around them. Many of the most enduring characters in fiction -- Superman, Batman, James Bond, Conan the Barbarian -- all of them have flat arcs because they represent ideals. By contrast, once a character with a positive change arc has changed, there’s nowhere else for them to go.
I wrote my own novel, The Perils of Sasha Reed, to experiment with the flat arc. Sasha is a flirtatious pit girl who wants to enjoy her life, but when she is kidnapped (as she often is), she makes sure her kidnapper takes a dirt nap. She herself doesn’t change much, but she changes the world around her with every villain she defeats.
So yes -- characters do not require a positive change arc to be interesting.
In _Story_, Robert McKee insists that the notion that the character changes as a result of the events of the story arc is incorrect. Character does not change, he says, character is revealed.
It is an interesting argument. I am convinced that the TV series House MD was written based on McKee -- not just on the book but on his famous workshops. Where most workshop leaders try to project warmth and compassion, McKee is grumpy and irascible and loves to find excuses to throw people out of the multi-day workshop. I think the creators of the series based House's character on McKee (as they based his talents on Sherlock Holmes). And House's manta is "People Don't Change" (that and "Everybody lies"). And, indeed, House doesn't change. He is the same in the last episode as in the first.
But his character certainly is revealed. As are the characters of his associates (none of whom change either) and of his patients -- every patient is a character study as much as a medical mystery. And I think it is notable that House never visits a patient for medical reasons -- relying on his stuff to test and treat. He only visits them when he becomes interested in their behavior.
And it certainly worked. House was the biggest show on TV in the heart of its run.
So maybe the character arc is not about change at all. Maybe it is about revelation. (Either revelation to the reader or revelation to the character themselves, as we are often deceived about our own characters.)
But if this is the case, your analysis of Mortal Kombat seems just as valid. From what you describe (I have not seen the movie) there is no revelation of character either. He just gets beaten down to the point where his magic button gets pressed.
And maybe it works for the anime characters you mention as well. Character change is a problem for a serial, which basically sends its characters on the same quest every week. You can reveal character progressively, of reveal it again and again, but you can't change it again and again.
“Character does not change…character is revealed.”
I like that! That’s an awesome insight.
And yeah, I think you’re right about series that have that “problem of the week” format. You’re more likely to see a revelation of character rather than a specific arc.
It seems that series with a plot thread that runs through an entire season and an overarching plot for the series as a whole tend to have more of a traditional arc. I’m thinking of Jack in Lost going from a man of logic to a man of faith. Sawyer going from a scoundrel to a leader etc. But in the case of Sawyer, maybe it was less change or more the revelation of the man who existed beneath the scoundrel he’d learnt to become.
Thanks for posting this!
What you described with Goku and Edward is called the “flat arc.”
Instead of a character changing through their journey, they hold fast to their principles and change the world around them. Many of the most enduring characters in fiction -- Superman, Batman, James Bond, Conan the Barbarian -- all of them have flat arcs because they represent ideals. By contrast, once a character with a positive change arc has changed, there’s nowhere else for them to go.
I wrote my own novel, The Perils of Sasha Reed, to experiment with the flat arc. Sasha is a flirtatious pit girl who wants to enjoy her life, but when she is kidnapped (as she often is), she makes sure her kidnapper takes a dirt nap. She herself doesn’t change much, but she changes the world around her with every villain she defeats.
So yes -- characters do not require a positive change arc to be interesting.
I knew there had to be a proper name for it! Thanks for that!
You’re welcome. The piece you wrote was good.