Indeed, this is the driving force behind every piece of fiction that I have ever read (and even some occasional non-fiction, as well). Any story worth telling, any story ever told, and most any story you find today, whether it's fiction or non-fiction, is character-centric, even if the character isn't always obvious (a place can be a characters just as much as a person). These characters must change. Change makes a character interesting. Why is this? In becoming a better writer, I have to ask myself this question at some point, and now is a great time to lay my thoughts out.
First, what would a character that doesn't change look like? I give you Peter, a 15 year old paperboy who is bullied at school on a regular basis. He gets beat up, picked on, stuffed in his locker, and has no will or want to stand up for himself. Over the course of our story, Peter is repeatedly severely beaten, and aside from concern from his parents, nothing comes of it. By now a reader might feel sympathy for Peter, and resentment towards his bully. Now late in the story, Peter is still bullied around, but finds help in a new friend, Marvin, who stands up for Peter, dispatches his bully, and sees to it that Peter never gets bullied again.
In this scenario, Peter has a problem, the problem is overcome, and his story finds resolution. But would this really be a great story? Has Peter changed in anyway? We know he's still lacking a will to stand up for himself, and there's no reason to believe that another bully could come along and put Peter in the same position as he was in our story. Do we have a story? Yes. Do we have a good story? It's hard to say, but I believe not.
Now let's introduce change.
Peter, the 15 year old paperboy who gets bullied at school, meets Marvin halfway through our story and learns that Marvin used to get bullied when he was younger. Marvin and Peter become close friends, and Marvin bullies Peter around in a playful sort of manner. With Marvin's guidance, Peter learns to stand his own ground, and by the end of our new story, confronts his bully and puts him on the ground in a fantastic show of strength in front of half the student body. He becomes respected and popular at school, while making sure to put himself first when standing his own ground.
Here, Peter starts the same as before, but certainly undergoes some form of change that leads him to become a different person - in this case, a stronger person. A reader can understand Peter's initial situation and desire for a change all the same as Peter might (after all, no one likes getting bullied). What causes Peter to change can be half the story, so I will leave this part vague on purpose - all that matters is that Peter evolves and changes, that he leaves the story a different person that he began it. Wouldn't Peter's story be much more interesting in its second form than its first?
Of course every reader is different, and there might be a time and a place for the first story, but by and by large, great fiction needs change. Going back to A Clockwork Orange, Alex, the protagonist in the story, undergoes change that has a real impact on the story, yet in the end (of the original American version) Alex ends up becoming the same crude, devilish person that he began as. Burgess specifically wrote that he hated this original ending, and for the 1986 edition, the publisher put his original British-edition ending in, which sees Alex learn from his experiences throughout the story, and strives to be a different person. Perhaps more tidy, but perhaps more fulfilling, as well.
In my own fiction, I try to create characters that need change. A character who is at the top of his game in chapter one might have a hard time finding change. A character who just fell from the top of his game because his wife left him and skipped country with all his money in chapter one? Bingo.
I'm constantly designing and redesigning characters in my head, sometimes struggling to create an interesting character for a compelling narrative. But I do keep this solid advice in mind, and I try to create characters in need of change.
Thanks for playing along with my little diversion tonight. I'll try to get some new fiction up on Critically Correct sooner or later, hopefully demonstrating everything I just discussed.
B3 out.
First, what would a character that doesn't change look like? I give you Peter, a 15 year old paperboy who is bullied at school on a regular basis. He gets beat up, picked on, stuffed in his locker, and has no will or want to stand up for himself. Over the course of our story, Peter is repeatedly severely beaten, and aside from concern from his parents, nothing comes of it. By now a reader might feel sympathy for Peter, and resentment towards his bully. Now late in the story, Peter is still bullied around, but finds help in a new friend, Marvin, who stands up for Peter, dispatches his bully, and sees to it that Peter never gets bullied again.
In this scenario, Peter has a problem, the problem is overcome, and his story finds resolution. But would this really be a great story? Has Peter changed in anyway? We know he's still lacking a will to stand up for himself, and there's no reason to believe that another bully could come along and put Peter in the same position as he was in our story. Do we have a story? Yes. Do we have a good story? It's hard to say, but I believe not.
Now let's introduce change.
Peter, the 15 year old paperboy who gets bullied at school, meets Marvin halfway through our story and learns that Marvin used to get bullied when he was younger. Marvin and Peter become close friends, and Marvin bullies Peter around in a playful sort of manner. With Marvin's guidance, Peter learns to stand his own ground, and by the end of our new story, confronts his bully and puts him on the ground in a fantastic show of strength in front of half the student body. He becomes respected and popular at school, while making sure to put himself first when standing his own ground.
Here, Peter starts the same as before, but certainly undergoes some form of change that leads him to become a different person - in this case, a stronger person. A reader can understand Peter's initial situation and desire for a change all the same as Peter might (after all, no one likes getting bullied). What causes Peter to change can be half the story, so I will leave this part vague on purpose - all that matters is that Peter evolves and changes, that he leaves the story a different person that he began it. Wouldn't Peter's story be much more interesting in its second form than its first?
Of course every reader is different, and there might be a time and a place for the first story, but by and by large, great fiction needs change. Going back to A Clockwork Orange, Alex, the protagonist in the story, undergoes change that has a real impact on the story, yet in the end (of the original American version) Alex ends up becoming the same crude, devilish person that he began as. Burgess specifically wrote that he hated this original ending, and for the 1986 edition, the publisher put his original British-edition ending in, which sees Alex learn from his experiences throughout the story, and strives to be a different person. Perhaps more tidy, but perhaps more fulfilling, as well.
In my own fiction, I try to create characters that need change. A character who is at the top of his game in chapter one might have a hard time finding change. A character who just fell from the top of his game because his wife left him and skipped country with all his money in chapter one? Bingo.
I'm constantly designing and redesigning characters in my head, sometimes struggling to create an interesting character for a compelling narrative. But I do keep this solid advice in mind, and I try to create characters in need of change.
Thanks for playing along with my little diversion tonight. I'll try to get some new fiction up on Critically Correct sooner or later, hopefully demonstrating everything I just discussed.
B3 out.
No comments:
Post a Comment