Friend of the blog Bradford C. Walker has recently written on the Coronavirus’s effects on the corporate-driven entertainment industry — namely film, novel publishing, and comic publishing (spoiler: they’re not doing so great.) However, in doing so, he pivoted to a topic that I’ve been looking into as of late: the power of the flat character arc (which Walker refers to as the Iconic Hero.) My recent delve into the Conan stories came from my attempt to understand this sort of arc in literature.
A dogma often given to new writers is that characters must change as the story progresses. A “good character” is often defined as “a character who undergoes a change.” This is embodied in the concept of the Hero’s Journey, codified by Joseph Campbell and popularized by George Lucas’s original Star Wars movie, in which a protagonist must leave ordinary life behind to go on an adventure which causes a profound shift in worldview. It’s particularly well-suited to stories about child or teen protagonists, since it closely mirrors the process of growing up, leaving the nest, and taking on adult responsibilities.
However, while this is a good structure to use, it is not the only structure. In fact, when one looks at the pop-culture landscape, one often finds characters who don’t change — characters like Superman, Batman, James Bond, Conan the Barbarian, Sherlock Holmes, Goku, and many others. These heroes are among the most celebrated in popular culture, despite not having anything like the now-standard Hero’s Journey change arc.
Instead, they have flat arcs. Instead of the world changing them, they hold to their truth and change the world. They do not change; rather they are the rocks against which the waves of society crash. They become icons because as everyone and everything changes, the heroes don’t, and folks find that comforting.
Good flat-arc characters have a clear worldview and act upon the world with it against those who try to sway them. Free of uncertainty about their principles, they take action against a world that spits upon the truth they discovered. Their steadfast devotion to virtue makes them attractive to both bystanders within the story and readers and viewers outside it. They become symbols. (Do note that it is these sorts of characters who are usually deconstructed and parodied.)
Flat-arc characters are well suited to short fiction, since their personalities and motivations can easily be explained in a few sentences, and we don’t waste time with origin stories — instead, we get right to the point. They’re also suited to long-running series because they can easily be put into new situations, whereas a change-arc character has to keep finding new ways to change, limiting the writer’s options. But with a flat-arc character, you know what you’re getting. Far from being boring, this sort of repetition actually keeps people coming back for more. (Hat-tip to K. M. Weiland, who codified these ideas.)
This video by anime youtuber Totally Not Mark explains the appeal of the flat arc better than I ever could, using Goku as a prime example.
Fascinating. This can be said of Haggard’s Alan Quatermain and ERB’s Tarzan and John Carter. You and Mr. Walker have put your fingers on a aspect of adventure fiction that goes back to the very beginning of both the English and American traditions.
People obsess over character development for the same reason that they obsess over character flaws. Inadequate people watch inadequate characters to feel better about their inadequacies, and watching inadequate characters complete a positive character arc allows them to vicariously grow up without doing so in reality.
I wouldn’t be so uncharitable. Some folks just want to see change in a character — although their numbers aren’t as great as critics would have us believe.
Indeed we have. It’s amazing how we’ve come to view “positive or negative change arc” as the standard definition of a well-written character. Perhaps it coincides with the rise of the doorstopper, because flat-arc characters are best suited to series of short stories.
Conan does change if you look at all the stories as a whole. He goes from a brash thief to a responsible king. (This is somewhat hard to see since the stories were not written in chronological order.) It’s just in individual stories that he does not change.
I’ve fixed the problem with alerts on my mobile device now, so enjoy this response. 🙂
I see Conan’s change from thief to king as more of a status change, like Goku going from energetic kid to Super Saiyan. Conan’s personality and attitudes don’t seem that different to me, no matter what his social status.
There is some change in personality. As I said he was Brash as a thief and Responsible as a king. I think he had something to prove in Tower of the Elephant than in Hour of the Dragon were he has nothing to prove. It’s not a radical change, but it is more than some critics believe about Conan.
If there was a change, it was a gradual one, quite unlike a traditional character arc. It was definitely no Hero’s Journey.
I also think people are far too wed to the Campbellian Hero’s Journey as the model for all character arcs. I’d like to see more characters that don’t change as well as more characters that change in ways vastly different from the Hero’s Journey!
Likewise. There’s more than one way to do an arc, and some characters don’t need arcs at all.