Feb '21Feb '21
I have a question: What happen at the end of a character arc? Does that character become a perfect version of himself?
Personally I think perfection is a boring character trait. A character arc can go a lot of ways. It can be a redemption arc after they do something bad/are a generally bad person. They could learn something, or find a sense of belonging, etc. It all depends on what your character's motivations are, and what obstacles are thrown at them. Many people feel that character motivations are one of the most important building blocks of a story.
And to follow up on the motivation concept.... your character's motivation will dictate their actions throughout the story, but that doesn't mean they need to get what they want in the end. It can be just as interesting for them to fail, or to get what they thought they wanted, only to find it wasn't what they expected.
So after the final character arc, what we do with the character? I mean if he's already perfect version, then how can we continue to develop him further?
personally i see character arcs as a way to resolve whatever personal conflict they may be dealing with. it could be a change in their attitude/personality, their outlook regarding a specific situation, where they stand on something, etc
perfection in a character is usually not the goal in a character arc but either resolving a problem or showing their growth. you're looking at what has changed in the character if at all and if they havent then the reason why
i cant link to any specific writing resources but i think itd be of value to explore advice on how to write strong character arcs or observing how others execute them in certain media
I wonder if there's a perfect emotion character? I mean in term of perfect fighting power is very easy, just make him strongest like super man. But what is a character that achieves perfect pinnacle of emotion mind? Is it possible to do that?
I'll say again that its not about physical or emotional "perfection" its about character growth specifically. perfection isnt going to be the end goal but instead revealing how the character has changed over the course of the events within a story.
as id said it would be of value to look into resources that explain what a character arc is, how to write them and what makes them good or bad
I don't believe in a 'perfect' character. I think a character arc's entire purpose is to see an EVOLUTION of the character. Sometimes that can be for the better, like in a hero story, or for the worse.
But the most important thing is never making them perfect, even when the story is done. You can ALWAYS be better, but the fun in reading a story and following a character is watching them transform into something else.
Here are some examples of compelling character arcs that did a good job telling a story:
Example:
-"In Shrek it's not revealed until well past the midpoint. “The world sees me coming, and they turn around and run.” That's his wound, and it's what he's afraid of. So what we call “the character arc” is the Hero's growth from woundedness to wholeness, from inner conflict to inner peace." (The Heroic Journey: What Shrek can teach us )
-Walter White of Breaking Bad goes from the weak school teacher that had amazing potential but was virtually in every area of his life...and slowly rose to become a ruthless powerhouse that was dang near unstoppable (Walter White's Key Transformative Moments).
-Scarlett O'Hara of Gone With the Wind starts off as a very spoiled little girl who needed others to protect and provide and guide her and slowly hardens to become a strong and independent woman. (Scarlett O'Hara Analysis)
Note that none of these characters are perfect at the start or at the end - but their journey was a hell of a ride and a compelling thing to witness. Now, some people might balk that I used the same words to describe Shrek and Walter White in the same level of interest, but here's my opinion- given the time constriction and the medium used to tell their stories, Shrek was able to show a strong character arc in less than two hours, just as Break Bad was able to show several dozen chracter arcs over many, many hours.
Novels, however, have a very unique ability to connect the audience to the character in an entirely different way, and in my opinion, have the ability to tell a much more complex and compelling character arc, which is EXACTLY why you can get away with calling Scarlett a hero even though her character is quite unpleasant. You ride along with her and witness her growth and her feelings.
If a character becomes "perfect" it can work in a self-contained story, but basically makes it impossible to create a sequel with that character, because they'll have lost everything interesting about them.
To me, a character arc is where the character grows and evolves enough to overcome the current problem they're facing (possibly not in the way they thought) and to achieve something they couldn't have done before. This shouldn't erase their personality traits, but rather the character should learn to express and use those traits in a more healthy, constructive way. So the shy bookworm who hates people at the start, should probably still be quiet and love books, but learns that some people are worth their time and worth reaching out to and helping, or the hot-headed and selfish warrior is probably still hot-headed and has a bit of an ego, but has learned to use a bit more restraint and to try to be more mindful of others.
So, what should we do with fully developed characters? Should we .... kill them off like in Infinity War movie where they kill Iron Man and make captain America old? Can we go further to develop a perfect character?
I also wonder is it acceptable to kill off a character prematurely? Or should I wait until they are fully developed?
Well, you don't always have to go so far as to kill them, but yes, it's common for a character who has reached the end of their arc to get "retired". In Tony Stark's case, as somebody who started out as an incredibly self-centred weapons dealer, the end of his arc being the ultimate sacrifice to save humanity kind of works, as for Steve Rogers, the man who "can't live without war", whose entire motivation was that he wanted to join the fight, having the ending of retiring, living out a peaceful live with his love and passing on the shield to the next generation of hero.
The other solution is that a new problem could occur that builds on a flaw the character has never confronted because it was never an issue, and this is where we get Peter B Parker's arc in "Enter the Spiderverse". This is a Spider-man who has spent years embracing the motto of "with great power comes great responsibility", but then a new problem has emerged which is that he's getting older and MJ wants commitment, wants to have kids, and he just can't take on that particular responsibility, because it's an emotional one, different from the responsibility of fighting villains.
Spider-man is a solo hero who doesn't have sidekicks, which makes sense because he started out as a teenager himself, and teenage sidekicks are more something an "adult" hero has. So Peter has never been responsible for a kid; it's a new challenge he's never solved and his response was to run away from it, causing MJ to break up with him. His arc in this movie is that he's put in charge of a kid and learns to stop running away from fatherhood.
So just because your character has finished one arc, it doesn't mean they can't have a new, different arc, especially if there's a timeskip and they have to deal with a new problem; like a kid character who overcomes childish selfishness then as a teenager must deal with coming to terms with romantic jealousy, or a young adult character who learned to be confident in their abilities now in middle age has to deal with their physical prowess weakening and taking on a more mentoring role.
The one big thing to avoid is constantly having the character regress. Sometimes in a bad situation a character might temporarily go backwards and fall back into old bad habits. This can work okay if done sparingly, like in say Despicable Me, where after character development, Grue faces a horrible setback and falls back into his villainous ways. If it happens too much though or every story with the character feels like a reset, or it's not obvious why the character's development went backwards, it feels like bad writing. Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII Advent Children has practically regressed to the person he was at the start of FFVII only less fun and sassy; he's just become this grumpy loner, and it's not even clear why. A lot of people felt like it was weird that he had to learn the same lesson of "having a support network is good" a second time.
I have a situation like this: A female character lures a male character into criminal activity so that she can benefit from him. Time pass and they have genuine love in each other, but the male character finds out what the female character did and wants to leave. If this happens in real life, what is the most suitable way to handle this situation?
I guess there's a trope name for this type of story?
If you understand what "perfect emotion character" means to you, then you should be able to express that in the story and make us understand, too. If you understand your character, who they are, what they want & so on, then your story can reveal that to the readers.
It feels like you're seeking a formula for writing your story but maybe what you ought to be writing isn't anything that fits into a formula.
If you kill a character, how can it be prematurely? It's your story. They die when you make them die, whether or not you might have done anything more with them if you hadn't killed them. Some characters are expendables, they might be in the story simply because a scenario you're writing requires someone to die & they're the Star Trek "red shirt" character.
Apparently, the female has undergone a change in heart & mind that permits her now to see the male as more than just a pawn to be used. Some of the best stories are about how a main character is changed by the events of the story.
Now, as to the male who has discovered her former abuse of him... he may also undergo some changes. One change is that he now wants to leave her. Another change might make him re-decide to stay. [Depends on whether you want a happy ending.] If he goes, your story is about consequences. If he stays, it's also about forgiveness.
The important thing is this.... what do you want the story to be about? It's not sufficient (in my mind) to simply have good characters & move them around like puppets if there's not a story for the reader, or a message to the reader, that direct their actions.
Yeah, to me, a "perfect emotion character" is a guy who reached his maximum mental build. Similar to RPG games, you will have warrior build, mage build, so I think there must be something similar with mindset, each mindset has pros and cons, I found on internet that there're 12 personality archetype. I wonder what happen when they reach the top of mental prowess, have you ever meet someone in real life that had maxed out their mental power?
No, I don't think so, but then I'd probably not recognize such a person nor do I think it likely they themselves would know if they'd maxxed out.
Would readers really like a "perfect" character, a maxxed out character? Or would they prefer one that's less than perfect, flawed in ways? This may be the difference in the popularity of Superman comics vs Spiderman comics.
I think it would be fun to let max characters fight each other like in One punch man series, but only this time, it's a battle of wit, emotions and intelligence.
Although they are max, but each archetype still has its unremovable flaws, like a warrior has weak magic resist and a mage has weak physical strength. Enemy will take advantage of that to bring down even the most steadfast mind.
But I still don't know what is the unremovable flaws of each archetype mind? Do you know? Things that can not exist at the same time in the mind?
