Google Image Search
I was on the fence about writing about this because I thought it was a given. Then, I ran into people who didn’t know the difference. Others swore that a good story is one where the main character doesn’t change. Guess we live in a world where ideal heroes are preferred over flawed ones. I mean, really flawed characters instead of slapping arrogance or a mild shellfish allergy, which don’t cause any issues. Okay, I’ll get back to this rant in a bit.
What are we talking about here?
Dynamic Characters– These are the ones that change over the course of a story. They are your protagonists and antagonists, but can also be supporting characters. The whole point of them is that they do not end a story where they started. Their flaws are conquered or accepted, which makes them stronger. It isn’t the toys and powers they get either, but the way they change as people. This need and ability to change creates a personal story arc, which adds tension to the overall tale. For example, a superhero who starts off being selfish and ends knowing what it means to be a hero. (Nobody say Iron Man because he had this story arc in at least 4 movies. Guy has the memory of a brain damaged goldfish.)
Static Characters– These are typically found in supporting areas where they have no need to change. They end a story the same they started because none of the events forced them to evolve. A reason for this is that they aren’t designed to be anything more than pushing the story, evolving the main characters, and showing that there are other beings living in this world. They have no story arcs and their personalities can revolve around one aspect without causing harm. You find your comic reliefs, mentors, goons, henchmen, and other limited roles in this category.
I remember this being a very basic lesson that I learned in middle school. It wasn’t about writing either, but about identifying the two character types. You were shown how the dynamic ones had the spotlight while the static ones came off more as set pieces. It helped us understand the concepts of protagonist and antagonist because those were always the dynamic ones. Didn’t take long to get the concepts, especially when it was paired with talking about conflict. Dynamic characters are heavily affected by conflict while static characters aren’t. Seems simple.
Yet, I keep seeing people push for characters who won’t change to be the protagonists. I don’t think I’m seeing a majority, but it’s enough to make me worry. People attack heroes for their flaws even though these are things that are going to be worked through. They complain about the hero being anything other than the ideal, which means they want them perfect from the start. These readers are fine with the flawless protagonist gaining more abilities and toys, but they don’t want quirks. Arrogance disguised as rude confidence seems to be the exception because it’s ‘strength’. Fairly easy to get rid of arrogance too with the hero having one loss, acting sad, and then coming back to save the day. They change a little, but not enough to alter their personality.
As an author, you have to decide on if you want static and dynamic characters as your main cast. It’s fine to do either, but you have to accept the cons. As I said, dynamic means the heroes can start off rough, unlikable, and weak. Readers with no patience for the hero’s journey will be vocal about their boredom. Those who enjoy the long evolution of a flawed character will be quiet because they know it will take time. So, you can get hit hard with negativity. It can cause you to consider rushing the evolution, which will be sloppy and annoy the other group. I think it’s best to do what you feel is right for the story and the readers who want to see it through to the end will stick around.
Static characters avoid the initial negativity of those who don’t like their heroes with any real flaws. You may get a false sense of confidence here too. People who expect protagonists to change will read along expecting a plot event to knock the hero down and force them to evolve. A static character doesn’t do that unless you switch them to being dynamic. If they’re static the whole time, some readers will leave because they feel the story is boring. There’s no sense of tension or possibility of the hero really failing. All their mistakes are minor or swiftly fixed with no long-standing consequences. Some even fail into victory. This is why static characters don’t really make good protagonists for long stories. They could work for short stories and parodies where they don’t need to evolve or the action always resets. Kind of like a sitcom where everything goes back to ‘normal’ at the end of most episodes.
Is this really a personal preference? Maybe. Certainly feels that way considering how often I argue with people about protagonists. I really can’t wrap my head around heroes who start off perfect and stay that way. Even Goku and Superman lose fights and have to evolve over the course of their adventures. There’s no harm in having a hero who has flaws and needs to grow. Not only grow, but work hard to survive and become the perfect version of themselves. If they’re just handed everything, they’re going to stay static because nothing happened to alter their personality. Anything changes after they are given things feel superficial and forced. As if the author did it because they felt they had to instead of being natural.
So, what do you think about dynamic and static characters?
Legends of Windemere 
Charles, the first draft of my debut book was boring. My editor told me the protagonist didn’t change and everything was too easy to resolve. He said, “Make the protagonist suffer.” So dynamic characters work for me. Even a close secondary character is dynamic, supportive of the main character, and gets into trouble that causes tension in the relationship. I want to read books that have action and dynamic characters. So, I need to write about them. And I’m doing that in the book sequel. Good article. Thank you. 📚🎶 Christine
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good advice. It is weird to see more static protagonists these days. Some people want perfection and none/limited struggling from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe too much personalized writing. Wanting life to be stress free & beautiful! Too much strife & struggle in theirs. It’s the times! 📚🎶
LikeLike
That could be it. Though, I’ve noticed characters from groups that are put through Hell in real life tend to be the perfect protagonist. So I could also be a fear of putting a character like that through turmoil and triggering readers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could be. Good point, Charles. 📚🎶
LikeLike
I’m glad you came off the fence about this, because this is a great explanation of the character types. I’ve seen many books and lately movies where the character stays strong and ends strong. That’s why I love the first Thor movie. He went on a journey of discovery.
Some of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld characters are static because his series has a parody aspect. So though they remain the same, the stories are still so hilarious. The world around these characters shifts and the character has to navigate the shifting environment. So a static character can work in an environment where change is a constant, because at least something is changing. I think about Samurai Jack in the old series. He remained honorable though severely tested by Haku and his minions.
I love when authors go the extra mile and make secondary characters as dynamic as their main character(s). Many of your secondary characters go on some type of journey of discovery.
LikeLike
Early MCU was pretty good at dynamic characters. Even ‘Man of Steel’ pulled it off with a character like Superman. Parody definitely lends itself to more static characters. Comedy in general does, especially sitcoms where most episodes end back at the norm. The lessons learned are for the viewer.
Samurai Jack was great. The final season made him a major dynamic character too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad you reminded me of the final season. I need to get that if it’s on DVD. I have the earlier seasons.
Yes, I miss the early days of the MCU.
Wonder Woman also was dynamic in the DCEU, at least in her first film. I didn’t see the second one.
LikeLike
I think all of the episodes are on Hulu. Wonder Woman is another good example. The second one was a shaky plot, but she was dynamic.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Chris The Story Reading Ape's Blog and commented:
Let Charles know what YOU think, in the comments under his original blog post 😃
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Charles, btw, I agree with L.Marie that many of your secondary characters go on some type of journey of discovery.
LikeLike
Thanks. I try my best with secondaries. It helps that I’m always doing ensemble cast stories. Everyone needs a path then n
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t write hero-type stories but do like my characters to be dynamic. One other thought as to why more stories are written with static characters is that maybe it is easier to keep characters static while writing them. This is just a guess.
LikeLike
It’s easier, but it causes harm to the overall story. The characters go through events and never change. So it’s plain lazy and unbelievable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think so too.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Kim's Musings.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I’ve done all of this and even mingled the types to a degree. My antihero, Clovis was definitely static. He was one of three story threads and I think it’s easier to make people love him by limiting his page time. Yak guy was all about evolution. I have one who basically evolves in the early chapters, then becomes a hero about half way through. Many of the first superhero films include evolution. I think of Spiderman in his wrestling outfit and he wasn’t ready to be a hero.
LikeLike
Superhero origins tend to be dynamic. It’s when they go from ordinary to extraordinary lives. Then they get static.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a genre for everything, right? So if you’re into Doc Savage and similar “men’s adventure” series, you would start Doc out as who he is, and you wouldn’t want him to change. It would ruin the ride for fans.
Or think of Star Trek, where the main cast had established skills and personalities. No matter what happened in the episode, the cast returned to normal by the end. Yet Star Trek has a huge and enduring fan base.
Other readers do want that growth, and they can find find series like your Windermere where characters will learn and change through the sequence of books. I myself find growth and evolution more interesting. In fact, my current WIP looks at a group of characters who substantially are deciding whether to cling to old ways or embrace new ones.
Either way, the readers can choose the approach they like. Maybe they like both approaches, for different reasons!
LikeLike
I remember characters changing in Star Trek, but I started on TNG and DS9. They did have growth moments during the show even if it’s not every episode. Never read Doc Savage though. Is he like Conan?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on NEW BLOG HERE >> https:/BOOKS.ESLARN-NET.DE.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Thanks for the information, Charles! I definitely have a lot to learn. Best wishes, Michael
LikeLike
You’re welcome. Enjoy your week.
LikeLike