Static versus dynamic protagonists

I'm reading a book called Characters, Emotion and Viewpoint by Nancy Kress (it's one of those writer's digest "write great fiction" books).

One thing that interested me is that the author discusses whether or not a main character will be a changer or a stayer (or something like that, can't remember her exact terminology). This sort of surprised me, because I had always heard that one of the essential requirements of story is that the protagonist must change in some way. In fact, I've seen it stated elsewhere that if there is no change in the main character there is no story. Certainly, the main character(s) change in the books I've read in in recent years.

But the author points out that the protagonist in many long-running series don't really change (look at James Bond--he's still a womanizing daredevil who likes his martinis shaken not stirred at the end of each movie, and his predictability is part of his appeal, I think). I haven't read a lot of spy thriller or mystery series. I have to say that the recurring main characters in the fantasy series I've read seem to change at least a bit in each book. So does it depend on genre?

And does anyone know of any good examples of stand alone novels with static protagonists? I'm sure I've read some, but I'm drawing a blank. Great Gatsby comes to mind, but Gatsby wasn't the pov character (and Tom did change), and of course, he suffered a severe consequence for not changing. I'm wondering if there are more conventional stories, where the pov character is the protagonist and he or she doesn't change and is alive and mostly well at the end.

And do book series where the protagonists don't change much if at all in each book tend to become boring after a while? Conversely, do series where the character has a major change with every installment begin to feel contrived after a while?

Also, one thing I've been struggling with a bit, is what really constitutes a change that is significant enough to be satisfying? Can it just be learning something new, or does it have to be some sort of major rearrangement of the protagonist's moral compass or self-perception?

Buffysquirrel said:

I think it is heavily genre-dependent. Also, in a series like, say, the Kinsey Millhone series, it'd be pretty weird for the protagonist to go through twenty-odd character changes.

The protagonist who changes usually has to resolve an internal conflict before they can resolve the external conflict. But it's perfectly possible to do without the internal conflict.

Click to expand...

Good points. I was wondering about that. It does seem like very long running series centered around the same protagonist throughout are more common in crime thriller and mystery genres, maybe because with those the focus is more on external events. And I know I'd be scrambling for earth shaking internal changes after a few books (like maybe her new favorite food is ... salmon instead of steak at the end of book 5, lol).

But I wonder if the focus on external conflict would be enough to sustain me for 20 books with the same character. Maybe it's just my taste. I mostly read SF and F or contemporary writers like Amy Tan and Margaret Atwood who write stand-alone books about one character or set of characters.

Although there are some famous long-running series with a single character in SF and F (like Conan), it's more usual for the protagonists to shift if there are more than a few books. The original main characters may show up in subsequent books as minor characters, and new characters are introduced as protagonists later in the series (or previously minor characters before more important). Anne McCaffrey's Dragonirider books did this, for instance.

dangerousbill said:

But no one has to change. Captain Ahab was just as nutty at the beginning of Moby Dick and he was in the final, frenzied battle with the whale. Even Ishmael didn't change in any noticeable way.

Click to expand...

Ooh, good example. Though the story ended badly for Ahab, as I recall, so you could say his refusal to change was part of the tragedy of it. Same for Great Gatsby, though in that one, the first person narrator did change. Both of these were interesting books, in that the first person narrator was not the actual plot-driving character.

Some good points. And as per the example of how stories changed between the medieval and renaissance periods, where individualism began to emerge, at least in European society. I'm trying to think if these themes of conflict, striving, sacrifice and transformation would be different in different cultures.

I think a lot of those circular stories, where the protagonist ends up back home, have the classic "you can never really go home again" thing in them. The character is no longer the same person, so he or she can't really be a part of what he or she just saved. Certainly Frodo in LoTR was along these lines.

I guess there is a wandering hero sort of trope, though, where the protagonist doesn't really change during the story. The drifter shows up and gets recruited (perhaps reluctantly, perhaps for a reward) to fight the baddies, then leaves at the end. Still a drifter. Kind of like Mad Max after the first movie (where he did change through the process of trying to avenge his family).

One novel that I remember (not a sci Fi or fantasy) where this issue of change was really big was the Accidental Tourist by Anne Tyler (they made a movie out of it too, but I remember the book a bit better). Obviously, the protagonist (Macom, I think his name was) went through a lot of changes in that tale, as did his sister (as I recall) and his boss. I don't remember whether Muriel changed, though. Her role in the story was more to be the catalyst. I know his brothers didn't, at least not voluntarily. Ann Tyler was big on certain characters being catalysts in some of her stories, as I recall. Sometimes the protagonist was actually the catalyst (the Clock Winder was like that, I think, and don't remember if she so much changed as simply accepted her role).

Anyway, this is an interesting conversation, because there was a presentation I went to on outlining a novel where you ask yourself nine questions about your protagonist, and one of them was "how does he/she change during the course of the book?" and another was "What does he or she sacrifice?" The presenter (a published novelist) seemed to feel both change and sacrifice were necessary. He may have been the person who I first heard saying, "No change, no story," but I'm pretty sure I ran across the same saying in an agent's blog too (a major reason the agent said she would turn down otherwise promising novels is if the protagonist did not undergo a meaningful change by the end of the book).

Funny how these writing rules are so full of exceptions.

tko said:

Only in literary works does the character really seem to change. Perhaps some fantasy novels (from farm boy to king . . )

Click to expand...

Most of the fantasy novels I can think of, from LoTR to His Dark Materials to Neverwhere to Brandon Sanderson's stuff have character transformations as pretty central, unless they're one of those long running sword and sorcery series, perhaps, like Conan. I think the classic hero's journey (a common trope in traditional fantasy, whether the journey be physical or metaphoric) requires a transformation of some kind, usully in order to solve the problem facing the protagonist. Urban and contemporary fantasy may be different, at least when there's more of a focus on longer series with the same protagonist.

The writer who said "no transformation, no story" during his outlining presentation was a fantasy writer. I can think of character changes in romance and in contemporary fiction (I'm not always clear whether writers like Amy Tan, Anne Tyler and Margaret Atwood count as literary or not).

I'd guess that detective fiction is more focused on the process or the external events than on the character's internal barriers to success, though I guess this can vary too. There may be some comfort or amusement people who read long standing series derive from having the character be relative static (ten books in, such and such a character is still a hard-headed womanizer with a drinking problem--having such a character join AA and fall in love might be a deal breaker).

Lots of food for thought here. Thanks everyone for chiming in

lolchemist said:

A character doesn't have to change for a book to be successful. Look at all those series books from the past, Sweet Valley Twins, Nancy Drew, Babysitters Club, Hardy Boys, Famous Five, etc etc. There were dozens if not hundreds of books in these series and the MCs managed to stay so completely stagnant that you could literally read most of the books completely out of order and not miss a thing!

I think character growth is a great thing personally, but it's not necessary for all genres.

Click to expand...

Interesting point, and again, that's probably a conscious decision for those long series. It would never occur to me to read a series out of order. There have been a few times I've picked up a book (mistakenly thinking it's the first one) only to discover a little way in it isn't. If I can't find the book(s) that precede it, I get ticked. But if a series consists of a ton of books, some of which may even be out of print, it makes sense to want them to be completely interchangeable. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own