Guest Battle: Finals

[countlieberkuhn]

Fleck raises some well-made points about dynamic vs static characters, but to jump in on this argument, I do think Laguna has a character arc, albeit a subtle one.

I'm going to harp on again about the morning paper and slippers lifestyle he wanted here. Thing is, when Laguna leaves his life of adventure in the army, he ends up in Winhill and does go through change. No longer is he the carefree guy who likes to go on adventures with his friends, he's now a guy with responsibilities, and for the first time ever, something resembling a family to call his own. And even then he doesn't seem to appreciate what a good thing he has going, as he's still hung up on Julia. He marries Raine anyway, presumably because he wants that nice little life and probably does it mostly to give Ellone a proper family. He also seems very insecure at this time, revealing a lot to Kiros about it all. He's definitely a changed man underneath the façade.

So Ellone gets kidnapped by Esthar, Laguna goes off to save her and goes through all the crap like being forced into slave labour along the way, and eventually becoming President, while back at home Raine's dying unbeknownst to him. And even then he doesn't go back to visit her grave as far as I'm aware, instead opting to stay in Esthar and do his duties there. Eventually, he bumps into Squall, and I think it's implied that he knows Squall's his son, and with Laguna's help, Squall is able to save the world. In the ending, Laguna visits Raine's grave and smiles sadly, and I think it's because then he finally realises that Raine was the best thing to ever happen to him, and that without her and Ellone he wouldn't have become the man he finally did - President of the most powerful nation in existence, and father to the guy who saved the world.

Long story short, Laguna changes, just very slowly and subtly. He does always act kinda the same because that's who he is, but he definitely grows as a person through all his life experiences. It's just he grows from a good person into an even better one, rather than the more obvious contrast of someone like Beatrix or Cecil.

[Fleck]

You both wanna fight? I'LL TAKE YOU BOTH ON AT ONCE!

Bob:
I'm willing to let you have the "I like Laguna because I like Laguna" argument. You can have it and keep it and I won't say anything. I can't really argue you out of having your own feelings. The issue here is that I asserted that Laguna was more of a static character than Beatrix, and that ultimately swayed my decision in the vote. You then countered my argument by being rather dismissive of the concept of dynamic characters and redemption arcs in general, not just in Laguna's instance. I defended my logic, and then you retreated back to the "I just like Laguna" argument. In arguments, you have a tendency to make an assertion, then retreat back to a place of unassailable logic when that assertion is challenged. It's frustrating. I like arguments because they help me understand my own opinions by forcing me to explain them and provide examples. Through arguments, I gain greater understanding of myself and others. You always seem to argue for the sake of ending arguments, and when I bring up something that will continue the debate, you attempt to cut it off entirely.

So if you want to like Laguna for personal reasons, then okay. Nothing I can say about that. But if you want to argue the merits of static and dynamic characters, that's making an assertion that I can (and will) challenge. Your last rebuttal was mostly comprised of personal opinions, so there isn't much I can actually say to further the debate on your end, unless you want to add something more.

I will say that I get the feeling that you view character arcs differently than I do. Not just that you have a different opinion of their value, but a different opinion of what constitutes an arc. Just the way you talk about arcs is different from how I would describe them. I think that's really one of the big sticking points in this argument.

Count:
Okay, shit. That's actually a really strong example. You'd think the guy who spent the last several years poring over the plot of FF8 would have remembered that scene, but I derped. I herp a derped. I'm still going to argue that Laguna's place in the story is more that of a symbol, rather than a person, but I pretty much have to abandon the "static" aspect of my character assessment.

But this is why I argue; not always just to win. Now I actually noticed a couple of things about Laguna that I was unaware of. For instance, now I see that Laguna's plotline, in regards to other people, mirrors Squall's. Squall and Laguna start in different places and with different mindsets, but over the course of their respective journeys, they learn the importance of other people. Laguna obviously wasn't the loner that Squall was, but his views were broader. He wanted to see the world, to visit many places. Once Ellone and Raine enter his life, he wants to protect and preserve them above all else. He learns the value in these relationships, much in the same way that Squall learns the value of having friends.

Anyway, stop being right, Count. That's my job.

[Bob]

I missed something here, I think. Maybe I'll reread when I'm less tired or something, but I could've sworn our discussion was over what I said, not what you'd said. So you might need to clarify the argument. This is how I perceive what happened.

Fleck: I picked Beatrix!
Bob: I picked Laguna.
Fleck: You said you like static characters more than dynamic!
Bob: No, I didn't. I just said I like Laguna more than Beatrix.
Fleck: You suck and I hate you!

I THINK what happened is you took my "don't need a 180 arc" argument as an attack on your argument, whereas I was just saying that I like characters with and without arcs, so for me, it doesn't really factor in on these polls. I worded it poorly, I admit, but my recent counter was basically a "no, you're arguing against something I didn't mean." I'm not meaning to be dismissive, I think it was just miscommunication here. I wasn't countering anything you said initially, I just looked at what was said prior and was saying what did or didn't factor into my decision.

Often our arguments end up as you mention because they're generally miscommunications. Me not great grammar. Me just want clear up miscommunication.

If you want to argue about something here, then give me the topic, but I don't think we're on opposite sides here.

[Fleck]

The argument, as I read it, went more like this:

Me: I pick Beatrix.
Dale: Troll troll troll
Everyone: Lulz
You: I pick Laguna, because you don't need to change to have an arc. (It was the "ooh boy, change" line that really makes this post sound dismissive overall)
Me: You are not using the proper definition of "character arc." So you're basing your argument from a faulty definition. Laguna is less cool because he's static.
You: Good, bad, Laguna's the guy with the gun.
Me: You can't just change the subject like that.
You: I wasn't changing the subject.

And here we are. I thought we were ramping up to a debate between you: "A character who is always good doesn't need to change, and is usually better than a character who has to change to become good" and me: "the change is more complex and interesting, and characters that don't change are bad for stories."

That's where I thought we were going. And now we are fully derailed. I think I've said all I can think about on the subject. My debate is mostly done, especially now that Count proved that Laguna isn't a wholly static character. So really, for this argument to continue, we'd have to break away from Laguna/Beatrix and start arguing about abstracted dynamic and static characters. I'm okay with doing that, but I don't know if you have a strong enough opinion on the subject to warrant a whole debate session on it.

[countlieberkuhn]

There had better be some hot, steamy make-up sex when this is done!

[Bob]

There's hot, steamy always sex...always.

Yeah, sorry about the wording. My point wasn't that character arcs are bad, it was that I can like a character without a character arc. I wrote that post quickly and was just kinda hitting the high-points in my brain. In terms of a story, change is a good thing. Otherwise, 1984 ends with...wait, how DID 1984 end? I was going to say "1984 ends with everybody still loving Big Brother," but now I'm not positive it didn't end that way. Damn my memory of books I read 10 years ago!

But yeah, again, sorry for the confusion. I wasn't saying anything negative about your post, which is why I was kind of dismissive of your counter-argument. I saw your counter-argument as starting the argument and I saw your argument as misinterpreting my argument.

That being said, I'm glad Count weighed in on the Laguna stuff because he said what I was implying, but more eloquently and with actual game examples and such. I was trying to point out that everybody changes, even if you don't see the change. Laguna had an arc, we just don't really see it. To go from joining Galbadia to president of Esthar requires a change, so it did happen, even if he was talking about not loving Galbadia from the point we join him.

Anywho, group hug. I think everything is cleared up on our non-differences (right?), so moving on from Laguna v. Beatrix.

I am interested in your opinion on static characters as a whole. I suppose my question to you is: can a character be interesting without a full character arc? Can a static character still be a good character?

Because I would argue that yes, they can be interesting without changing. This isn't comparative to a dynamic character, but just a static character in general. I have little doubt that you would say a dynamic character with a full character arc is more interesting than a static character, but would you say that a static character is, by definition, boring?

I'm interested in this because I think we're both drawing from different perspectives. You read a lot of books, where authors take the time to develop characters, provide character arcs, and generally work with complex characters. I am on the other side of this. I watch movies, TV, and play video games nearly exclusively and would claim that a HUGE majority of movies, TV, and video games use superficial characters, so I see a lot of characters that I'd call static, or at least missing a character arc.

For instance, Superman. I don't know a ton about Superman, but people like him and he doesn't really change (does he?). He helps people right from the beginning and his whole purpose is stopping bad guys and saving Lois Lane (and I guess other people....sometimes). Does that make Superman a bad character? He's still a nice guy, fighting evil, having awesome powers, defending justice, all that stuff, but he doesn't start as a villain or believe justice is flawed or...really anything. At least not in my limited knowledge of Superman.

[Fleck]

I'll get back to you tonight, after work, when I have more time to write everything out. But you didn't offend me or anything and I wasn't angry at all; I just thought that you were arguing that character arcs were irrelevant, and that, to me, is a silly position to have, so I had to say something.

Can we still have make-up sex?

[countlieberkuhn]

Jumping in on the argument! HA!

Your point about Superman reminds me of a surprisingly good youtube series I saw once, which started out as little skits between superheroes commenting on the state of comic book movies and stuff, during the mid 2000s when there were several released each year. It was done using action figures and was just silly thing, but it eventually evolved into a full on story where Superman couldn't understand why people didn't like him anymore, at least compared to Batman or the majority of Marvel heroes. And it essentially boiled down to the fact that he was a static character, who is more defined by who he is than what he does. He's a guy with tons of powers, and is practically invincible. He's such a good guy that he can't be swayed by evil or temptation, and just carries on doing what he's doing. But the problem REALLY arises by the fact that he's totally unrelatable because he isn't flawed, and saves the world in ways that would be impossible for any human. He saves the world because he's different, not despite it.

Compare Superman to someone like Spiderman. Both have superhuman powers, but Spiderman as a character is flawed. Going mostly by the Sam Raimi films here, Peter Parker is a shy nerd who is suddenly granted the power to be who he wants, and he totally abuses it to get money, Kirsten Dunst, etc. He suffers for it when his Uncle dies, and even then he doesn't do the right thing, instead just going and murdering the guy who did it. Furthermore, Peter Parker is a guy of great intelligence, but still finds himself doing crummy jobs that are far beneath him in order to make ends meet, much like most people. This problem is only worsened in Spiderman 2, when he stops relying on selfishly photographing his own heroics for money and publicity. Peter Parker is a guy who learns the hard way that he needs to make an honest living and be Spiderman because it's the right thing to do, and is willing to endure a pretty shitty normal life because of it. Superman doesn't have to make such a sacrifice, and is able to have his cake and eat it, without needing to ever learn anything.

Superman is a role model, the guy that everyone should aspire to be, but the problem is that's an impossible task. Also he's totally static. In Smallville, he's a BIT more of an interesting character and is my favourite depiction of him, but even in that he's totally eclipsed by all the characters around him being far more complex and dynamic, particularly the Luthors. Superman is an unfortunately dated character, and that's why he's not fared nearly as well as Batman, Spiderman, or even the X-Men (First Class is a much better, character-driven film than the others) in cinemas in the last decade.

I guess I'm agreeing with Fleck here - a dynamic character is far more interesting for storytelling. You get to see a lot of character depth, it's unpredictable, and you feel like you've been with the characters on their journey. And this is something that's needed in most movies, although not always in the same format. Like Bob, I'm much more into visual media than I am into books, so my opinions are shaped by that. A leading character doesn't have to have an arc, and often doesn't due to limited screen time - however they usually do need to have some kind of reactionary struggle to be interesting, be it on an interpersonal level (American History X is a great example), or them facing up against the odds (like in Die Hard, or almost any action film ever). If these characters didn't have a struggle, we wouldn't be invested in them, as it's the strong potential for failure that makes it compelling, even if we know deep down that they'll succeed in the end, because that's how things normally go in films.

But to support Bob's point, you don't always need dynamic characters film a film/story to be interesting or good, and with a clever premise and characters who have depth right off the bat, you don't need anything else. Case in point, Pulp Fiction. There's tons of really memorable characters in that, but none of them really have an arc, or even anything resembling a struggle. Only Bruce Willis' character actually has a struggle of sorts, as he tries to evade Marsellus Wallace and his men. But that takes up at most 1/3 of the film, and the rest is just the other characters being involved in a series of events. Things just happen in the film, and it's made interesting purely by merit of these interesting characters and their interactions with eachother. Films like Pulp Fiction are far rarer than ones with more traditional story/character arcs, but they are far from impossible. And I'm pretty sure most of the world either loves Pulp Fiction, or hasn't seen it yet.

So true to my kinda middle-ground position between Bob and Fleck, I'm agreeing with both of you! Whether a character is static or dynamic doesn't matter so much, or even if that character is likeable. That being said, static characters do tend to work far better in support roles, with a leading character changing through their experiences and interactions with these other characters.

And Bob: 1984 DOES end that way, which is why it's so depressing. It's a character arc, but in reverse.

[Fleck]

Well then... nevermind. Count pretty much said it. However, I will say that the choice to make a main character static or dynamic drastically changes the way the story must be told in order to work. Count used the example of Pulp Fiction to show a story composed mostly of static characters that still manages to work, and he's right. However, static characters need to bounce off each other, either other static characters or off of dynamic characters in order to be interesting. And the interest level doesn't really come from the characters (unless they have really good dialog, like in Pulp Fiction) but tends to be a clash of ideals, rather than a clash of personalities.

With smaller, more intimate casts, static characters stand out and cause friction in the story (and not the good kind that moves things forward, but the bad kind that slows things down). Laguna, although he's not a totally static character, could have worked as a static character, since there are enough other character and set pieces for him to bounce off of that he doesn't need to make a personal journey.

Static characters are a necessity for larger casts, simply because of time constraints. Not everyone can have a deep, meaningful personal journey when the cast is composed of several dozen people, or else the plot would never move. However, from my perspective, static characters are filler: people who exist to help define the main characters and are somewhat left out of the story for various reasons. That's why I tend not to think highly of them.

But yeah, Superman really is the definitive "static lead character," complete with all the virtues and faults that position holds. Yeah, he's an awesome hero, but he's more an ideal of humanity, rather than a mirror of humanity.

[Bob]

First off, yes, make-up sex all around.

Secondly: Sam Jackson's character had the biggest arc in Pulp Fiction. He stops being a hitman by the end. A few of them had arcs in there. Know what's great though? Nobody remembers any of the damn character names except Marcellus. You know...Marcellus, Bruce Willis, Sam Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman...all those great characters!

I think I can infer both of your answers given what you said, but you didn't directly answer my question. You're both saying that dynamic characters are better, but I was just asking if static characters are boring. Not MORE boring than dynamic. I know you'd pick dynamic over static. But that was kind of my whole point before was just saying that I personally don't feel that a character has to be dynamic to be interesting.

Kind of a follow-up question: do only changing opinions cause a character to have a character arc? Because, if so, then there are actually very few dynamic characters. For instance, John McClane in Die Hard is static. He comes in as a cop and his cop instincts kick in to defeat the bad guys. By the end...he's a cop who defeated the bad guys. He had no revelations, nothing changed in him, he just...won. Completely static character, the movie moved forward, there was conflict, and I think the only dynamic character in the movie is his wife, who kinda regretted being away from him by the end. So basically, John had no character arc, right?

(BTW, that was basically my whole argument for Laguna. I love John McClane, I love Laguna, and neither have character arcs, but I still love their characters.)

[countlieberkuhn]

That was kinda why I brought up John McClane actually, because he's a really likeable character, and he goes through a struggle in order to succeed and be the movie's hero, but his character doesn't change in the slightest. And he gets FUCKED UP in that film, particularly when they shoot out the windows when they realise he's bare foot. So it makes his eventual triumph all the more enjoyable.

To answer Bob's REAL question then, static characters aren't boring. But the character needs to be very well-written and be involved in an exciting story in order to work effectively. They also have to be likeable, because an annoying character who doesn't change will just stay annoying.

[Fleck]

Jul 27, 2012 13:24:09 GMT -8 Bob said:

I think I can infer both of your answers given what you said, but you didn't directly answer my question. You're both saying that dynamic characters are better, but I was just asking if static characters are boring. Not MORE boring than dynamic. I know you'd pick dynamic over static. But that was kind of my whole point before was just saying that I personally don't feel that a character has to be dynamic to be interesting.

Okay, here's my thoughts on static characters.

Because static characters, by their very nature, do not undergo change, they have both a limited number of choices, as well as a limited number of uses. Static characters work best when they are used as tools to personify a concept, and then to send that concept through a story to test it. Great literature often does work with static characters by use of metaphor or allegory, and you can get a lot of legwork out of static characters if you do it right. And action flicks also get a lot of work out of static characters, because that way, the action hero doesn't get in the way of the action. People paid money to see a dude kill some German terrorists, and every frame spent on personal reflection, or lamenting the cruel twists of fate that led to this event is time spent NOT killing German terrorists, the audience gets restless.

So you ask if static characters ARE boring or just more boring than dynamic characters, and that depends on their functionality and what the audience expects from the character. Their value comes from how well they personify their particular ideal (how badass and manly this particular action hero is), as well as how closely that personification matches audience expectation (I paid to see badass manly men, damn it!). Deviations from the ideal or from audience expectations result in weak, disappointing characters and muddied plotlines. When everything is working well, then no one is really going to notice or care if the lead character is static.

But that's ultimately where the problem comes in, and why I view static characters to be boring. Once you lock in their character, that's it. You're stuck. John McClane isn't going to put away his gun and start growing daisies for a living. This lack of change also adds a strict expiration date to the character. Repeated uses of the character weaken the character and the storyline. This is why action movie series usually peter out after a couple films: you just run out of places to send the character, or things for them to do. And since the character doesn't change, they are expected to find themselves in similar situations over and over. John McClane is an action hero, and would be quite out of place in say, a Shakespearean drama. So not only is the character static, but his situations are limited as well. All of John McClane's movies have to be action movies, and have to follow a certain formula. The only way to escape this is to invoke change in the character, which makes them dynamic.

Ultimately, I view static characters to be like trains, and dynamic characters to be like helicopters. Both have their purposes and it's hard to say if one is really better than the other, because they have their uses and their disadvantages, but you unquestionably get more freedom from one than you do from another.

On a personal note, I DO view static characters to be boring, because, from a writing standpoint, they're easy. Once you build the character, that's it. You're done. Just wind them up and set them loose. Watch them bump into things and fall over. You never have to consider their changing viewpoints, or the way they look at things. Unless you want to get really deep into symbolism and allegory, there usually isn't much intellectually challenging about writing a static character (aside from writing clever dialog). Brian Clevinger, the writer behind 8-Bit Theater, would always say that his job was very easy, because his characters were so one-dimensional that the jokes practically wrote themselves. There really was no choice BUT to write comedy. And I know from writing SSH that my characters who refused to compromise were always the easiest to write. Their plans and their options were considerably fewer than those who were willing to color outside the lines.

So, to (hopefully) answer your question, static characters are boring, unless they serve very specific purposes and are executed well. Also static characters, even when well-executed, eventually wear out their welcome *hack cough Captain Jack Sparrow cough.*

Jul 27, 2012 13:24:09 GMT -8 Bob said:

Kind of a follow-up question: do only changing opinions cause a character to have a character arc?

Yes. A character can go through any number of external events, find themselves in a fantasy setting one day and a sci-fi the next, but if none of that changes their worldview, then they are static.

[Bob]

Good answer. I don't find static characters boring (not always anyway), but I definitely liked the example about action movies running out of situations for them. It's totally true. But I tend to like certain character types, so static doesn't really bother me until they hit that point where there's nothing left to do with them...like Jack Sparrow. Damn he rocked in the first one and damn he was pointless in the rest.

I know sometimes I have a hard time with dynamic characters because they'll start (or end) with a good stance, but then a change happens and I don't like them anymore (or I've just started to like them). This generally happens when a character has a very sudden, not seamless transition. Like, say, the Grinch. Wish I could come up with a better example, but something that happens that really shouldn't affect him THAT much, but it completely flips him from 100% negative to 100% positive. (Disclaimer: I actually am okay with the Grinch, he's just what came to mind when I think of a quick switch). If there's no transition and you can't see the progression, then I tend to dislike the character. Like, if a jock is bullying a kid, then he sees how it's hurting that kid, so he stops and tries to help him. I'm good with that. But sometimes a character will be a bully, then something really trite happens like the kid he bullies stops him from stepping on a crack (y'know...for the bully's mother's back's sake), and the bully is like "I'm good now!" For me, I'm done right there. The character is ruined and was better off as a bully.

What's interesting to me and what kinda makes me glad that I made horrible grammar mistakes to spark this debate is that it really makes me consider how characters can be viewed and utilized. I think, in the long run, a good story doesn't have static or dynamic characters. I think too many characters are put into classes, and I hate that. "This guy is a main character and his three friends are supporting characters. They will be static, but the main character will be dynamic." I think that's crap. ALL characters should be dynamic because people are dynamic.

But I'm just a crazy person who believes that making minor characters be pure support is lazy. I think a good character is a specific way of thinking, not a stereotype, and a good author will consider that people can change that aren't the main character. But this is really damn hard to do. It's why AFFR takes me so damn long. I wanna write something, but then I remember they don't know that. Grrr.

Cid: "I hate you because you tripped Al-Cid and that's mean and we're not friends now!"
ME: Oh, wait, he wasn't there for that. Crap crap crap. Redo.
Cid: "We're still friends. Yay!"

....Obviously, that example is one that even a novice author should recognize to avoid inconsistencies, but point is, I'm always getting into the heads of many characters, not just one or two. If I ever get around to writing anything original, know that I hate cliche and I hate dud characters. It'll be my thing...when I'm seventy and finally releasing my first book.

And if this response is kinda jumpy, it's because I was interrupted about ten times while writing it....so....whoops.

[Fleck]

Everything with writing is a middle road, and all rules can be broken. So yeah, while dynamic characters are generally more complicated, interesting, and realistic, change for the sake of change is every bit as unrealistic as a character who never changes. But yeah... this conversation/argument was fun for me too.