If the world believes a lie, it will persecute the person who does not believe the lie. Holding to the truth in the midst of persecution is the drama of many flat arc stories. It may be very much the story of the cross, where the world is changed through suffering. What the character wants may be something wholesome and good in a world that won’t allow it. I use my words conditionally because there may be other flat arc stories, but the martyrdom story is a common one.
Really cool. Thank you :-) before this I hadn’t heard of these ideas being conceptualizer even though I knew they existed. Like a character who doesn’t include a need for growth, and how they come to be, and you perfectly said it. “Their own personal transformation has already brought them to an understanding of the story’s central truth so they’re not experiencing the inner conflict.”
I wonder how Conan the Barbarian by Robert E. Howard fits into this whole thing. Conan doesn't seem to have any character development, or any doubts about his own beliefs, he's just always Conan.
Here’s a question: Flat Arcs are kind of risky from the outset (if I’m not mistaken), so as a budding writer, how can I know whether I’ve made this decision wisely? Are there some useful criteria? Any pitfalls to be aware of?
Terrific video, Katie. I’d love to see the hour-long MasterClass version of this topic or any other you find helpful for writers. My takeaway is to balance whatever might be considered flat in your work with something else that pops. That will probably be an exciting plot.
Can a character who starts out knowing virtually nothing (of significance to your story) be a flat arc character? For example, if you were writing an Isekai (AKA using the "fish out of water" trope if you're not a weaboo), how can the character know "the truth" when they've been uprooted from anywhere they are familiar with? Or does the "fish out of water" trope necessitate a "positive change arc?"
Many episodic series (among other types of stories) feature a traveling Flat Arc character who visits new areas and initiates the people there into the story's thematic Truth. This doesn't mean the protagonist won't also have things to learn, especially on a practical level, but what designates the story as a Flat Arc is the fact that the protagonist is able to offer a central thematic Truth that creates an upleveling change in the community s/he visits.
The world around them goes through the growth arc that the main already knows. Indiana jones. John McLain. James Bond. Wonder Woman. Charlie Bucket. But yes they’re rarely the main character. I never thought Frodo learned much by the time he made it back to bag end either. Villains are usually always flat arcs but when they aren’t it’s always really satisfying to see them change. Usually side characters are already in the know and don’t need to arc. But like you’re saying I have noticed that some of the main best selling stories have middle walking uninteresting main characters with much more interesting friends.
@@arzabaelAgreed. Especially with ensemble casts, and especially if the series is a trilogy or longer like HP or LotR, most of the characters don’t get nearly enough pages to develop at all. I’d say Harry himself is a pretty flat character throughout most of the series. A lot of his affect on the series can be boiled down to just plain luck while it’s all his friends who help him survive the major events.
@@Dark_Mishra exactly. There is a lot to be said though, about a main character being passive or if their personal choices are what’s driving the trajectory of the plot. Personally I know in my heart my protagonist is too passive in my story, and am trying to find ways to make the proceeding scenes be more of the products of his thinking instead of the plot driving it regardless. Anyway!
So, let me take this idea for a test drive in the world of Tolkien… In Hobbit and Fellowship, Gandalf is FLAT, in Two Towers he is in a change arc, and Return of the King he is FLAT once again?
This varies a little bit depending on if you go by the novel or movies, but in general, I’d say No because he does have a lot of influence on the plot throughout the LotR trilogy. In both versions, he discovers the secret about the ring, gets Frodo & Sam started on their journey, joins the Fellowship to guide them, etc. Now in The Hobbit - especially the novel - he was a much more flat character which the movie changed a lot of to make him a much more active character. A truly flat character from LotR would definitely be Gollum because his overall character arc never actually changes due to his obsession with the One Ring. Yeah, he sort of befriends Frodo and guides them, but that’s out of spite and trickery in hoping he can steal the ring back rather than forming any real bonding friendship.
I'm glad this question came up. I also just finished the Archetype book and I am matching my characters to the arcs and archetypes as I am outlining. (Thanks for those lessons as well.) Some of my subplot characters are Egyptian gods. They interact with the characters, both pro and antagonists. I pictured them as flat characters, although they have as much to lose as the human characters. Is a character like Yoda a flat character? And would that be a good model? Thank you.
I believe Flat Arcs are about overcoming attachments (prior to a female change arc) and overcoming detachment (prior to male change arcs). I used to think the female change arcs were based on duality rather than conflict, but I believe now that it is the Flat arcs that are duality-based. Instead of lie vs truth, the protagonist has to resolve different truths that are appropriate for different contexts. There is an alignment problem between truth and circumstances, and this is presented as choosing between dualistic personas, choices, influences and contexts. Ultimately it's a search for authenticity and identity, so aligning their authentic self with the life they want is done through facing their dualties.
