Stimulating as always, Shaelin. A dynamic character who fails in the pursuit of his goal is a fair summary of The Great Gatsby. It is Nick Carraway, the narrator, who must ponder Gatsby's failure, transforming it into a vision of the unattainable, the green light in the dock.. Dr. Dick Diver (Tender is the Night) begins as a dynamic idealist; his damaged wife Nicole moves from static to dynamic, while Dick fades away. I like novels where minor characters appear only to disappear, rather like talking to an interesting person and never meeting her again. New Zealander Maurice Gee does this superbly in his novels Going West, Prowlers, Crime Story and in his haunting trilogy: Plumb, Meg, Sole Survivor. You might enjoy *BBC Sincerely Scott Fitzgerald* (UA-cam) enlivened by Gershwin's dynamic Rhapsody in Blue.
Thank you for the examples of Sherlock Holmes and Hannibal Lecter. Often, "savant" characters are deemed "emotionless"/"rude". When in reality, it's the "non-savant"/"brutish" characters that are rude, boisterous, and think that they're right about everything (even though they act without thinking first most of the time). Often, those types of characters (Lecter and Holmes) do what NEEDS to be done, but everyone else is too soft-hearted to do so. Another prime example of that, is Dexter Morgan. Yes, he was a serial killer. But, like how it takes a wolf to catch a wolf, it took a serial killer to catch one ((cough) MINDHUNTER (cough)). In all reality, society puts being boisterous and/or assertiveness above everything else. The louder that you are, the more people will listen to you (a good orator would get massive following/s these days). As was the case in 1930's Germany. Which led to the rise of Chancellor Hitler, who later became Der Fuhrer. There's so many ways that I could go with this (jocks versus nerds, etc.). However, I think that I made my point. Good video, as always, Reedsy. :).
Odd, you bring this up, because this is what I have just done with my character in my 5th novel, she has a means to her ultimate goal, she had to change...
Rare? Next to Sherlock Holmes you could literally list every detective character plus thriller character and almost all of them would be static. You've basically called entire extremely popular genres "rare". Just because static characters are not talked about as much as dynamic ones doesn't mean they're rare.
That's blasphemous,lol...JK. they have the movie. But for reals this is common since, stuff, or if you look into people's life's you can see the samething. You don't have to read a book to see ant vs pro tags. These people get stuff from other sources and try to feed what others, say, said, instead of thinking for themselves. That's the reality of things today. No thought of their own.
Dynamic characters win. Whether or not they undergoany sort of transformation in the course of the story. Dynamic characters drive the storyline and make for a good reading---I think.
Not really. Dynamic characters start with a "lie" and by the end they accept the "truth" from the world around them. Static characters already know the "truth", it's the world around them that's living in a "lie". So by the end of the story, a static character **changes the whole world around them**, which is a much more meaningful and impactful change than merely changing oneself.
@@daina3628 Starting out with an untruth in a work of fiction and ending with acceptance of reality adds intensity to the story, it also makes for a more satisfying read, they are the ones that sell more than thirty copies...
I think that both can be equally impactful, depending on the story. A dynamic character drives the story through their own transformation and realisation of the truth, while a static character drives the story by their desire to change the world they live in for the better. A character accepting a new truth after a lifetime of believing a lie is a powerful story, but so is a character who remains true to themselves and keeps hold of their beliefs even in a desparate situation or in a world that tries to convince them otherwise. A positive change arc can help us believe that we are capable of change, while a flat arc can help us believe that we can change the world without comprimising ourselves or our beliefs.
@@rosiespiller1640 both work depending on the author's skills as a story teller... Alright, dynamic does push stories better than static characters, but a novelist's talents matters a lot too in gingering up a story regardless of the kind of character---
@@u_t_d_s_h-1_a Of course the author's (or screenwriter, for a film or TV show) skill is always the most important part of any story. Without well-written plot, dialogue and conflict (internal and/or external), any story would be boring and terrible. It's the conflict that drives the story the most, and the main characters going after what they want, regardless of their eventual arc. For a dynamic character, they start out not truly happy because they believe the lie, and so they chase after what they think will make them happy. For a static character, they are unhappy because their world believes the lie, so they seek to change everyone's minds. In most positive change arcs, there is usually a static character who already believes the truth, often a mentor-type character, who pushes the protagonist to change. A flat-arc story is merely a shift in perspective, with that character as the protagonist and a wider range of characters with a positive arc. A talented writer could probably write a dual-POV book with both characters as narrators. Now that would be interesting...
Stimulating as always, Shaelin. A dynamic character who fails in the pursuit of his goal is a fair summary of The Great Gatsby.
It is Nick Carraway, the narrator, who must ponder Gatsby's failure, transforming it into a vision of the unattainable, the green light in the dock..
Dr. Dick Diver (Tender is the Night) begins as a dynamic idealist; his damaged wife Nicole moves from static to dynamic, while Dick fades away.
I like novels where minor characters appear only to disappear, rather like talking to an interesting person and never meeting her again.
New Zealander Maurice Gee does this superbly in his novels Going West, Prowlers, Crime Story and in his haunting trilogy: Plumb, Meg, Sole Survivor.
You might enjoy *BBC Sincerely Scott Fitzgerald* (UA-cam) enlivened by Gershwin's dynamic Rhapsody in Blue.
I believe that we can make a change when we want to, and I’m ready.
I feel like a static character today, caught up in the inevitable slog towards Christmas. Blah! Lol. Thank for the great post.
Brilliant, I love it
😊 thank for helping me
Thank you for the examples of Sherlock Holmes and Hannibal Lecter. Often, "savant" characters are deemed "emotionless"/"rude". When in reality, it's the "non-savant"/"brutish" characters that are rude, boisterous, and think that they're right about everything (even though they act without thinking first most of the time). Often, those types of characters (Lecter and Holmes) do what NEEDS to be done, but everyone else is too soft-hearted to do so. Another prime example of that, is Dexter Morgan. Yes, he was a serial killer. But, like how it takes a wolf to catch a wolf, it took a serial killer to catch one ((cough) MINDHUNTER (cough)). In all reality, society puts being boisterous and/or assertiveness above everything else. The louder that you are, the more people will listen to you (a good orator would get massive following/s these days). As was the case in 1930's Germany. Which led to the rise of Chancellor Hitler, who later became Der Fuhrer. There's so many ways that I could go with this (jocks versus nerds, etc.). However, I think that I made my point. Good video, as always, Reedsy. :).
Jesus fucking christ dude go outside
Odd, you bring this up, because this is what I have just done with my character in my 5th novel, she has a means to her ultimate goal, she had to change...
Rare? Next to Sherlock Holmes you could literally list every detective character plus thriller character and almost all of them would be static. You've basically called entire extremely popular genres "rare". Just because static characters are not talked about as much as dynamic ones doesn't mean they're rare.
💜⚡
Didn't you tell us you never read the great Gatsby so how are you talking about it
That's blasphemous,lol...JK. they have the movie. But for reals this is common since, stuff, or if you look into people's life's you can see the samething. You don't have to read a book to see ant vs pro tags.
These people get stuff from other sources and try to feed what others, say, said, instead of thinking for themselves. That's the reality of things today. No thought of their own.
Dynamic characters win. Whether or not they undergoany sort of transformation in the course of the story. Dynamic characters drive the storyline and make for a good reading---I think.
Not really. Dynamic characters start with a "lie" and by the end they accept the "truth" from the world around them. Static characters already know the "truth", it's the world around them that's living in a "lie". So by the end of the story, a static character **changes the whole world around them**, which is a much more meaningful and impactful change than merely changing oneself.
@@daina3628 Starting out with an untruth in a work of fiction and ending with acceptance of reality adds intensity to the story, it also makes for a more satisfying read, they are the ones that sell more than thirty copies...
I think that both can be equally impactful, depending on the story. A dynamic character drives the story through their own transformation and realisation of the truth, while a static character drives the story by their desire to change the world they live in for the better. A character accepting a new truth after a lifetime of believing a lie is a powerful story, but so is a character who remains true to themselves and keeps hold of their beliefs even in a desparate situation or in a world that tries to convince them otherwise.
A positive change arc can help us believe that we are capable of change, while a flat arc can help us believe that we can change the world without comprimising ourselves or our beliefs.
@@rosiespiller1640 both work depending on the author's skills as a story teller...
Alright, dynamic does push stories better than static characters, but a novelist's talents matters a lot too in gingering up a story regardless of the kind of character---
@@u_t_d_s_h-1_a Of course the author's (or screenwriter, for a film or TV show) skill is always the most important part of any story. Without well-written plot, dialogue and conflict (internal and/or external), any story would be boring and terrible.
It's the conflict that drives the story the most, and the main characters going after what they want, regardless of their eventual arc. For a dynamic character, they start out not truly happy because they believe the lie, and so they chase after what they think will make them happy. For a static character, they are unhappy because their world believes the lie, so they seek to change everyone's minds.
In most positive change arcs, there is usually a static character who already believes the truth, often a mentor-type character, who pushes the protagonist to change. A flat-arc story is merely a shift in perspective, with that character as the protagonist and a wider range of characters with a positive arc. A talented writer could probably write a dual-POV book with both characters as narrators. Now that would be interesting...