[ SECRET POST #2806 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2806 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Five Nights at Freddy's]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Star Trek, MCU, Batman Begins]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Twilight Saga]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Xenosaga]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Great British Bake Off]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Law & Order: Criminal Intent]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Minecraft]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Macklemore]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Why do characters have to be awesome and do things? Why can't they develop?

DA

[(Anonymous)]

Because not everyone changes, anon. Some people are more static than others.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

And who determines who is static and who isn't? The author.

I'm just saying that "why can't they be ___" a pointless question to ask, because why can't they be the other way around?

Re: DA

[anonymous4]

Well, precisely -- my comment was putting it to the OP of the secret that they could be the other way round.

But also see my comment later in the thread.

[(Anonymous)]

Why can't they be fully developed to begin with and then be awesome and do things?

[anonymous4]

Yes, you put it much better than me!

[(Anonymous)]

Development is not a synonym for quality.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I made no statements re: quality. Only pointing out the question asked was pointless because it could just as easily go the other way.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that's true, because I think we tend to assume that character development is intrinsically a good thing.

[(Anonymous)]

No, character development signals that "this is a protagonist that the story is about," and not everyone is a protagonist that the story is about, including these characters. "Love interests" tend to stay static.

The fact that none of these characters are a protagonist in their story is a separate topic.

[(Anonymous)]

No, character development signals that "this is a protagonist that the story is about,"

I disagree. There are protagonists that have 0 development whatsoever.

[(Anonymous)]

"Being an apple signals that this is a fruit."
"I disagree. There are fruits that aren't apples."
".....o...kay."

[(Anonymous)]

Example: Bella Swan.

[(Anonymous)]

a therefore b =/= b therefore a

[(Anonymous)]

Character development doesn't necessarily signal that, though. There are characters who are not protagonists and who are not the focus of the story that still develop.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that love interests necessarily stay static... if I see a romance, I expect both characters to develop if I'm to consider it a good story.

[anonymous4]

Because, although lack of character development is what everyone seems to complain about, they never define what character development is, nor explain why they think it's a Good Thing.

To me it seems that a character development-driven (Hero's Journey-type) plot is bound to focus on one character (or two if it's about a relationship), and that (for perceived economic reasons) the main character is most likely to be a straight, white male, and that all the other characters will be given lesser, stereotyped, non-developing roles.

Why not chuck out the character development idea, and look for other ways to drive a plot?