Urban Fantasy discussion

Assuming the character in question doesn't have a crappy personality and isn't an uber-perfect superman, why do they HAVE to grow? Is it so the reader can feel satisfaction? Because seeing a character grow doesn't make me feel satisfied the same way seeing a character acheive their dreams or save the day does.

I also heard someone say that a character should have to grow internally to be able to acheive their goals, but I don't agree with this either. Take a detective story or an action/adventure (so basically lots of UF). The main character just has to figure out how to overcome the problem to succeed. This doesn't require any growth. Sometimes they need to get stronger, or gather information or come up with a better plan, but that's also external.

I mean, there usually IS character growth but it almost isn't necessary. Like, I read the Dresden Files mostly to find out about what's happening in the world. While I love the stuff Harry does and how he grows as a wizard, I can't honestly say I care that much about his internal growth :S

Also, when a character I like solve's a book's mystery/conflict without growing, I don't feel "unfulfilled" because I am happy that they or whatever folks they helped are better off. So why do people keep saying growth is CRUCIAL?

PS: I'm trying to learn how to write well so I've still got lots of questions. I hope I put this in the right area... XO

If you can tell me whether you think growth is crucial and, if you do, why it's such a big factor for you, I'd be really happy :D I really want to understand so I don't make stupid choices out of stubbornness =_='

I think character growth is important for many reasons. One, life is change. A character who doesn't change (growth implied) is a fly stuck in amber. That may be fine for one book, which could be considered a slice of time, and it may be acceptable for a few more books, depending on how it is done, but when the author is on their 10th book and the main character behaves exactly the same, well--there better be a while lot else that holds my interest. A character who doesn't grow often becomes boring, because the author keeps throwing them in the same conflicts and the character responds the same way. (Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum, Charlotte Harris' Sookie Stackhouse).

It also depends on your audience. When I was 10-12, I read every single Nancy Drew published. Not much character growth there, but that wasn't what I cared about; I enjoyed her, her friends and the mystery. I don't mean to be insulting in any way, but I think that a character who doesn't change only works for a certain kind of audience that wants a certain kind of predictable reading experience. Often, that means more juvenile readers.

Growth is crucial because it reflects life. Storytelling is about life, and I think readers get tired fairly quickly if their characters are not semi-life-like, or an idealized version of it.

Ah, but in real life, not everyone grows. Some people - real people - never grow, some decline, some have lives that end badly, and, true, some live happily ever after. What percent of your friends and family, neighbors, co-workers, etc. have grown?

Very few people are the same as when they were 15. That's real life, which is why those stories don't ring true. We especially love to read about the exceptional, dynamic people, who surely are changed and have changed through conflict.

Susan wrote: "Ah, but in real life, not everyone grows. Some people - real people - never grow, some decline, some have lives that end badly, and, true, some live happily ever after. What percent of your friends..."

Decline is a type of change, randomly ending badly is a common type of story. Both plot lines are used often in literary fiction, in stunning books. My point is while it may be fine for one book, it doesn't work well in a series.

I think it really depends on the story, the kind of events depicted in it, how long the story (or series) lasts, and probably a few other things.

I can enjoy a story with a character who basically remains the same from beginning to end, provided said character *is* interesting to begin with. But when a character is confronted to events/people that have a high potential of creating change (the death of a beloved one; witnessing a murder; a case more gruesome than whatever the detective has ever worked on; etc), then I think there must be a change of some kind.

"Growth" not necessarily meaning "in a positive way" either: for instance, a character that had started as naive and upbeat could go through such events that at the end, s/he'd come to realize his/her potential as a future embittered anti-hero of sorts.

I see!

I think I am probably pretty juvenile in my tastes TBH, LOL. I get it now, though :) If I ever manage to reach my dream of finishing my UF series I'll try to make sure my characters grow. Hopefully they'll seem real enough xD

Thanks a lot guys :D

I hope I can do it well enough lol

Yzabel wrote: "I think it really depends on the story, the kind of events depicted in it, how long the story (or series) lasts, and probably a few other things.

I can enjoy a story with a character who basically..."

I agree. A "change" generated by events is reality and expected. But growth isn't as moving if its always predictable and expected. And to me, Miss Plum will always be amusing, and I'm not 15. Sookie will always hold my attention as will Rachael Morgan.

Uh, that's a tough one. I think it depends on what you want out of a book. Honestly, I feel that if I really want to be moved on a deeper level, I need to see some evolution, or at least some internal conflict with a character. It makes the character more real life to me, even if it's an urban fantasy or fantasy read. I need some connection to reality, and usually the character provides that.

I do like some stock characters, but the rest of the book has to appeal incredibly to me for that lack of character development not to be an issue.

Susan wrote: "Ah, but in real life, not everyone grows. Some people - real people - never grow, some decline, some have lives that end badly, and, true, some live happily ever after. What percent of your friends..."

Funny you should ask. I have a couple of friends out of the bunch who have declined as persons. I feel they are more immature than they were when we were in college. They are so egotistical and narcissistic, that it's hard to be around them. Huge value judgment on my part, but there you have it.

Lady Danielle aka The Book Huntress wrote: "Uh, that's a tough one. I think it depends on what you want out of a book. Honestly, I feel that if I really want to be moved on a deeper level, I need to see some evolution, or at least some int..."

I totally agree with you. You can write a good book without character growth, but for me, that's what keeps me turning the pages. I want to escape into another character, to be pulled in by their emotions, and if I can't, then the book falls kind of flat.

I think that if you are writing a series where each book features a different main character like many PNRs do then you can get away with minimal character growth. I've stopped reading several series including Stephanie Plum, because the characters don't grow or learn from their experiences. After a while it gets boring knowing exactly how a character is going to react and I loose any desire to continue with the series.

I assume we are talking main character here and not side characters. If so then I have to disagree I cannot think of a book where the main character does not change. These changes maybe minimal but they do. Think about this for a second who wants to read a story where the main character or should I say protagonist remains the exact same from beginning to end? Honestly I think if that is the case then the story would work without them being there...so basically you have a story with no protagonist...um to me that sounds crappy.

Next question is if the protagonist is not moving the story line then who is??

I think the question here is how quickly do they change? Is it all at once? Is it over time? Do they change in a positive way or a negative way. Like people main characters have an inside drama as well as an external face. So a character may change on the inside only where they are negatively affected but on the outside they are kicking butt like Chuck Norris. Again these changes could be slight it could be more snarky comments or learning how to use a new weapon or growing to trust some one.

To kind of summarize my thoughts here when you read a story it explains how something becomes or leads to something else. We know what is happening and what is relevant (affecting a sub-plot, just humor, or affecting the major theme) because of the effects on the main character. In the end the protagonist has to do one of two things either they change or they change the world.

Dawn wrote: "I assume we are talking main character here and not side characters. If so then I have to disagree I cannot think of a book where the main character does not change. These changes maybe minimal but..."

Agree. The change doesn't have to be drastic. In fact, if the change is *too* drastic, it can ruin a story.


Even if the character doesn't change, the reader should. For example, in

, Mr. Norrell doesn't change at all, but the readers can see how he *should* change to fit his circumstances, and that changes them.

This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of Rachel being a dumbs*** that I haven't been motivated to pick up the last two. You expect the main character to get smarter, not make the same mistakes over and over.

I think some authors who write series might be gun shy about changing the characters too much in a series, and too soon. We all know how mad when can get when a series and a character does a complete 180. I think it sometimes needs to be about moderation, when you have a multi-book series.

Possibly, in general, characters that don't seem to be affected by the events that engage them seem less believable than those who, like us, are changed by the things they do, the people they meet and events surrounding them that are beyond their control. Characters need core traits but they must also be seen to react to events that unfold, otherwise their engagement with the fictional world they inhabit is, at best, only partial. The work then becomes, at least in part, incomplete.

B.R. wrote: "This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of Rachel being a dumbs*** that I haven't been motivated to pick up the last two. You expect the main character to get smarter, not make the same mistakes over and over."

This. So. Much. +1

Experiment BL626 wrote: "B.R. wrote: "This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of Rachel being a dumbs*** that I haven't been mo..."

That makes me really sad :( I just finished Hollows #1, and I *loved* it! Now, I'm wondering if its worth moving on in the series or not...

Michelle L. wrote: "Experiment BL626 wrote: "B.R. wrote: "This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of Rachel being a dumbs*..."

The Rachel Morgan series is my favorite, and you should keep reading, though I will admit that her reasoning seems convoluted at times.

Penny wrote: "Michelle L. wrote: "Experiment BL626 wrote: "B.R. wrote: "This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of R..."

She seems very young and inexperienced to me, but that's understandable. Unfortunately, she doesn't always seem to remember her professional training. But I'm now in the middle of book #2, and am still enjoying it.

Michelle L. wrote: "Experiment BL626 wrote: "B.R. wrote: "This question made me think of Rachel Morgan in the Hollows series. I loved those books, but by the time I hit #7 or 8, I was so tired of Rachel being a dumbs*..."

You should read and decide for yourself. :)

I think character growth goes back to our basic instincts for story-telling and the function of stories in our humanity. The first story-teller sitting in a cave around a smokey fire would have wanted to entertain, yes, but there had to be a point. I think it's pretty common to want both a fascinating journey (oh, look at the pretty purple chipmunk) and a *point.* The lesson, the conclusion, the rise and fall of the action, these are all inherent to story structure as humans have experienced story since the Greeks. IMHO, reading is a learning experience. We want to achieve something vicariously through the characters we identify with and if the characters are just as idiotic at the end of the story as they were at the beginning, what does that tell us about ourselves?

Again, just my opinion...

a.

I feel that character growth is huge in books, especially in a series. How many people do you know that are still doing the same crap as they were in high school or college? And how many of those do you still hang out with on a regular basis? As people, becoming stagnate in our daily routines often leads to depression, trouble in relationships, and an immense measure of short-sightedness. Adaptation to our surroundings is one of those things that make people amazing. Thus, seeing books without growth, characters will often lose their luster.

What fun would A Christmas Carol be if Ebenezer woke up Christmas morning to meet everybody with a sneer and fired poor Bob Cratchette for requesting the day off?

Matthew wrote: "I feel that character growth is huge in books, especially in a series. How many people do you know that are still doing the same crap as they were in high school or college? And how many of those..."

Good observation! My husband was just saying that although the TV show the Big Bang Theory has been around many years, the characters are in exactly the same stages of their lives as they were when the show started. (For the most part...)

After finishing the second book in the Hollows series, I am hoping that Rachel Morgan starts to grow up a little more. I certainly didn't mind her being young and in-experienced in the first two books, but I want her to mature.

I guess there could be two different concepts here - one dealing with the developmnent of a character within a novel (say, Anna Karenina or ) On The Black Hill) and the other with a series where change is needed to avoid repetition of key themes (e.g. the same type of problem and solution being repeated). With a series, there might be trepidation over spoiling a working formula?

Alan wrote: "I guess there could be two different concepts here - one dealing with the developmnent of a character within a novel (say, Anna Karenina or ) On The Black Hill) and the other with a series where c..."

That's a very good observation, and I agree. I see a series as a longer, more drawn out version of a complete novel. That is, if you combined all the books in a series into one edition, the main character should show the same kind of character arc (only in a more protracted way).

Harry Potter does this. Harry in the last book is the sum of all his experiences throughout. He's not just physically older, but he's a different person than when he started out. He's learned a lot, and he's developed. I think this is why I love the series so much.

Michelle wrote: "Harry Potter does this. Harry in the last book is the sum of all his experiences throughout. "

I've not read any HP, but from what I've heard the series became darker, which might be in part a reflection of the author's changing perpsective on her work, especially as the series came out over ten years, between 1997 and 2007? It might be harder to achieve this if a series is produced over a much shiorter timescale?

Harry Potter was originally intended for an older audience. I think it was the publishing company who made the suggestion to tone it down for kids. The darker aspect was to appeal to older audiences (as the original fans grew with the series) As for the time of release, that's harder to say. Crunching out quick works often leads to inconsistencies and sacrifices some quality of writing. You must also remember that the release dates were not necessarily when the books were finished, but when the publisher thought it best to release - which is often times some 18-24 months after the final draft of the book is submitted.

Michelle brought up "The Big Bang Theory."

The networks seem to think it's different in sitcoms, than in other fiction. We want Harry Potter and his friends to grow, learn and mature. The audience reads and watches every book and movie. In sitcoms networks don't think we can or will watch every episode, that we don't care. Hello, anyone ever hear of soap operas that have gone on for decades and decades and across media? Or some of the best television series there are like "The West Wing," "Babylon 5" and "The Walking Dead." But the networks bosses think we won't watch television (or whatever) like we clearly watch television so Sheldon and his friends don't change (much)...

Julia wrote: "Michelle brought up "The Big Bang Theory."

The networks seem to think it's different in sitcoms, than in other fiction. We want Harry Potter and his friends to grow, learn and mature. The audience..."

In sitcoms that use children, the growth is impossible to ignore, lol. But you're right: many shows are very one-dimensional, and the audience wants it to stay that way.

Very interesting discussion! I'm new to the Urban Fantasy group so this is my first post, hello. :)

As a librarian, I do a lot of reading and research about why people read and why they like to read certain books over others. In library land, we say that books have certain "appeal factors." These factors include language, pacing, characterization, plot, and setting. If you primarily are a plot or setting appeal reader, you might not care if a character grows. People obviously aren't strictly fans of one appeal factor, but generally gravitate to one or two of them based on their mood at any given time. So I imagine anyone's answer to the OP's question might be different depending on what compels you to read.

I'm definitely a fan of characterization so I do not like characters who stay the same over a book or series. Even if your personality doesn't change, you should learn certain things and internalize them.

Sit coms are less prone to change but ultimately they can't be stuck in the same situation for ever- take Friends for example. Moreover their focus is different: the characters are devices for delivering a certain aspect of humour eg David Brent in The Office (UK) (or Michael Scott US) or currently The Big Bang series.

Children's books revolve around repetition and familiarity - the security that once you have grasped a character you can undertand them. But as you develop into a teen and adult there is a realisation that you and others change, that life is more complex. Life is defined by change so to have a character that does not change makes them flat.

To stick with the HP example even Voldermort, the archetypal villain is presented as a child or teen in various books. What is intruiging is how he became a villain. This is even more true for Snape. The Strigoi in VA are not interesting. They are just evil (unless you happen to find a stray spirit user with an enchanted stake) the same is true of Buffy's many vampire badies. The heroes/heroines in YA need to change because they are teens- this is the most dynamic period in your life. The pace of Kate and Curran's change in Ilona Andrews is much slower, they are older - you would expect it to be - but the way their interaction re-directs their natural traits is what makes the relationship intruiguing.
I think it is not so much that some characters never change, rather the timing and pace of change is not going to be the same for all characters in a novel.

I tend to drop series without character growth. I'm a very character driven reader--I get attached to characters. I want to see them learn, grow, get smarter, succeed, and face different challenges--not just the mystery at hand.

I haven't read past the first in Dresden so I can't really speak to that, but a lot of detective stories lose me because it's the same guy/gal solving yet another mystery in the same setting. They don't age, they don't get married, have many personal problems (at work or in relationships). They solve a case. That's all fine and good and I need that sort of mystery as well, but without the characters moving and changing, I tend to lose interest completely.

That's why I tend to stay away from those type of mystery reads.

Character growth can take a rather dry and over told story line and make it rich and rewarding. I love both world building and character growth. But the thing that will make me drop a series or book fast is lack of character depth and growth.

Maria wrote: "I tend to drop series without character growth. I'm a very character driven reader--I get attached to characters. I want to see them learn, grow, get smarter, succeed, and face different challeng..."
I'm mixed, I guess. I'm fine with standard detective series--Holmes, Poirot, Marple, etc--because in some sense, the detective is only a common frame for a different and dynamic set of characters in each book.

In terms of the Dresden Files, Dresden and his comrades will definitely, definitely change, as will the challenges he faces. Also, personally, I thought the first few weren't as strong--more straightforward hardboiled detective pastiches. If you didn't enjoy the first Dresden, aren't a series ordering purist, and want to give the series another chance, you can jump in pretty easily at or .

Carly wrote: "Maria wrote: "I tend to drop series without character growth. I'm a very character driven reader--I get attached to characters. I want to see them learn, grow, get smarter, succeed, and face diff..."

I *plan* to get back to the series, I really do. I've checked several out from the library more than once. I just haven't actually READ any additional ones yet...

Maria wrote: "Carly wrote: "Maria wrote: "I tend to drop series without character growth. I'm a very character driven reader--I get attached to characters. I want to see them learn, grow, get smarter, succeed,..."
Heh, book reading should be fun. If you don't want to read a series at a particular moment, there shouldn't be any reason that you should feel compelled to do so. :)

Maria wrote: "Carly wrote: "Maria wrote: "I tend to drop series without character growth. I'm a very character driven reader--I get attached to characters. I want to see them learn, grow, get smarter, succeed,..."

I'm the same way with the Dresden books, I just can't get excited to read them after the first book.

I'm with Carly, Maria, Harry Dresden does grow and change. But first, Jim Butcher, the author had to figure out how to write him! One thought is to read Butcher's high fantasy series first, which has as a primary protagonist a young man. . The other benefit of this series, is it's done and one could read the whole enchilada (four books) in a relatively short time.

But I'm also with Carly when she writes: book reading should be fun.

Julia wrote: "I'm with Carly, Maria, Harry Dresden does grow and change. But first, Jim Butcher, the author had to figure out how to write him! One thought is to read Butcher's high fantasy series first, which h..."

I've checked those out too. Perhaps the problem isn't Dresden. Perhaps the real problem is I'm greedy when at the library and I can't finish 20 books in two weeks???

I know the feeling...my TBR list just keeps expanding exponentially. Clearly we all need to invest in a Time-Turner or a Tardis.

In terms of the Dresden Files, though, I understand why reading the first book might make the series feel less palatable.
I fortunately read the tenth book, , first, and loved it. Otherwise, I'd probably be in the same boat...in the first few, I didn't find Murphy and Susan particularly endearing, and I thought Dresden and all his "women are better at hating" aphorisms were extremely irritating. I do still like the early ones because I have a fondness for hardboiled/noir, and Storm Front has a ton of direct parallels to Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep. TDF was also my first urban fantasy series, and I loved all the twists on standard hardboiled tropes such as vampiresses as literal femme fatales.

Static characters who never learn, never change, never grow, over time, in a series, can become boring, and unrealistic.

Everyone learns, grows, changes with time.

Now if you're talking a stand-alone novel, I guess its not that big of a deal. But, many readers appreciate seeing a character's transition, seeing their journey to becoming something more, or something better than what they were at the beginning of the novel.

And it adds dimension that creates a much closer connection to that character, to have taken that journey with them, experiencing it as they did.

Its the character growth of my main character Aaron Pilan in my novel "The Nightlife New York", that most people agree is one of the best aspects of the story. He starts out as a naive, innocent personality, and grows into a hardened/mature character, via the events and also via being turned to a vampire and experiencing a lot of harsh realities.

I tend to write characters that grow, but my other main character, Michelle, the Master vampire, does not truly grow or change until the third novel in the series, The Nightlife Paris. I am editing that novel now.

So I take character growth in a series a little differently than in a stand alone novel.

Travis wrote: "Static characters who never learn, never change, never grow, over time, in a series, can become boring, and unrealistic.

Everyone learns, grows, changes with time.

Now if you're talking a stand-a..."
Well, I dunno. I have some relatives that don't seem to learn or change...

Maria wrote: "Travis wrote: "Static characters who never learn, never change, never grow, over time, in a series, can become boring, and unrealistic.

Everyone learns, grows, changes with time.

Now if you're ta..."

And I bet those are some of your favorite relatives, NOT.

There will always be static characters in books, and in real life. But its my opinion that your main characters should not be static, at least not for an entire series.

:)

Travis wrote: "Maria wrote: "Travis wrote: "Static characters who never learn, never change, never grow, over time, in a series, can become boring, and unrealistic.

Everyone learns, grows, changes with time.

No..." Nor should relatives...

But in fairness, I think older series (60s, 70s) part of the trend and possibly part of the pastiche was for characters to remain the same. I'm thinking specifically of the gumshoe stories where the detective was hard drinking, smoking and never seemed to age. So it can be more genre dependent. I think cozy mysteries today can get away with less character changes (although they require some, usually with the relationships.)

Maria wrote: Well, I dunno. I have some relatives that don't seem to learn or change... Change doesn't have to be big. It could be behavior change, but it also could be an opinion shift, a new way of seeing something, a small shift in perception. Also, in fiction things are a bit different than in real life. If a character doesn't change toward the end of the story, doesn't learn something new, the reader gets bored with her/him.

I've recently read a few books in a row that I didn't care for. And I think it's because at least in part they didn't grow and learn.

The main character in Back in the Game is an unhappy baseball player in Europe, then falls into being an elementary teacher in a rural district in Iowa, where there's pigs and meth.

In Shine the main character is investigating the beating of her ex-best friend while keeping big sekrits from the reader, when her small town in NC exists in sekrits. (And meth.)

Then I read Gold, which among other things, is about three Olympic bike racers in the London Olympics. (No meth!)

Maybe the problem is that the chracters didn't grow, but worse, I didn't want to be around them, or their situations. They weren't fun or interesting, they didn't teach me anything new and I didn't want to spend my precious reading time with them...

Julia wrote: "I've recently read a few books in a row that I didn't care for. And I think it's because at least in part they didn't grow and learn.

The main character in Back in the Game is an unhappy baseball ..."
To me, a character becomes engaging if he has personal quirks (e.g. he likes wearing his socks inside out); he has a goal he is working hard to achieve; has flaws and is aware of them; cares about someone; and something about him changes by the end of the story: maybe he achieves his goal, gets a revelation of some sort, becomes more than he was before, etc. For example: in my novel, A Witch Without Magic, the heroine is agoraphobic, but by the end of the novel she makes an effort to reach out to other people, b/c she realizes living alone is dangerous.

Julia wrote: "Then I read Gold, which among other things, is about three Olympic bike racers in the London Olympics. (No meth!)."

I read that book last year and *loved* it! I thought the characters had grown because the two friends made peace with themselves and each other. The only one who didn't grow, imho, was the guy. I really found that book riveting.