Static Character: Difference between revisions

This is NOT necessarily a [[Tropes Are Not Bad|bad thing]], as some characters don't ''need'' [[Character Development]]. A [[Badass]] does not have to [[Badass Decay|decay into]] [[The Woobie]] to stay an interesting character—while some consumers may embrace the evolution, others will cry out, "[[We Want Our Jerk Back]]!" Such characters are useful in secondary roles, serving as yardsticks against which your central (and Dynamic) character's growth can be contrasted. If you want your [['''Static Character]]''' ''in'' the central role, just enforce it internally, using a [[Pygmalion Snapback]] or a painful collision with [[Status Quo Is God]]. Some comedies built around characters whose personalities are set in stone and will not change, whatever happens. For that matter, every ''[[Tragedy]]''—no, ''every'' tragedy—is built around characters whose personalities are set in stone and [[Fatal Flaw|will not change, whatever happens]].

Also note that a [['''Static Character]]''' is not by definition boring. Obviously, it helps if you've got a [[Round Character]], as exploring all their pre-existing facets can entertain without requiring character evolution. Furthermore, the introduction of [[Hidden Depths]] or an exploration of a [[Dark and Troubled Past]] accomplishes similar things; while the character is [[Exact Words|technically not evolving]], the audience's ''perception'' of the character very much does. And these characters are ripe for internal conflict, since we already know a fair bit about them.

* ''[[Bleach]]'' has a tendency to do this to anyone who isn't important, making them into this, [[Flat Character|Flat Characters]]s, or monsters. However, it's subverted with some of the Arrancar {{spoiler|except the fact that they never get to do ''[[Heel Face Door Slam|anything]]'' with their character development.}}