#character arcs

[daily-prompts]

I need everyone’s best character advice. STAT.

#daily writing prompts #fiction #writing #writing practice #writing inspiration #words #character #character arcs

[tinkerbitch69]

Best part of the sound of drums/ last of the time lords is the shared arc Martha and Jack have of pining hard for the doctor despite believing him to be immortal and timeless and above such things as romantic connection only to see him simp big time for the genocidal megalomaniacal sadistic bigot who made their lives hell for a year and simultaneously realise

‘Wait, seriously?!!! THAT GUY???!!! That’s the guy we’re playing second fiddle to?!’

And both of them decide ‘hmm you know what? Maybe he ain’t worth it. He really ain’t all that.’

#lmao #doctor who #dr who #dw #doctor who series 3 #the sound of drums #last of the time lords #the doctor #tenth doctor #the master #simm!master #tensimm #thoschei #captain jack harkness #martha jones #character arcs

[tanaor]

Don't know how to create hooking character arcs?

(✨Dos and don'ts in character arc creation, part 1: don'ts✨)

Every writer knows that's a good character arc is something hard to achieve, and that there is usually a very fine line between making your characters evolve to the better and making them change completely... But don't worry! That's why today I wanted to share some of my tips to give your characters that something that will make their transformative journey unique, and also make your readers fall in love with them. So, let's get right to it!

DON'TS

1. Don't make your characters passive.

Your story needs someone strong to fight against whatever you are planning to put them trough! Making your characters strong doesn't necessary mean creating buff characters, but a good character will always have that *something* that can always push them to their try best. Could be a goal, a loved one, an ideology...

2. Don't give your characters some random disaster for no reason.

Of course, this things sometimes happen, but the best kind of disasters are the ones your character has put themselves into: they have no one else to blame (even if they tried). This are the disasters you should be pressuring for your characters, because they will teach your character something. Maybe your character was very egocentric during most of the story, and now they are alone. You can now either make them realize, or start a villain character arc were they believe the world has made them like that...

3. Don't make the decisions easy.

During the story, your character will have to take a lot of decisions, including many important ones, but here is the deal... Most of them shouldn't be easy. Make it hard for them to decide, make the decisions something that they feel guilty of, make them think that, maybe, "there really was a better alternative". Also remember that when taking hard decisions, characters usually decide what they think will make them suffer less: that's what we call pain vs pain.

4. Don't make everything terrible.

Remember: there's always calm before the storm. And, if you give your characters a false sense of victory, failure will always hurt more. (Even if you don't plan your characters to fail, it's a good technique to use before eventually everything comes down).

5. Don't be afraid of giving the character the ending they deserve.

When the story ends, you should be capable of naming at least three mayor changes in your character. But, of course, when the story ends you also want your readers to think "yes, that's what needed to happen". So, writers: don't be afraid. If the character deserves a bad ending, give it to them. If they deserve to succeed, let them win. Each story is different, but there will always be that ending that you feel is the right thing... Believe me, if a character deserves to fail, I'll want them to fail at the end, and there is not a feeling as good as someone getting what they deserve, what they have been earning since page one.

I wish this was helpful, and if you are interested keep tuned for the part 2: dos in writing character arcs. Happy writing everybody!!

Other tips for writers: previous | next

#character arcs #writeblr #writing #writer #writers #writers on tumblr #writerscommunity #writers of tumblr #creative writing #character development #current wip #writing tips #tips for writers #tips #tips for character arcs

[deception-united]

Let's talk about character arcs.

Character arcs refer to the transformation or development of a character over the course of a story. This typically involves changes in their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior in response to challenges and experiences and how the confrontation of their flaws leads to eventual personal growth.

Developing compelling character arcs is essential for engaging storytelling and characters that resonate with your readers. Here are some tips to help you craft effective character arcs:

Establish Clear Goals: Each character should have clear, specific goals they want to achieve. These goals can be external (e.g., defeating a villain, finding a lost treasure) or internal (e.g., overcoming fear, finding redemption). The arc will revolve around the character's journey towards these goals.

Create Flawed Characters: Characters should have flaws or weaknesses that they need to overcome throughout the story. These flaws make them relatable and provide opportunities for growth.

Initiate Change: A character arc involves change. Whether it's a positive transformation or a tragic downfall, the character should not remain static throughout the story. They should evolve in response to the challenges they face and the experiences they undergo.

Conflict is Key: Conflict is essential for driving character development. Characters must face obstacles, both internal and external, that challenge their beliefs, values, and abilities. These conflicts force them to confront their flaws and make choices that impact their arc.

Show Progression: As the story progresses, illustrate the character's growth and change through their actions, decisions, and relationships. Show how their experiences shape their perspective and behavior over time.

Foreshadowing and Setup: Lay the groundwork for the character arc early in the story through subtle hints, foreshadowing, and backstory. This helps create a sense of continuity and believability in the character's development.

Include Setbacks and Failures: Characters should not succeed at everything they attempt. Setbacks and failures are crucial for character growth, as they provide opportunities for reflection, learning, and resilience.

Internal and External Arcs: Characters should experience both internal and external arcs. While external arcs focus on tangible goals and obstacles, internal arcs delve into the character's emotions, beliefs, and personal growth.

Resolution and Transformation: By the end of the story, ensure that the character undergoes a significant transformation or resolution that reflects their arc. This conclusion should feel earned based on the challenges they've faced and the choices they've made.

Consistency and Authenticity: Maintain consistency in the character's development and ensure that their arc feels authentic to their personality, motivations, and experiences. Avoid sudden or unrealistic changes that don't align with the character's established traits.

Hope this was helpful! Happy writing ❤

#writeblr #writing #writing tips #writing advice #writing help #writing resources #character development #character arcs

[writingwithfolklore]

Writing Character Arcs

                Here’s an easy secret about character arcs—they fit the same structure as plots (that’s because your main character’s arc is the main plot, but I’ve already talked about that here).

                That means, your character arc will somewhat follow this structure:

Normal world

Inciting Incident

Big thing happens 1

Fun and Games

Midpoint

Things get worse

Big thing happens #2

Crisis

Climax

Resolution

It begins with your character in their ‘normal state’—who they are from their backstory. They have some sort of problem that they aren’t addressing, because why would they? Change is hard.

Then, inciting incident. Something happens that sends them into a “change spiral”. They’re forced to face something they’ve been ignoring or avoiding. This incident can be just about anything that turns their world upside down—a new person comes into their life, an old person they left behind reappears, a close one dies, or a friend moves on. Etc. Etc.

Big thing #1 is the first action they take to “right” what happened in the inciting incident. An old flame reappears in their life, maybe they decide to meet up with them. A close friend dies—maybe they decide to take a trip away for a little while. It is an action taken by your character because of what happened in the inciting incident.

Fun and Games is the part where things seem to be going okay for them. Or things can be going terribly for them—it’s up to you. Either way, it accumulates to…

The midpoint. Something happens and it’s terrible and probably their fault. The old flame reinforces why they stopped going out by breaking your character’s heart again. The funeral for the friend is happening and MC missed it. Etc.

Things get worse is just hammering home this point. From their actions, things are going downhill.

Big thing happens #2 is the second action they take to right things again. This time they’re changing strategies from the first thing they tried. Maybe if they tried avoiding their problem first, they’re going to confront it (for better or for worse).

The crisis is the recognition of their initial problem or flaw. Leading to:

The climax, in which the character either chooses to change or to stay the same. Grow and do the right thing knowing what we now know, or stay stagnant and do the thing they would have done in the beginning. What you choose here depends on if your story is a tragedy or a comedy—tragic characters don’t recognize their flaw and grow from them.

Resolution is the consequences of their actions. For tragic characters, things are probably bad and remain that way—we need to show the readers their choice was the one wrong. For characters who do grow, we see them begin to thrive for the first time in the story. They’ve achieved what they wanted, though maybe not in the way they thought they wanted it.

(Pair this post with Character is Plot to flesh out your characters.)

#writing #creative writing #writers #screenwriting #writing community #writing inspiration #books #film #filmmaking #writing advice #character arcs #writing character arcs #character development #character building #character journey

[em-dash-press]

The 5 Most Essential Turning Points in a Character’s Arc

You spend so much time creating a character because you want them to feel real. You want to connect with them and use them to create an experience for your readers. Their character arc is how that happens.

Don’t miss out on these essential turning points that make an arc feel not only whole, but complete.

1. The Inciting Incident

Your inciting incident gets your plot moving. It isn’t going to be the first sentence of your story (also called your hook), although it could be if you crafted your first sentence for that purpose.

An inciting incident is a plot event that guides your character in a new direction. It’s the successful prison break, the meeting of instant rivals, or the moment your protagonist wins the lottery in your first chapter.

Without the inciting incident, your protagonist’s life would carry on as usual. They wouldn’t start the arc that makes them an interesting person for the reader to stick with throughout your story.

2. Introducing the Protagonist’s Main Flaw

Every protagonist needs a primary flaw. Ideally, they’ll have more than one. People aren’t perfect and they rarely get close enough to only have one negative characteristic. Protagonists need that same level of humanity for readers to connect with them.

There are many potential flaws you could consider, but the primarily flaw must be the foundation for your character’s arc. It might even be the catalyst for the story’s peak.

Imagine a hero archetype. They’re great and well-intended, but they have a problem with boasting. Their arc features scenes where they learn to overcome their need to brag about themselves, but they get drunk and boast in a bar right before the story’s peak. The antagonist’s best friend hears this because they’re at the same bar, so they report the hero’s comment to the main villain. It thwarts the hero’s efforts and makes the climax more dramatic.

Other potential flaws to consider:

Arrogance

Pride

Fear

Anxiety

Carelessness

Dishonesty

Immaturity

3. Their First Failure

Everyone will fail at a goal eventually. Your protagonist should too. Their first failure could be big or small, but it helps define them. They either choose to continue pursuing that goal, they change their goal, or their worldview shatters.

Readers like watching a protagonist reshape their identity when they lose sight of what they wnat. They also like watching characters double down and pursue something harder. Failure is a necessary catalyst for making this happen during a character’s arc.

4. Their Rock Bottom

Most stories have a protagonist that hits their rock bottom. It could be when their antagonist defeats them or lose what matters most. There are numerous ways to write a rock-bottom moment. Yours will depend on what your character wants and what your story’s theme is.

If you forget to include a rock-bottom moment, the reader might feel like the protagonist never faced any real stakes. They had nothing to lose so their arc feels less realistic.

Rock bottoms don’t always mean earth-shattering consequences either. It might be the moment when your protagonist feels hopeless while taking an exam or recognizes that they just don’t know what to do. Either way, they’ll come to grips with losing something (hope, direction, or otherwise) and the reader will connect with that.

5. What the Protagonist Accepts

Protagonists have to accept the end of their arc. They return home from their hero’s journey to live in a life they accept as better than before. They find peace with their new fate due to their new community they found or skills they aquired.

Your protagonist may also accept a call to action. They return home from their journey only to find out that their antagonist inspired a new villain and the protagonist has to find the strength to overcome a new adversary. This typically leads into a second installment or sequel.

Accepting the end of their arc helps close the story for the reader. A protagonist who decides their arc wasn’t worth it makes the reader disgruntled with the story overall. There has to be a resolution, which means accepting whatever the protagonist’s life ended up as—or the next goal/challenge they’ll chase.

-----

Hopefully these points make character arcs feel more manageable for you. Defining each point might feel like naming your instincts, but it makes character creation and plotting easier.

Want more creative writing tips and tricks? I have plenty of other fun stuff on my website, including posts like Traits Every Protagonist Needs and Tips for Writing Subplots.

#character arcs #creating characters #creating character arcs #character development #writing characters #character concept #plotting #how to plot #writing plot #creative writing #writeblr #writers of tumblr #writing tips #writing advice #writing resources #writing inspiration #writing community #writing help #writing

[ahb-writes]

Writing Problem: The Scenes Are Void of Meaningful Conflict

Problem: The Scenes Are Void of Meaningful Conflict

Solution: Character growth and story arcs don't occur in isolation. Conflict-guided scenes and conflict-guided storytelling, more broadly, open the narrative to moments in which the characters are continuously tested to validate their knowledge, skills, or relationships.

To drive the story forward with measured purpose, focus on building, developing, and testing a character's desires. If necessary, implement story or relational dynamics to economically assess, judge, and curate a character's failure (and the consequences thereof). Conflict needn't be grandiose; writers must be in tune with the different levels, types, and intensities of conflict that drive their story. Conflict should be multifaceted.

Writing Resources:

A Few Words About Conflict (Glimmer Train Press)

Conflict Thesaurus (One Stop for Writers)

6 Secrets to Creating and Sustaining Suspense (Writer's Digest)

Emotions in Writing: How to Make Your Readers Feel (Jericho Writers)

The Primary Principles of Plot: Goal, Antagonist, Conflict, Consequences (September C. Fawkes)

How to Master Conflict in Young Adult Fiction (Writer's Edit)

Failure, Conflict, and Character Arc (Writers in the Storm)

❯ ❯ Adapted from the writing masterpost series: 19 Things That Are Wrong With Your Novel (and How to Fix Them)

#writeblr #writing tips #writing advice #writing conflict #fiction writing #novel writing #writing problems #writeprob #meaningful conflict #story dynamics #character dynamics #ya fiction #writing suspense #writing mystery #writing failure #character arcs #principles of plotting

[kittimau]

don't get me wrong I love unhinged feral disaster characters but may I submit: the calm, collected, master of resting nothing-fazes-me bitchface character gradually being pushed to their breaking point, slowly and agonizingly becoming more deranged as the foundation they've built their worldview, their entire identity, upon crumbles to pieces beneath them, until all that's left is blood and ash and the beast that's lied dormant within the darkest depths of their soul finally, gleefully awakens to unleash absolute fucking hell, mmm yeah that's the good stuff

#ngl i was thinking of nbc's hannibal when i wrote this lol #but i kinda really wanna write a sith!obi-wan au just to break him down and build him back up evil #because that would be fucking terrifying #and extremely sexy #dark fiction #dark fic #character development #character arcs #character archetypes #writing #fiction #tropes

[ellllsia]

There's something I really don't understand. In "SUITS" whenever two characters fight, I genuinely like the scenes. I mean these people have great comebacks, logical arguments and some amazing snarky comment. And above all we always get some growth and/or story development in the end. HOWEVER, if the two people arguing are Harvey and Mike, i just wish I could crawl under the earth and stay there until they're good again. Like just be nice to each other, please. Work it out already and get back to quoting movies and kicking ass.

Is it just me or does everybody hate it ?

#suits #suits usa #harvey specter #mike ross #harvey x mike #tv shows #donna paulsen #rachel zane #jessica pearson #louis litt #law firm #marvey #mike x harvey #drama #netflix #character arcs #bromance

[novlr]

Types of Character Arcs

Just like there are various flavours of ice cream to satisfy our taste buds, there are different types of character arcs to captivate readers’ imaginations.

Transformational Arc: A character undergoes a profound transformation throughout the story. This transformational arc takes them on a journey of personal growth, where they evolve, learn from their experiences, and undergo significant change. Think Frodo Baggins from The Lord of the Rings, who starts as an ordinary hobbit and becomes a heroic figure, or Cinderella, who goes from being a mistreated servant to a princess.

Flat or Static Arc: Not all character arcs involve drastic change or growth. In a flat or static arc, the character remains relatively unchanged throughout the story. Instead of personal transformation, these characters serve as a stabilizing force or a moral compass within the narrative. They maintain their core values, beliefs, or traits, providing stability and guidance for others. Sherlock Holmes is a prime example of a character with a flat arc. His brilliant deductive reasoning and logical nature remain consistent, while the world around him evolves.

Positive Change Arc: In a positive change arc, a character starts with flaws, struggles, or a particular mindset, but over the course of the story, they experience personal growth and positive transformation. They learn valuable lessons, overcome obstacles, and develop into a better version of themselves. This arc is often associated with themes of redemption, self-discovery, and the triumph of the human spirit. Characters like Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol or Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games exemplify positive change arcs.

Negative Change Arc: Contrasting the positive change arc, the negative change arc delves into the descent or downfall of a character. It explores the moral decline, corruption, or internal conflicts that lead the character astray. This arc can be dark and intense, showcasing the destructive power of choices or external influences. Characters like Macbeth from Shakespeare’s play or Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars demonstrate the negative change arc. 💻✨ Discover how the transformative journeys of character arcs breathe life into your stories, and captivate the hearts and minds of your readers. You can read the full post in the Reading Room at the link above.

#writers #creative writing #writing #writers of tumblr #writing community #creative writers #writing inspiration #writeblr #writerblr #writing tips #character arcs #character development #references for writers #writing references #writing reference #creative writing resources #writing resources #writer resources #helping writers #writing help #writing characters #writers corner #writers community #advice for writers #writing advice #writers block #creative inspiration

[ladyluscinia]

Ok, I think I might be exiting the "are you fucking kidding me?" period and ready to make a real argument, so lets talk about Three Act Structure!

Is OFMD S2 just the "Darkest Hour"?

A very common explanation I've been seeing for some of the... controversial... aspects of S2 is that it's meant to be that way. That the middle act is where the protagonists hit their lowest point. Where we get the big failure point. Where everything looks kind of shit.

S2 is supposedly just that point. It's The Empire Strikes Back. People have been making that comparison since before the first episodes even dropped, telling everyone to expect something that could be disappointing or unsatisfying - it's just a matter of needing to wait for S3 to pull it all together.

It's not a baseless framework to consider the show through - I'm pretty sure David Jenkins has mentioned it in interviews (or at least mentioned he planned for three acts / seasons) so it's certainly worth asking how he's doing at the 2/3rd mark.

So - quick summary of Three Act Structure:

Act 1 introduces our characters and world. It includes the inciting incident of the story and the first plot point, where a) the protagonist loses the ability to return to their normal life, and b) the story raises whatever dramatic question will drive the entire plot. Act 2 is rising action and usually most of the story. The protagonist tries to fix things and fucks them up worse, in the process learning new skills and character developing to overcome their flaws. Act 3 is the protagonist taking one more shot, but this time they are ready. We get the climax of the story, the dramatic question gets an answer, and then the story closes.

If you want examples, the Star Wars Original Trilogy is a very popular template. And, hell, he said it was a pirate story... the main Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy also does a solid job with their three acts.

Let's compare. (Spoiler: I'm not impressed 🤨)

---

First thing I need to establish... Wait. Two things. First is that Three Act Structure is flexible, so we can't really analyze success or failure by pulling up a list of necessary plot beats that should have been hit in X order. Second is that if you tell me you are writing a romance with a Three Act Structure - where "the relationship is the story" - the first thing I'm going to do is ask you how you are adapting it. Because while there's not necessarily anything preventing you from applying this to a character driven plot, most people are familiar with it as plot structure for externally driven conflict.

Unless there's a reason the status of the main relationship is intrinsically tied up in the current status of the war against the evil empire, a standard Three Act Structure is going to entail either an antagonistic force that absolutely wants your main couple apart being the main relationship obstacle OR the romance aspect being a subplot to the protagonist's narrative adventure. None of those sound like how the show has been described.

So how is OFMD adapting it?

---

Act 1

(Can't figure out how well Act 2 is doing if we don't start at setup.)

Right out the gate, OFMD breaks one of the main "rules" for a story where the Acts are delivered in three parts. Namely the one where the first Act is treated as an acceptable standalone story, with it's own satisfying yet open ended conclusion.

In Star Wars, A New Hope ends with the princess rescued, Luke finding the Force, Han finding his loyalty, and the Death Star destroyed. The Empire isn't defeated, the antagonists still live... the story is not over, but this one movie doesn't feel unfinished.

Similarly, Curse of the Black Pearl gives Jack his ship back, Elizabeth and Will get together, and Norrington has the English Navy let them all off the hook and give Jack and the pirates one day's head start.

OFMD's final beat of S1 being Kraken Arc starting is not that, even if Stede returning to sea is still a pretty hopeful note. Now... I don't necessarily think this was a bad call. At least, not if the story is the relationship. It's easy to close on a happy ending and then fuck it up next movie if the conflict is external and coming for them. Not so much if you're driving the story with your protagonists' flaws, in part because it should be really obvious at the end of setup that your main characters need development and can't run off together right now. I actually like that they were risk-takers and let S1 look at the situation clearly vs doing a fragile happy end, because it takes into account the difference between a character-driven and plot-driven narrative.

I think OFMD's Act 1 actually ends at maybe the Act of Grace? Well, there through the kiss on the beach, counting as our "first plot point" before everything goes wrong, basically.

At that point, they have setup the story and characters. We've been introduced to Edward and Stede's current issues. Signing the Act of Grace does make the intertwined arcs between them real - it's no longer a situation that either one of them could just walk away from like it was in 1x07 - and we narrow in on the (alleged) driving question of the show:

It's not about "Will Stede become a great pirate?" or "Will we develop a better kind of piracy for the crew?" - the show is the relationship and the big question is "What is Stede and Edward's happy ending?"

Act 1 ends on their first solution, being together and making each other happy and admitting it's more than just friendship. Act 2 starts, appropriately, by saying both of them are currently too flawed for that to go anywhere but crashing and burning.

Now... looking back, what does Act 1 do well vs poorly?

I think it's really strong on giving us the foundation for BlackBonnet's characters and flaws. We aren't surprised Stede goes home or Edward goes Kraken (or at least... we weren't supposed to be surprised. There are still a lot of holdouts blaming Izzy for interrupting Edward's "healing" despite how at this point in the story it doesn't make sense for Edward to have the skills to heal... but I digress). The relationship question is compelling at the end of S1, the cliffhanger hooks, and the fandom explosion of fics did not come from nowhere - the audience was invested.

I also think Act 1 does a great job of settling us in the universe. We understand the rules it abides by, from how gay pirates are just a fact of life to how there's no important organs on the left side of the body. Stede has a muppety force field. Rowboats have homing devices, and port is always as close as you want it to be. Scurvy is a joke. The overblown violence of pirate life is mostly a joke, but we are going to take the violence of childhood trauma seriously.

Lucius's fake-out death, while technically part of Act 2, works well because Act 1 did a good job of priming everyone to go "obviously this show wouldn't kill a crew member for shock value, and we're 100% supposed to suspend disbelief about how he could have survived getting flung into the sea in the middle of the night." And we do. And we get rewarded for it.

Regarding antagonists - a big focus of any setup - the show is deliberately weak. The one with the most screentime is Izzy, and he's purposefully ineffective at separating our main couple. Every antagonist is keyed to a particular character, and they function mostly to inform us of that character's flaws and development requirements. The Badmintons tell us about Stede's repression and feelings of inadequacy, and Izzy tells us about Edward's directionless discontent and tendency to avoid his problems. Effectively - the show is taking the stance this will be a character driven narrative where Stede and Edward's flaws are the source of problems and development the solution. No person or empire (or social homophobia) is separating them...

...which leads me to something not present - there nothing really about the struggle of piracy against the Empire. Looking at Curse of the Black Pearl... we see piracy is in danger. The Black Pearl itself is described as the last great pirate threat the British Navy needs to conquer. Hangings are omnipresent - Jack is sentenced to die by one almost as soon as he's introduced to the story, when his only act so far had been to wander around and save Elizabeth from drowning. OFMD tries to invoke this kind of struggle in 2x08, but there's no foundation. Our Navy antagonists are Stede's childhood bullies, and so focused on Stede the crew isn't even in danger when they get caught. The Republic of Pirates is getting jokes about being gentrified, not besieged.

Even the capture of Blackbeard by the Navy is treated as a feather in Wellington's cap but not a huge symbolic blow against piracy... because we just do not have that grand struggle woven into Act 1. You only know the "Golden Age of Piracy" is ending if you google it, or have watched a bunch of pirate shows.

Overall, a solid Act 1, well adapted to the kind of story they've said they were looking to tell - a romance in the (silly-fied) age of piracy, instead of a pirate adventure with a romantic subplot.

---

Now, Sidebar - Where is the story going?

The thing about the dramatic question - in OFMD's case: "What is Stede and Edward's happy ending?" - is that a) there's normally more than one question bundled up in that one + sideplots, and b) while you aren't supposed to have the answer yet, you can usually guess what needs to happen to give you the answer.

Back to our examples... Luke's driving question is "Will the Empire be defeated?" Simple. Straightforward. Also: "Will Luke become a Jedi?" The eventual climax of our story from there is pretty obvious... the story is over when Luke wins the war for the Rebellion in a Jedi way. That's the goal that they are working toward.

Pirates of the Caribbean is a bit more complicated. We're juggling more characters and have a less defined heroic journey, but there are driving questions like "Is Jack Sparrow a good man?" and "Is Will Turner a pirate / what does that mean?" and even "Will the British Navy defeat piracy?" They get basic answers in Curse of the Black Pearl, and far more defined ones in At World's End. Still, this is another plot-driven narrative. They've laid the foundations for the Pirates vs Empire struggle, and when that final battle turns into the trilogy climax then you know what's happening.

OFMD is not doing a plot-driven narrative. To judge how they are doing at their goals, we have to ask what they think a happy ending entails in a character sense.

Clearly it's not the classic romantic sideplot, where the climax is the first kiss / acknowledgement of feelings. They've teased a wedding in Word of God comments a lot, so that's probably our better endpoint. Specifically, though, a wedding where both of our protagonists aren't ready to flee from the altar (big ask) and where they've both grown enough that their flaws / mutual tendencies to run away from life problems won't tank the relationship.

In Stede's case it's still massive feelings of inadequacy and being too repressed to talk about his problems. Also he ran away from his family to chase a lifelong dream of being a pirate - "Is Stede going to find fulfillment in being a pirate captain, or will the real answer be love?" Edward meanwhile expresses a desire to quit piracy and retire Blackbeard, but we also find out he's struggling with massive self-loathing and guilt from killing his father - "Is retiring what Edward wants to do, or is he just running away?"

If they are going to get to a satisfying wedding beat at the climax of their story, what character beats do we need to hit in advance?

Off the top of my head - both characters need to self-realize their flaws (a pretty necessary demand of anyone who runs away from problems). They are set up to balance each other well, but also to miscommunicate easily. They have to tell each other about or verbally acknowledge that self-realization so it can be resolved. Stede has to decide how much being a pirate means to him. Edward has to decide if he's retiring and what he wants to do. They both need to show something to do with getting past their childhood traumas given all the flashbacks. Through all this, they also need to hit the normal romance beats that convince the audience they are romantically attracted to each other and like... want to get married.

Oh, and this is more of a genre-specific sideplot, but once they demonstrate a behavior that hurts the people who work for them, they need to then demonstrate later how it won't happen again. Proof of growth, which is kind of important in a comedy where a lot of the humor is based in them being massively self-centered assholes. Stede doesn't earn his acceptance in the community until he kicks Calico Jack off the ship, making up for causing the situation with Nigel in the first episode. A workplace comedy can get a lot of material from the boss as the worker's antagonist, but if you want the bosses to stay sympathetic you have got to throw them some opportunities to earn it.

All that sounds like a lot, but like - the relationship is the story, right? If we spend so much time on establishing flaws big enough to drive a story, we also have to spend time on fixing them. Which is where the turning point hits.

---

Act 2: How it Starts

This is where the full story reality-checks your protagonist. Glad you saved your boyfriend and embraced new love in Act 1, but his repressed guilt means he's about to completely ghost you, and your own abandonment issues and self-loathing are about to make his dick move into everyone else's problem.

Again, it's a non-conventional choice OFMD has this start at the very end of S1 rather than with a sudden dark turn in the S2 premiere, but it's still pretty clearly that point in the Three Act Structure.

In Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back opens with a timeskip to our Rebellion getting absolutely crushed and hiding on a miserable frozen planet. The Empire finds them as the plot is kicking off and they have to desperately flee. They get separated. Han and Leia try to go to an ally for help and end up in Vader's clutches. It's a sharp turn from the victorious note that A New Hope ended on.

Pirates of the Caribbean's Act 2 starts dark. Dead Man's Chest opens with our happy couple Will and Elizabeth getting arrested on their wedding day for the "happy end" escape of the last movie. Jack has not been having success since reclaiming his ship, and we'll soon find out he's being hunted by dark forces. As for the general state of piracy, we get a horrifying prison where pirates are being eaten alive by crows, and a new Lord Beckett making the dying state of piracy even more textual. "Jack Sparrow is a dying breed... The world is shrinking."

The key here is making a point that our heroes aren't ready. This is the struggles part - things they try? Fail. The odds do not look to be in their favor.

Now, OFMD apparently decided to go all-in on flaw exploration, especially with Edward. The first 3 episodes of S2 are brutally efficient in outlining Edward's backslide. In S1 you could see he had issues with guilt and feeling like a bad person. S2 devolves that into a destructive, suicidal spiral where Edward forces his crew into three months of consecutive raids, repeats his shocking act of cruelty with Izzy's toe offscreen (more than once!), escalates it with his leg, and finally they state directly that Edward hates himself for killing his dad so much that he fears he's fundamentally unlovable and better off dead.

Stede's struggles are subtler, but most definitely still there. He's deliberately turning a blind eye to tales of Edward's rampage, half from simply being too self-centered to care about the harms Edward causes others, and half from being unable to face or fathom that he had the ability to hurt Edward that much. Upon reunion he wants to put the whole thing behind them, not addressing why he left in the first place. Very "love magically fixes everything" of him, except Stede is no golden merman.

Interestingly, here, BlackBonnet's relationship dysfunction has very clearly been having a negative impact on the surrounding characters we care about. Make sense, since it's the driving force of the story, but that also adds a lot more relationships we need to make right. Like... Edward is the villain to his crew. The show focuses on their trauma and poisoned relationships with him. And then draws our attention even more to Stede taking his side to overrule their objections to him.

For a story where the conflict and required resolutions are primarily character based, and the setup had already given the main couple a good amount to work with, dedicating a lot of S2 to adding more ground to cover was... a choice. Potentially very compelling on the character end, certainly challenging on the writing end... but not a complete break with the structure.

Bold, but not damning.

---

Act 2: How it Ends

Now it is true that Act 2 tends to end on a loss. Luke is defeated by Vader and loses his hand, and Han has been sent away in carbonite. Jack Sparrow for all his efforts cannot escape his fate, and he and the Pearl are dragged to the locker.

But the loss is not the point. The loss is incidental to the point.

Act 2 is about struggles and failure, but it's also about lessons learned. There's a change that occurs, and our cast - defeated but not broken - enters the final act with the essential skills, motivation, knowledge, etc. that they lacked in the beginning.

Luke Skywalker could not have defeated the Empire in Return of the Jedi until he'd learned the truth about his father and resisted the Dark Side in The Empire Strikes Back. (Ok, confession, I'm using Star Wars as an example because literally everyone is doing so, but frankly it's a better example of formulaic Three Act Structure repeating within each movie because on a trilogy level - relevant to this comparison - it is a super basic hero's journey in a very recognized outfit and as such the Act 2 relevance is also... super basic "the hero tries to fight the antagonist too early" beat where he learns humility. Not really a lot going on. So, for the better example...)

Dead Man's Chest has a downer ending with the closing moment of the survivors regaining hope and a plan against an enemy now on the verge of total victory - a classic Act 2. But in that first loss against Davy Jones we get Will's personal motivation and oath to stab the heart, Jack finally overcoming not knowing what he wanted and returning to save them from the Kraken (being a good man), Elizabeth betraying Jack (being a pirate), Barbossa's return, and Norrington's choice to bargain for his prior life back. The mission to retrieve Jack from the World's End is the final movie's plot, but things are already on track to turn the tables back around as we enter the finale.

Now, relevant sidenote - one major difference between Three Act Structure within a single work vs across three parts is that Act 2 continues into Part 3, and only tips over into Act 3 about midway through. This is because obviously your final movie or season cannot just be the climax. That's why both movie examples start with a rescue mission. They have to still be missing something so they can get the plot of their third part accelerating while they go get whatever that something is.

But if you wait until the 3rd movie / season to get the development going at all - you're fucked.

Jack's decision in the climax of At World's End to make Elizabeth into the Pirate King goes back to the development we saw in the Pearl vs Kraken fight in Dead Man's Chest. So does Elizabeth's leadership arc. Will's whole arc about becoming Captain of the Dutchman gets built upon in the third movie, but it starts in the second. Not just as an idle thought - he's actively pursuing it. Already consciously weighing saving his father vs getting back to Elizabeth as soon as he makes the oath. Everyone is moving forward in Act 2. Their remaining development might stumble for drama, or they might be a bit reluctant, but I know that they know better than to let it stick, because they already faced their true crisis points.

I'm not sure we can say the same about OFMD.

S2 does a good job of adding problems, yeah, but there's not really any movement on fixing them. Our main couple stagnates in some ways, and regresses in others.

Stede opened Act 2 by running away in the middle of the night back to his wife without telling Edward anything. We know he did it because of feeling guilty and his core childhood trauma of his dad calling him a weak and inadequate failure. Now in S1 he actually speedruns a realization of his shitty behavior with Mary, but what about S2? Well...

He continues to not talk to Edward about... pretty much anything. My guy practiced love confessions galore but Edward only finds out about going back to his wife via Anne, and it gets brushed aside with a love confession. He seems to think Edward wants him to be a dashing pirate, or maybe he just thinks he should be a dashing pirate. Idk, it doesn't get examined. Regarding his captaincy, they give him an episode plot about Izzy teaching him to respect the crew's beliefs, but this is sideplot to a larger arc of him completely overruling their traumas and concerns (and shushing their objections) to keep his boyfriend on the ship so. That.

Stede kills a man for reasons related to his issues, shoves that down inside and has sex with Edward instead of acknowledging any bad feelings. At least this time Edward was there and knows it happened? Neither Chauncey's death nor his dad have been mentioned to anyone. He gets a day of piracy fame that goes to his head, gets dumped, and ends on a complete beat down by Zheng where he learns... idk. Being a boor is bad? He's still wildly callous to her in the finale, and spends the whole time seeking validation of his pirate skills. He reunites with Edward, kisses, and quotes Han Solo.

Where S1 ended on a great fuckery, his S2 naval uniform plan after they regroup is ill defined except to call it a suicide mission - and we don't get to see what it would have been because it devolves into a very straightforward fight and flee. And gets Izzy killed. Quick cut funeral (no acknowledgement of his S2 bonding with Izzy), quick cut to wedding (foreshadowing), quick cut to... innkeeper retirement? Unclear when or even if BlackBonnet discussed Stede's whole driving dream to be a pirate and live a life at sea, but I guess that got a big priority downgrade. Despite the fact he was literally looking to Zheng for pirate-based compliments in the post-funeral scene.

I guess he's borderline-delusionally dogged in his pursuit of love now - so unlikely to bolt again - but he's also got at least a decade of experience mentally checking out in a state of repression when he's unhappy. And he's stopped being as supportive and caring toward the crew in that dogged pursuit, while arguably demonstrating a loss in leadership skills, so, um, good thing someone else is in charge?

And if Stede is a mess, Edward's arc is so much worse.

As established, they devote the Kraken to making Edward worse. He literally wants to kill himself and destroy everyone around him in the process because Stede left, and this is fixed by... Stede coming back. That's it. The crew tries to murder him and then exiles him from the ship (and Izzy takes the lead on both, indicating exactly how isolated Edward has become), but it's resolved in half a day by Stede just forcing them to put up with his boyfriend again. Like they think he murdered Buttons and still have to move him back in???

The show consistently depicts Kraken Era as a transgression against the crew, but they also avoid showing Edward acting with genuine contrition. He admits he historically doesn't apologize for anything, and then mostly still doesn't. It's a joke that he's approaching probation as a performance (CEO apology), and then the only person he genuinely talks to is Fang - the one guy cool with him - and the only person who gets a basic "sorry" is Izzy - the guy he really needs to be talking to. Edward's primary trauma is guilt, but apparently he only feels it abstractly after all that? He's only concerned with fixing things with Stede, despite Stede being about the only person around who hurt him instead of the reverse.

Speaking of primary traumas, Edward hating himself doesn't really go anywhere after the beat of self-realization. Apparently Stede still loving him is enough of a bandaid to end the suicide chasing, but he doesn't like. Acknowledge that. Edward is maybe sorta trying to go slow so he doesn't hang all his self-worth on Stede again (you can speculate), but they a) absolutely fail to go slow, and b) he doesn't make any attempt to develop himself or another support structure. Just basically... "let's be friends a bit before hooking back up." And then we get the whiplash that is Blackbeard and/or retirement.

Kraken Era is Blackbeard but way worse, like no one who has known Blackbeard has ever seen him. In the Gravy Basket Edward claims he might like being an innkeeper, before destroying his own fantasy by having the spectre of Hornigold confront him over killing his dad. The BlackBonnet to Anne & Mary parallel says running away to China / retiring makes you want to kill each other - burn it all down and go back to piracy. Stede rightfully points out prior retirement plans were whims. Edward gets sick of the penance sack after a day and puts his leathers back on to go try "poison into positivity". But also claims to be an innkeeper (look - two whole mentions!) when trying not to send children to be pirates after teaching them important knife skills.

Killing Ned Low is a serious, bad thing that prompts ill-advised sex and then going hardcore into retirement mode - leathers overboard, talk about mermaid fantasy, get retirement blessings from Izzy, end up dumping Stede for a fishing job instead of talking about how he's enjoying piracy. The fishing job, however, is also a bad thing and a stupid decision because Edward is a lazy freeloader fantasizing about being a better person. We have an uncomfortable, extended scene of "Pop-Pop" weirdly echoing his abusive dad and then sending Edward to go do what he's good at - disassociate, brutally murder two guys, fish up the leathers, rise as the Kraken from the sea. He continues with comically efficient murder but also he's reading Stede's love letters and seeking to reunite with him so... wait, is this a good thing? Post makeout / mass slaughter he's trading compliments on his kills with Zheng so. Yeah. Looks like it. Murder is fine.

Wait, no, skip ahead and Izzy is dying and Edward suddenly cares a whole lot as Izzy makes his death scene about freeing Edward from Blackbeard. Now being a pirate was "encouraging the darkness" because Izzy - a guy who had little to no influence over Edward's behavior - just couldn't let Blackbeard go. Murder is bad again, and he is freed. Minus the little detail that the murder he explicitly hates himself over was not related to Blackbeard or piracy whatsoever, so presumably haunts "just Ed" still. Anyway he's retiring to run an inn with Stede now, as the "loving family" Izzy comforted him with in his dying moments sails away from the couple that can best be described as the antagonists of their S2 arc. Also Edward implicitly wants to get married. It's been 3 days since making out was "too fast". He's still wearing the leathers.

So most of the way through Act 2 and Edward's barely on speaking terms with anyone but Stede, who he has once again hung his entire life on really fast? Crushing guilt leads to self-hatred leads to mass murder and suicide, but only if he's upset so just avoid that. He's still regularly idealizing Stede as a non-fucked up golden mermaid person (that maybe he personally ruined a bit) because he barely knows the guy. His only progress on his future is "pirate" crossed out / rewritten / crossed out again a few times, "fisherman" crossed out, and "innkeeper ?"

Just.

Where is the forward movement?

It's not just that the inn will undoubtedly fall apart - it's that the inn will fall apart for the near-exact same reasons that China was going to at the beginning of Act 2, and I can't point to anything they've learned in the time since that will help them. I guess Stede realized he loved Edward enough to chase after him, but that was in S1! They should be further than this by now. You can't cram another crisis backslide, all the Act 2 development, and the full Act 3 climax into one season. Certainly not without it feeling like the characters magically fix themselves.

If they just fail and keep blindly stumbling into the same issues because they don't change their behavior, then Act 2 doesn't work. You're just repeating the turning point between Act 1 & Act 2 on a loop.

---

Where Did They Fuck Up?

Actually... lets start on what they did right.

The one consistent aspect of S2 that I praised and still think was done well in a vacuum (despite being mostly left out of the finale) was the crew's union-building arc.

With only 8 episodes and more to do in them than S1, side characters were going to get pinched even if the main plot was absolutely flawless. That was unavoidable. With budget cuts / scheduling issues, we regularly have crew members simply vanish offscreen outside of one scene, meaning cohesive arcs for your faves was not likely. Not to say they couldn't have done better - my benefit of the doubt for the TealOranges breakup and Oluwande x Zheng dried up about when I realized he was literally just her Stede stand-in for the parallel - but something like Jim's revenge plot from S1 was realistically not on the table without, like, turning half the crew into seagulls to afford it.

The union building works around this constraint really well. They turn "the crew" into the side arc, and then weave Izzy's beats in so that they aren't just about Izzy. The breakup boat crew working together to comfort each other and protect him turns them into a unit, and Stede's crew taking it upon themselves to address the trauma vibes while the captains aren't in the way solidifies it across all our side characters. The crew goes to war with Stede's cursed coat and wins, they Calypso their boss to throw a party, and they capitalize on a chance to make bank with an efficiency Stede could only dream of.

We don't get specific arcs, but Frenchie, Jim, and Oluwande are defaulted to as leaders in just about every situation, and Roach is constantly shown sharing his inventions with different characters. Individuals can dip in and out without feeling like the sideplots stutter. Any sense of community in S2 is coming from this arc - even if there are cracks at the points where it joins to other storylines (Stede and Edward, Zheng, etc.)

So why does it work? Well, because it's a workplace comedy, and you can tell they are familiar with working on those. They know where the beats are. They know where to find the humor. They know how to build off of S1 because they made sure the bones were already there - an eclectic group of individuals that start as just coworkers, but bond over time in the face of their struggle against an inept boss who they grow to care for and support while maintaining an increasingly friendly antagonism because, you know, inept boss.

OFMD does its best work in S2 when it's being true to its original concept... and its worst work when it seemingly loses confidence in its own premise.

"The show is the relationship," right? It's a romance set in a workplace comedy. The setup of Act 1 was all about creating a character-driven narrative. So given that... where the hell are we getting the dying of piracy and a war against the English Navy?

That's not a character-driven romcom backdrop, it's an action-adventure plot from Pirates of the Caribbean or Black Sails. It's plot-driven, creating an antagonistic force that results in your characters' problems. Once the story is about the fight against the Empire, the dramatic question becomes the same as those adventure stories - "Will the British Navy defeat piracy, and will our protagonists come out the other side of the battle?"

Forget the wedding. The wedding is no longer the climax of the story, its back to the happy ending flash our romantic subplot gets after winning this fight.

Except, of course, trying to pivot your story to a contradictory dramatic question near the end of Act 2 can be nothing short of a disaster, because either you were writing the wrong story until now, or you've completely lost the plot of the real one. I shouldn't even be trying to figure out if they are doing this, because it should be so obvious that they wouldn't.

And yet.

What do the Zheng and Ricky plots add to the story if not this? Neither of these characters have anything emotionally to contribute to Stede and Edward - they truly are plot elements. It's a hard break from the S1 antagonist model, but it also takes up a lot of valuable screentime. This was considered important, but still Zheng's personality and motivation only gets explored so far as it's an Edward-Stede-Izzy parallel with Oluwande and Auntie, and they only need the parallel for Izzy's genre-jumping death scene. Which follows a thematically out-of-left-field speech about how piracy is about belonging to something good (workable) and how Ricky could never destroy their spirits (um...?). And then David Jenkins is pointing to it and saying things about "the symbolic death of piracy" and speculating S3 might be about the crew getting "payback"??? An idea floated by Zheng right before our temporary retirement, btw.

Fuck, the final episode of S2 didn't have time for our main couple to talk to each other because it was so busy dealing with the mass explosion of Zheng's fleet and Ricky's victory gloat. We get lethal violence associated with traumatic flashbacks until they need to cut down enemy mooks like it's nothing, at which point we get jokes with Zheng. The Republic of Pirates is destroyed outright, and it feels like they only did it because they got insecure about their "pirate story" not having the right kind of stakes. Don't even get me started on killing a major character because "Piracy’s a dangerous occupation, and some characters should die," as if suspending disbelief on this aspect makes the story somehow lesser, instead of just being a fairly standard genre convention in comedy. Nobody complains about Kermit the Frog having an improbably good survival record.

Did someone tell them that the heroes have to lose a battle near the end of Act 2, so they scrambled to give them one?

Just... compare the wholly plot-driven struggle in 2x08 to Stede and Edward's character-focused storylines in 1x10 and tell me how 2x08 is providing anything nearly as valuable to the story. Because I can't fucking find it.

At best they wasted a bunch of time on a poorly integrated adventure plot as, like, Zheng's backstory or something, and just fucked it up horribly by trying to "step up" the kind of plot they did for Jim. In which case the whole thing will be awkwardly dropped but damage is done. Otherwise, they actually thought they could just casually add a subplot like this because they've done something wildly stupid like think "pirate" is a genre on the same level as "workplace comedy" and can just trample in-universe coherency while you draw on other media to shore up their unsupported beats.

Bringing us to the most infuriating bit...

---

"...end the second season in a kinder spot."

If this was the goal, the entire season was written to work actively against it in way that is baffling and incompetent.

The really ironic thing is that the reason that the Act 2 part typically gets a downer ending is because of the evil empire that OFMD did not have to deal with until they pointlessly added it. A plot-driven story has an antagonistic force - a villain - that the heroes need to defeat. Something external working against them. The story ends when they beat the thing, and it's not much of a climax if they do most of the defeating before you get there. Ergo, they have to be outmatched up to the climax. Ergo, the second part cannot end on them feeling pretty comfortable and confident going into the third.

The same rules do not apply in the same way to a character-driven arc.

We already established Edward and Stede declaring their love is not the end of the story. Nor, necessarily, is both of them confidently entering a relationship. Even once they've developed a bunch they will have to show that development by running into the kinds of problems that would have broken them up before and resolving them better.

David Jenkins keeps talking about this idea that S2 is getting a hopeful open ending and S3 will get into potential problems, and like... I don't see any reason why they couldn't have done that successfully. They didn't, but they could've.

If S2 grew them enough as characters and then had them agree to try again in the last minute of the finale, they absolutely could have had a kind and hopeful ending where you were confident they could do it. And then a potential S3 can show that. It's a bit rockier than they were counting on, but they have learned enough lessons to not break up. And then the overall plot can build to proposal (start of Act 3) and wedding (the romantic climax). It doesn't have to be a blow out fight to be emotionally cathartic.

(Hell, the main rockier bit that they overcome in the S3 Act 2 portions could be marriage baggage. I'm sure they both have some. It would work.)

In the same way focusing on our character's long term flaws and character-driven conflict makes an Act 1 "happy ending" more difficult, I suspect it makes an Act 2 "happy ending" easier.

Instead they wrote an Act 2 that failed to convincingly start development and got confused on its direction, and then presented a rushed finale ending in a copy of the predictable disaster from S1 as though it's a good thing. They yanked the story at least temporarily into an awkward place where a romcom is trying to sell me on a bunch of serious drama / adventure beats that it has not put the work into, and inviting comparisons to better versions of those same beats in other, more suited media that make it look worse. The need to portray everyone as reaching happy closure overrules sitting with a major character death and using it for any narrative significance, while still letting it overshadow those happy endings because a romcom just sloppily killed a major character with a wound they've literally looked into the camera and said was harmless.

If I'm being entirely honest, Dead Man's Chest ends effectively at Jack Sparrow's funeral and then cuts to the British Navy obtaining a weapon of mass destruction, and it still feels kinder and more hopeful just because I leave with more faith the characters are actively capable of and working toward solving their problems.

OFMD S2, in contrast, has half-convinced me our main couple would live in a mutually obsessed, miscommunication-ridden horror story until they die.

---

Additional Reading

Normally I link stuff like this in the post, but that requires more excitement than I'm feeling right now. Here's my alternative:

Where I thought they were going with Edward - really outlines the mountain of character development they still have unaddressed

Where I thought they were going with Izzy - touches on a lot of themes that might be dead in the water & also context that's still probably relevant to why Izzy got a lot of focus in S2

My scattershot 2x08 reactions

An ask where I sketched out the bones of this argument, and another where I was mostly venting about the fandom response

This one, this other one, and this last one (read the link in op's post too) about genre shifts and failure to pull them off

The trauma goes in the box but it never opens back up - the whole point of Act 2 is that they needed to start opening shit like that - and also they focus so much on needed character growth and so little on following through

They can't even carry through on character growth that we got last season???

Why Izzy's death feels like Bury Your Gays ran smack into shitty writing

EDIT: Oh and this post is REALLY good for outlining the lack of change in way less words than I did

#our flag means death #ofmd #ofmd s2 #ofmd s2 spoilers #ofmd meta #three act structure #character arcs #blackbonnet #genre #blackbeard ofmd #stede bonnet ofmd #my meta #ladyluscinia #ofmd critical

[ask-the-prose]

Building a Character Arc

Hi all! These past 8 months have been a busy time huh? I’m back and hoping to jumpstart this blog with a bit more organization. So let’s get started with our next guide!

We talk a lot about worldbuilding and plotting out stories, but there’s an important factor I haven’t seen much discussion around, and that is: character arcs.

We’ll be covering character building next week, as that will build off of this post. But building a character arc is just as important as knowing all the static facts about a character and how they react to the world you’ve built around them!

What is the character’s purpose?

We love to imagine our characters as people and real in our heads, but ultimately they are a tool to tell a story. So when building your character arc, you need to know what the purpose of this character is. How do they serve the story? How do they enhance the themes?

Characters can have tons of purposes, from the protagonist to the antagonist to cannon fodder. Characters can serve multiple purposes at one time, even. So what do you want your character to do for the story?

An example: in The Hunger Games, Gale Hawthorne serves a purpose far beyond just love interest #2. Gale helps propel the plotline in a number of ways. He spurs Katniss into action when he is whipped in the town square, he challenges Katniss’ worldviews both directly and indirectly by proposing ethical and complex questions that Katniss must later answer, and he’s symbolic of an answer to the main theme of the books. He isn’t relegated to just one of these purposes, but he does have to have one otherwise, he would be irrelevant words distracting from the actual story.

What changes within the character? What doesn’t?

Characters can be divided into two categories: static and dynamic. Static characters stay the same over the course of the story, whereas dynamic characters do not. So a good question to ask yourself when building a character arc is what, if anything, changes about the character over the course of the story?

One important factor to consider is the character’s attitude towards the world, the conflict, or the other characters. If that changes, how does it change? Why? What happens to cause that change? These questions can be applied to any number of factors you wish to include, like a character’s opinion of themselves or another concept, a character’s worldview, or a character’s feelings towards their circumstances.

If the character is a static character, why? Does it serve the story’s themes?

Is your character an active participant or reacting to plot events?

Naturally, a character reacts to events and responds to those reactions through action. But do those actions actually affect the plot? Does the plot happen to the character or does the character act and consequences follow?

These seem like plot building questions, and they are, but it’s critical to understanding your characters as well. Characters that always react to the plot and have little consequences for actual actions taken tend to be placed in the “reactive” category. While I can’t speak to every style and story structure, most traditional publishers and western audiences prefer active characters over reactive characters. They want the character to impact the plot, their actions have natural consequences that push the plot forward.

Reactive characters can absolutely be utilized to tell interesting and compelling stories, though, so don’t throw out the whole story if you find your character is more reactive than active.

Conclusion

So you’ve created the plot and the premise and you need to populate your world with characters! Remember these key points in building a character arc: purpose, change, and action. Hopefully this guide can help you get on the road towards creating a character arc that not only compels your reader, but enhances your themes and serves your story.

-- Indy

#writing advice #writing tips #writing help #writing characters #character arcs #writing character arcs #amwriting #writers on tumblr #writing guide #writing resources

[our-flag-means-gay]

I think I've figured out what bothers me about Izzy's death.

First of all, it serves no obvious narrative purpose, Ed and Stede stay behind to start an inn instead of getting revenge on the princeling, which makes it feel like Izzy died "for nothing".

Second, it's played, from when Izzy's shot all the way until he stumbles onto the ship, in the same manner in which the loss of his leg was treated, and we know he recovered from that one so we expected him to recover from this. There's no foreshadowing that this time might be different, no tricks that could have made us think it's more serious than previous wounds, and so it comes as an unexpected blow. I know that that's probably the point of it, of death being "unexpected" and "always striking when you least expect it", but you know what? Miss me with that bullshit. After the way Game of Thrones and Rowling have mocked fans who dared expect things like continuity and proper foreshadowing in storytelling, I'm done watching stories where the writers go against what they've foreshadowed just for the shock value. And I know that OFMD has been extremely good at storytelling so far, which is why this has disappointed me so much.

For that matter, speaking of storytelling, on this show, people have been repeatedly stabbed through the chest and strangled within an inch of their lives and shot through the leg and had their heads literally bashed in, and survived all that, and now, all of a sudden, now the show adheres to actual physics instead of operating on Vibes?

And then there's the fact that when you kill a character, you lose any potential for future character arcs and development, and Izzy still had so much potential! And now we've lost it, and for what? Again, it doesn't exactly drive Ed and Stede to do anything differently, they're still going to run an inn the way they would have if Izzy had lived.

All of that is to say that it feels like a betrayal from the show and its particular brand of storytelling to have killed Izzy in the manner that they did.

If they wanted the inn arc to go ahead, they could have had Izzy and Ed realize that they can be apart so that Izzy can keep being the pirate he wants to keep being and so Ed can retire, not... this.

#ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd s2 #ofmd spoilers #ofmd s2 spoilers #izzy hands #edward teach #ofmd season 2 #edizzy #ofmd meta #storytelling #character arcs #character development

[deception-united]

Let's talk about enemies to lovers tropes.

Indisputably one of the best tropes out there. And one of the most infuriating, to write and to read.

When writing an enemies-to-lovers romance, there are several elements to consider in order to create a compelling and engaging story.

Here are some things to avoid and include:

DO NOT:

Create one-dimensional, flat characters. Both characters should have depth, flaws, and virtues that make them relatable and interesting.

Force conflict. While conflict is essential in this trope, it should arise naturally from the characters' personalities, circumstances, and past interactions. Avoid contriving conflicts solely for the sake of drama.

Cause sudden, unrealistic transformations in character behavior. While characters can change and grow throughout the story, it should be gradual and believable.

Overuse tropes. Try to bring fresh perspectives and unique elements to your story to avoid clichés and predictability. Yes, readers will still read the story if they like the trope, notwithstanding the vast amount of nearly identical novels they've consumed. I know you're guilty. But unique elements will make it stand out amongst the sea of literature out there.

Rely on stereotypical traits for either character. Subvert expectations and give your characters complexity and nuance.

DO:

Develop rich backstories for both characters, including the reasons behind their animosity towards each other. This adds depth and understanding to their dynamic.

Ensure there's palpable chemistry between the enemies-turned-lovers. Their interactions should spark tension, passion, and intrigue, drawing readers into their evolving relationship.

Show gradual character development as they transition from enemies to lovers. Each should challenge the other's beliefs, leading to personal growth and introspection.

Build emotional tension through witty banter, charged encounters, and moments of vulnerability. Let the unresolved tension simmer beneath the surface, keeping readers invested in their relationship.

Introduce conflicts with high stakes that test the characters' newfound bond. This can come from internal struggles, external threats, or obstacles that force them to confront their feelings.

Allow the romance to develop gradually, building anticipation and suspense as the characters navigate their evolving feelings for each other.

Even as enemies, there should be moments of mutual respect or admiration between the characters. Highlight these moments to show the underlying potential for a deeper connection.

Stay true to the characters' personalities and motivations throughout the story. Authenticity breeds believability and emotional resonance.

Happy writing ❤

#writeblr #writing #writing tips #writing advice #writing help #writing resources #creative writing #character arcs #enemies to lovers #slow burn

[the-modern-typewriter]

How would you recommend writing a corruption arc? Like when you watch the protagonist get eviler what happens to the plot? Bc if the protagonist joins the antagonist then there’s no more opposition right?

It depends what you want the ending to be/what the story is about. AKA, what IS the plot? What is the larger point of your story? What does your protagonist want?/what is their driving motivation?

Plot = goal + conflict

Plot = goal; conflict; climax; resolution

Your protagonist should have a good reason driving their corruption arc. People don't change just because.

The protagonist could join the antagonist at the end as a final mark of their absolute corruption. If the story was about how a person can become corrupted, then that would be the end because you have told the story you set out to tell.

However, the arc can also be part of a larger story, in which case that is not the end. A character arc is not the same as a plot. They often line up because that's a satisying story structure, with the character arc completing right before the climax of the story, but they don't have to.

if you wanted the story to continue, then the opposition would simply switch. E.g, it might be the protagonist's previous allies who now provide the obstacle to the protagonist’s goals. It might be that being on the antagonist's side resolves one conflict but leads to others. For example, the protagonist might ultimately decide that they don't want to share power with anyone, so they try a dark side coup. Whatever. This will be specific to the story.

What if joining the dark side doesn't give them what they want, though they thought it would? How would a darker protagonist strive to achieve their goal then? They've already sacrificed their morals and so much, they can't turn back now, right?

What if the protagonist got everything they wanted through succumbing to their flaws/corruption, but it is those same flaws that now threaten what they most want?

In many cases, a corruption arc/negative arc directly leads to the character's death/downfall. That's the tragedy. Or they get what they want...at massive cost/sacrifice of something else and must contend with that.

Either way, the key point here is that character arc and plot arc are not the same thing. Figure out what your protagonist wants. Everything else, including the arc, stems from that.

#writing tip #writing tips #writing talk #on writing #writing advice #corruption arc #character arcs

[em-dash-press]

5 Tips for Writing Best Friends

Friendships can make books more engaging for readers than romantic or family relationships. The trick is writing best friends in ways that feel real.

It’s why we love Gideon and Nico in The Atlas Six or Bree and Alice in the Legendborn series.

Here are a few tips to get you on the path to writing an incredible friendship that’s the backbone of your character’s arcs.

1. Make the Friendship Serve Both Characters

We’ve all read books where the protagonist has a best friend who seems to only exist when the protagonist needs something. They’re the main character’s source of stress relief and support, but real-world relationships serve both people.

Make sure you write scenes where the best friend also benefits from the relationship. They might come to the main character for support or call the protagonist when they need cheering up. The most minor moments can mean the most to readers.

2. Give the Friendship a Why

Why is the friendship so important to each of your characters? Maybe they met while experiencing a unique life event or a tragedy. Maybe one helped the other through a difficult time and later vice versa.

The why behind the relationship is key to making readers fall in love with the bond between your characters. Why they met might be the only thing holding them together when times get tough. Establish a clear motive to their solid connection and everything that happens afterward will be more impactful for the reader.

3. Create a Life for the Best Friend Too

Best friends need personality traits like protagonists. As you draft their persona during your planning or writing phases, remember to give them traits like:

Likes

Dislikes

Goals

Dreams

A history

These details shape who people are. They can also be the things that pull your protagonist and best friend together. 

4. Set Up the Occasional Clash

Friendships are stronger when they survive the ups and downs. Turbulent times also make friendships realistic because friends never stay in just happy periods of their lives.

Make your two characters clash to learn through their arguments or mistakes, especially if they’re disagreeing about how to solve/accomplish your plot’s main goal. How they work through their differences and move past them demonstrates each character’s core values and how much they value their friendship.

5. Establish Honesty Early On

Best friends are honest with each other. Setting that up early on establishes a foundation of trust. It also sets up stakes when one character decides to lie to the other for a specific goal or purpose, even if they don’t like it. Without honesty, there’s no reason for the two characters to trust each other or remain best friends.

-----

Develop your best friends as separate individuals before merging them in your plotlines. You’ll create stronger relationships that pull readers in and keep them thinking about your story well after they turn the final page.

#writing friends #writing friendships #writing tips #writing advice #writeblr #writing characters #secondary characters #character arcs