Although his circumstances changed, somehow he was the same person. I recall being challenged that, despite his interest in the Apollo missions, he was still, somehow, intrinsically, that little boy raised looking up at the bright stars above. Is growing old and holding onto our morals and ideology necessarily resistance? An interview comes to was about one of the last Plains Indians born on a buffalo robe and his end-of-life career at a stadium nearly a century later. Is this fortitude? Or is this activity without reflection? (What is the meaning to all this activity?) When do you think flat arcs work better? Do you think it applies to certain genres more than others? I've noticed that a lot of thrillers and horror stories have pretty flat arcs (character wants to survive in the first act, they still have the same goal in the final act).Īctually, if there is change all around and the character resists changing, isn't that in itself is a change? There is something new to respond to. Is the character arrogant? Have the arrogance be their downfall.Īlso, flat arcs are great for active characters who change the world around them, possibly affecting other characters. Is the character good? Show us just how good by having them tested and tempted by evil.

What I admired about this character that kept me hooked, was the fact that he was constantly being tested in more extreme ways.īecause of this, I would like to present the argument that flat character arcs are more about the character PROVING who they allready are, rather than having the world prove to them that they need to change. Sure, he gets stronger physically, but fundamentally his personality remains the same.

From start to finnish, Goku is a good, moral guy who keeps making ethical choices. I think the best example of a flat character I really admired as a kid, was Goku from Dragonball Z. A flat character is one who does not change during the story. I've been thinking about flat characters lately.

Flat character meaning