I recently finished watching the first season of Star Trek Discovery. When I was only a few episodes in, I felt a little betrayed, as it seemed this particular Star Trek iteration was discarding what I loved about the show: its idealism and optimism for the future. But I stuck with it, and eventually realized the show was inspecting the very existential roots of how Star Trek (or Starfleet) ended up that way in the first place.
As part of that inspection, we see two different versions of a few key characters: a Starfleet version and then the “evil” version. But regardless of whether we’re watching the “good” or the “evil” version, it’s clear that the character, at their core, is the same. It’s just that the forces that have been applied to them over time have created different outcomes.
Which brings me, in a rather roundabout way, to Bret Anthony Johnston’s insights into how to know your character. He says:
When the [character] “change” feels beautiful … I think it’s because the character has confirmed what we’ve hoped or suspected all along. Maybe the character hasn’t changed at all, but rather has finally been put in a situation where her truest self can be revealed. … Stories, to my mind, are never about change. They are always and only about the possibility of change.
His thoughts about character development feel particularly appropriate for our times. Read the entire essay.
For more from the latest Glimmer Train bulletin:
- It Is All Ours to Make by Laura van den Berg
- Writing Advice by Baird Harper
Jane Friedman has spent nearly 25 years working in the book publishing industry, with a focus on author education and trend reporting. She is the editor of The Hot Sheet, the essential publishing industry newsletter for authors, and was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World in 2023. Her latest book is The Business of Being a Writer (University of Chicago Press), which received a starred review from Library Journal. In addition to serving on grant panels for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Creative Work Fund, she works with organizations such as The Authors Guild to bring transparency to the business of publishing.
I love those characters who, you realize based on who they are and their environment, were always going to do [X], you just didn’t see it coming.
That “oh? Of course!” moment is what I strive for.
A note from the original Star Trek. (No I’m not going to write about Bradberry’s great split infinitive.) To the point, Spock was unchangeable. That’s fine. His steadfast character benefitted the mission. But not the Captain. He should have been affected by experience while remaining his intrepid self. But, then, Star Trek would have been a serial. Its episodic charm would have been lost.
[…] Structure may be hidden, but your character is the public face of your story. Lesley Nneha Arimah sketches how to create a character in short fiction, Melissa Bowersock reminds us to be true to our characters, Tamar Sloan recommends deepening character complexity with the help of psychology, and Jane Friedman says your characters don’t have to change to be compelling. […]
[…] Jane Friedman: Your Characters Don’t Have to Change to Be Compelling […]