Debunking 6 Myths about Steadfast, Flat-arc Characters
Steadfast/flat-arc characters are characters who don’t drastically change their worldviews over the course of the story. In contrast, a change character will do largely a 180 flip in worldview from the beginning of the story to the end of the story.
For example, in the fable of the Little Red Hen, the Little Red Hen never changes her worldview about hard work. But in A Christmas Carol, Scrooge completely changes his worldview from the beginning of the story to the end of the story.
In the writing community, there are a lot of misconceptions of the steadfast/flat-arc character (at least from my experience), which I’m going to talk about, debunk, and clarify today in this article. This information will still be useful to writers who have no interest in writing a steadfast protagonist–because nearly every successful story features a key character who is steadfast.
irst, though, we need to visit our familiar pit stop on writing terminology. The most common term for this character is the “flat-arc” character. But it is not the only term. This character has also been called the “steadfast” character, which is what Dramatica Theory calls it. While “flat-arc” is more common, I prefer “steadfast” for a few reasons:
- It conveys that the character must struggle to hold onto something (after all, one is only “steadfast” when there is opposition)
- “Flat-arc” sorta sounds like there isn’t really any growth or movement, which isn’t exactly accurate.
- For much of my experience in the writing world, protagonists who don’t have much of an arc have been frowned upon or treated as “lesser.” The term “flat-arc” reminds me of that.
This is completely preference. You may use whichever term you want. Today, I’ll be switching between the two.
Now, you can have positive and negative steadfast characters. A positive one will hold onto a true worldview throughout the story, while a negative one will hold onto an inaccurate worldview. For the sake of this article, I will be focusing on the positive one, which is more common, and may do a future article that focuses more on the negative version.
Now, let’s talk about some of the misunderstandings and myths about the positive steadfast character.
My (Helpful) Personal History with Steadfast, Flat-arc Characters
Despite wanting to work in the writing industry since I was seven, I entered the writing world like anyone else: naive.
I had an idea for a story I wanted to write, with a protagonist that drew inspiration from some of my all-time favorite protagonists.
What I didn’t know, and what no one could explain to me, was that all these protagonists were steadfast/flat-arc characters. And that’s what I wanted to write.
I took writing classes, went to conferences, read books, and tried to soak up any piece of advice anyone could give me. But for some reason, some of the information didn’t seem to work into my story or apply to the favorite stories I was drawing inspiration from.
This led to a lot of questioning and challenging of “writing rules” on my part (though that was mostly internal). I was told over and over again (if not in these words) that I needed to have a change arc protagonist. It was implied, over and over again, that protagonists who didn’t have change arcs were static, simple, lacking depth and dimension, and were just boring. Of course, there was always the occasional acknowledgment that 007 or Indiana Jones were successful. But I didn’t want to write 007 or Indiana Jones. I still wanted to go deep into character.
Well, over the years, I unwittingly switched my protagonist from a steadfast protagonist to a change protagonist. I’ve only fully realized this recently when reviewing some of those favorite protagonists from years ago.
Not to be dramatic, but I feel a little cheated and let down by the writing world because of that. Even recently I went looking for resources on steadfast/flat-arc protagonists, and frankly, found very little. And of what I did find, 95% pulled from the same source material. I mean, it’s great, but we are obviously lacking with this.
I tell this story, not for therapeutic reasons (okay, let’s be honest, some of it is totally therapeutic!), but because I know there is someone out there who is struggling like I was. Someone who can’t get their story to work because they are trying to apply change-arc advice to a flat-arc protagonist. This doesn’t work. But you can’t see that, because the people you are learning from (who have sincere intentions), don’t fully understand or acknowledge steadfast protagonists.
For example, a writing book that has been making waves (that I looove and definitely recommend) is Story Genius by Lisa Cron. This book is amazing! And so helpful!
If you are writing a positive change protagonist.
It will not help you nail down your steadfast protagonist. Because its principles are founded on the protagonist changing.
So if you are trying to apply it to the wrong type of protagonist, you are going to get frustrated… . or switch your protagonist’s type.
Unfortunately, I myself have been guilty of perpetuating some inaccurate advice, but only because (like most people), I didn’t know better. This also tends to happen because by far the most common protagonist type is the positive change protagonist. There are lots of resources on it. There are lots of people writing it.
But this doesn’t mean that the steadfast protagonist is wrong. It actually doesn’t even mean that he is boring, static, or one-dimensional, nor that he doesn’t grow, struggle, doubt, or change at all. He just doesn’t do a direct flip in worldview. Instead, he proves his worldview true (the thematic statement).
Let’s debunk some myths I’ve heard in the decade or so of being in the writing world.
Myth #1: Flat-arc Characters Don’t Grow
The most common myth you are likely to run into, is that steadfast characters don’t grow. This is inaccurate. The steadfast character doesn’t drastically change her worldview. The positive steadfast protagonist has a worldview that will be proven true by the end of the story, which creates the theme. (In contrast, a negative steadfast protagonist has a worldview that will be proven untrue.)
This doesn’t mean the character doesn’t grow in some way.
For example, you may have a flat-arc character who becomes more competent. Maybe he learns to become a great marksman. Or maybe she learns how to navigate law school (Legally Blonde). A steadfast protagonist can gain any kind of skill, even some that are less obvious, such as learning the art of manipulation. In Moana, Moana must learn how to sail.
You may have a steadfast character who learns to become more proactive/assertive. It’s not exactly unusual for a flat-arc character to not want to get involved in the main conflict in the beginning. He may be a reluctant hero. He may need to learn to not stand by but to stand up for what he believes in, by confronting the antagonist directly. In Disney’s live-action Cinderella, Ella must become more assertive to fully thwart her wicked stepmother.
A steadfast character may grow in experience and wisdom. In Wonder Woman, Diana must experience and understand the real world in order to fully wield her truth against the antagonist.
A steadfast character can grow in pretty much any way that doesn’t totally flip his or her worldview.
Certainly, there are flat-arc characters who don’t grow at all, like 007, and that is fine, and you can write successful characters like that. But that doesn’t mean that none of them grow whatsoever.
Myth #2: Steadfast Characters’ Worldviews Remain Completely Static
Explained most simply, a positive steadfast character has an accurate worldview–understands the true thematic statement–from the beginning. This doesn’t necessarily mean she has a perfect understanding of it.
The character’s worldview may need some refining. It may not be whole or complete. Or, as mentioned, above, it may need more wisdom (discernment) behind it.
These things can only be realized with real-world experience–in other words, the tests and trials of the middle of the story.
While this concept may overlap with the prior, it’s slightly different, as not every way a steadfast character grows will be linked to his or her worldview. They may be two completely separate things. But they can also go hand in hand.
For example, while Cinderella knows kindness will help her through trials (the thematic statement), her worldview needs some refining. She must realize one shouldn’t let others take advantage of that kindness. She needs to stand up and be assertive with her stepmother.
In Arrival, Louise Banks knows that communication can help us understand another perspective, which enables us to avoid confrontation. However, through the story, she gains a greater, deeper, more complete understanding of that, as she learns the heptapods’ language–which has the power to unit humanity and species across time.
In Wonder Woman, Diana knows from the beginning that we should fight for the world that we believe in. However, she gains more wisdom in that regard, after experiencing the gray moral complexities of humanity–does humankind deserve a better world? Only after she comes to terms with this, is she able to embrace the true thematic statement with eyes wide open.
Sure, some steadfast characters have completely static worldviews, but many of them don’t.
This concept can become all the more complex when we consider secondary themes.
First, as a quick recap, the positive steadfast character has an accurate worldview–the “truth,” as some like to call it–this is also the primary thematic statement. This is the truth the story is arguing. The positive steadfast character starts the story with this.
In contrast, a positive change character will start with an inaccurate worldview–the “lie,” as some like to call it–this is basically the “anti-theme”–the opposing argument to the “truth.” The positive change character will change to the “truth,” the accurate worldview, the true thematic statement at the end.
However, many stories have more than one theme. Many stories have secondary themes.
Because of this, it’s possible for the positive steadfast character to be steadfast in the primary theme, but be a change character in the secondary theme.
For example, Diana is steadfast in the primary theme, which is the argument that we should fight for the world we believe in (as opposed to the argument that we should allow humans to suffer the world they “deserve.”)
However, in the secondary theme, she is a change character. The secondary theme is about whether humankind is innately black and white or whether they are innately gray. Diana begins the story believing they are innately black and white (innately good, if not for the antagonist), but learns the truth: humankind is innately gray. This is an arc of disillusionment. This feeds into the primary arc and primary theme.
I have an article on secondary themes in the works, but it’s not complete yet. For now, know this:
Many stories have multiple themes. A steadfast protagonist may or may not be steadfast for every theme (or “worldview” if you prefer). But by definition, they must be steadfast for the primary theme (obviously).
Again, more on that in the future. However, this is why you may see writers argue over whether a particular character has a change or flat arc, and why the same character may get categorized differently–it depends entirely on what thematic thread the person is pulling. One may, in fact, argue Diana is a change character, because she arcs in disillusionment, while another may argue she has a flat arc, because she believes the primary thematic statement from beginning to end.
No worries if it sounds a little confusing. In short, a positive steadfast character’s view may grow or shift in some way, but it never does a 180 flip in the primary arc and theme.
Myth #3: Flat-arc Characters Always Stand Firm
Just because the steadfast character has an accurate worldview and belief system (knows the “truth”), doesn’t mean she never wavers or has doubts about it.
In most flat-arc protagonist stories, the character will have her beliefs tested through the conflicts of the middle. As the antagonistic force gets stronger, the character may experience doubts and powerful temptations (which may include conflicting wants). At some point, it may even seem that her worldview might be wrong. This, along with the cost of adhering to the truth, is almost always the meat of her internal journey. If you want your steadfast character to have a rich inner journey, this is where it’s at.