1) The Oil Wars hit the world hard. While nations and individuals kill each other over fuel, the heir to the Wilford energy fortune sets about building his dream: a worldwide rail loop that will revolutionize transportation.
2) He only manages to complete the Northern Hemispheric Circuit.
3) The Tri-Nation Nuclear War wrecks the world in ways that are never fully understood: over the course of months, temperatures plummet in the northern hemisphere, while the southern hemisphere experiences unrelenting heat. Rapidly forming glaciers suck moisture from the air and shrink the oceans, driving a cataclysmic drought.
4) Throughout the conflict, Wilford keeps his train service running through a combination of international contracts and bribes. When the true extent of the cataclysm becomes apparent, he offers survivors an opportunity to ride out the apocalypse in comfort, for a price of course.
5) An HF radio is not a complicated or energy-expensive piece of equipment to maintain; Immortan Joe keeps one running in the Citadel and occasionally exchanges greetings with his counterparts on other continents. He hears the distress call when the Snowpiercer derails, and spends a long time contemplating the monumental arrogance of this man who thought his pet project could become eternal.
If Your Scene Feels Lifeless, Someone Is Being Too Polite
Stories stall when everyone behaves. Real tension appears when someone:
• asks the wrong question
• says something they shouldn’t
• notices something uncomfortable
• refuses to drop the topic
• misunderstands something important
• interrupts at the worst moment
Some writers wonder if their character has to have a character arc.
Usually those who ask this, view character arcs as a protagonist changing, and from that perspective, the answer is no. Your character does not have to "arc" (read: change).
But perhaps the more accurate question is, "Does my character have to have an internal plotline?" That is what is really being asked here.
Because at the basic level, all characters arguably "arc," but not all characters have internal plotlines. If the protagonist has no internal plotline, then usually that means a different plotline needs to be emphasized in its place.
Let's dig into what a "character with no arc" actually means (at least imho).
The 4 Basic Character Arcs
While people in the writing community use "character arc" to mean slightly different things, a true character arc is about internal growth. Some may use the term to refer to an outward change, like perhaps a character starts off physically weak, and has to become physically strong. There is nothing wrong with having that in a story, but it's more accurate to view a character arc as something internal. It's about how a character grows on the inside, because of the story.
At the most basic level, there are just two ways a character can grow:
1. They can change their worldview or belief system.
2. Or they can grow in the resolve of their worldview or belief system (remaining steadfast).
And there are two types of each:
1. Positive (becoming someone better)
2. Negative (becoming someone worse)
These are the four basic character arcs: positive change, negative change, positive steadfast, negative steadfast.
Essentially every character fits into one of these four categories, and if they don't seem to very easily, then they are likely a variation or have multiple arcs, which makes them difficult to categorize (but not impossible).
Some may argue that it's possible to have a character arc that is not considered positive or negative, but this is rarely the case, because the character arc is frequently tied to the theme, and 99% of themes argue for a particular belief system. It's also not very helpful or useful when you are learning, to view arcs as neutral--but this is possible, and could also be a topic for a separate post.
Suffice it to say, that there are just these four types.
Character Arc vs. Internal Plotline
An internal plotline is the journey of a character arc being expressed in a story.
Almost all proper plotlines contain these four fundamental elements: an objective, an antagonist, conflict, and consequences.
In the internal plotline, the objective is what I call the "abstract want." It's the motive behind the protagonist's concrete goals. Luke Skywalker wants to be something great (or part of something great)--this is why he first wants to go to Academy, then become a Jedi, then save Leia, then destroy the Death Star. Katniss is motivated to survive and save the innocent--this is why she hunts, volunteers to take Prim's place, and risks her life to save Peeta. Barbie wants to live the exact same perfect day, every day--this is why she goes on an adventure to get that back.
The antagonist is the self. It has to be, because it is an internal plotline.
Ironically, what holds Luke back from being great, is his desire to be great. In order to be a true Jedi, he must let go of his abstract want.
Katniss is often put in situations where she must choose between survival and risking death to save someone.
Barbie doesn't want to leave on her adventure, because she wants to stay in Barbieland and never experience change.
This can show up a few different ways, but somehow, the protagonist is an antagonist to herself.
This creates internal conflict.
Internal conflict will show up in at least one of these ways:
- Having contradictory desires
- Struggling with a personal flaw or moral weakness
- Entertaining opposing belief systems
- Dealing with temptations and tendencies
- Debating if the journey is worth the costs
- Facing some form of doubt (over self, success of the journey, personal beliefs . . . )
And these may interweave and relate to each other. In fact, they almost always do.
The consequence is also internal. It's psychological and relates to the character's identity. It's the journey of the character arc. How the character chooses to resolve the conflict will either change him or lead him to grow in his resolve.
Luke changes. He eventually gives up his desires, his abstract want, and becomes someone new.
Katniss grows in her resolve to save others, when she chooses to risk death to save Peeta. (She's a little more complex; I'm simplifying).
Barbie realizes change isn't to be avoided. She doesn't need to live the same perfect day every day. She wants something more in life, and she becomes real--she becomes someone new.
These examples are positive arcs, but you can just as well have a negative one.
Anakin's internal conflict about whether or not to accept loss, leads him to try to avoid it at all costs, which turns him into someone worse.
Some stories showcase the internal plotline, putting it right upfront and clearly on the page. They make it a major plotline. Others may put it in the background or in subtext.
But some protagonists don't have an internal plotline at all.
Writing Characters Who Don't Arc Have an Internal Plotline
Usually when people are asking whether or not their protagonist has to arc, they are really asking whether or not their protagonist needs to have an internal plotline.
The answer is no. Your character does not have to have an internal plotline.
Most characters who "don't arc" are steadfast characters.
In a steadfast arc (also known as a "flat arc"), the character ultimately doesn't change at the end of the story. He grows in his resolve. He becomes more of what he was previously.
This is true even if there isn't an internal plotline (read: a journey of the arc.)
Although the internal plotline is well . . . internal . . . its pieces are often expressed in external ways.
The abstract want shows up as concrete plot goals: Luke rescuing Leia to help the Rebel Alliance, Katniss winning the Games by outsmarting the Gamemakers, Barbie righting things with her "owner" so she can go back to her normal, perfect life.
A character who doesn't have an internal plotline will arguably still have an abstract want, because it theoretically always exists behind the plot goal. It's whatever abstract thing motivates the character to pursue that external goal--whether or not that want is communicated through the story.
For example, in Knives Out, we don't know why Detective Blanc wants to solve cases; we only know his plot goal is to solve a (possible) murder. But that doesn't mean his motive doesn't exist, just that we don't know what it is.
When there is no internal plotline, the character is only tested by external antagonistic forces. Antagonistic forces oppose the objective, the concrete plot goal (. . . which is a manifestation of the abstract want). That is what an antagonist is.
This opposition alone--which creates external conflict--is still testing and challenging the protagonist. Will he give up? Will he change? Will he remain the same?
Even if there is no internal plotline expressed in the story, the obstacles of the external journey are simply putting pressure on him.
If he just pushes through, but has no internal plotline, then he's still having a steadfast arc (and most commonly, a positive one). It's just not showing up as an internal journey.
Detective Blanc is still a positive steadfast character--he still has a character arc--even though he doesn't change or have an internal plotline. He still fits within that category. 007 is the same way.
Just the act of taking on an external challenge increases one's resolve, simply through the continued decision to pursue the plot goal. Anyone will still grow in resolve, by simply staying true to their course.
If your character "doesn't have an arc," then your character likely has a steadfast arc, without an internal plotline.
While uncommon, there is technically nothing "wrong" with that; it just usually means a different plotline will be emphasized in its place.
Managing Your 3 Major Plotlines
Usually, for a story to be satisfying, it needs at least three different types of plotlines. This gives the story more dimension and depth. And while there are different combinations you can choose, by far the most popular plotlines to weave together are the external, internal, and relationship plotlines.
External--this is the character's outer journey. The character has a concrete goal, encounters an external antagonist, and struggles with the conflict to get the goal.
Internal--see above
Relationship--this is a relationship journey. The character either aims to draw close to or increase distance from another person (or maintain the relationship as is). The antagonistic force is what is upsetting that.
If your protagonist does not have an internal plotline, then there are a few ways to handle this.
Giving the Internal Plotline to Another Character
If your protagonist does not have an internal plotline, then that plotline may be given to someone else.
In Knives Out, this is given to Marta, who is such a prominent character, she's practically a protagonist herself. She's the one suffering internal antagonism and conflict over what to do. She's the one whose internal journey best expresses a belief system, which is about how, when we are self-made, we are kinder, decent people. Blanc helps her navigate this.
A similar thing happens in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), where Charlie does not have an internal plotline really, so instead, it is given to Willy Wonka. Wonka has unresolved trauma from his father, and Charlie helps him address that. Charlie helps Wonka see the value of family.
And in Finding Neverland, Barrie doesn't have much of an internal plotline either, and instead, that is given to Peter, who comes to believe in the power of playfulness, because of Barrie's influence.
So it's possible to give the plotline to another key character. Often in this situation, the protagonist is then the one guiding that character on their internal journey, but that is not necessarily a requirement.
Swapping the Internal Plotline for Another Type
If your protagonist does not have an internal plotline, then another type of plotline can be emphasized in its place.
For example, in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones has little to no internal plotline . . . and neither do any of the other main characters. Instead, a societal plotline with the Nazis is showcased as one of the three dominating plotlines. Its plotline combination is external, relationship, and societal.
If there is no internal plotline, then it's most common for a societal plotline to take its place.
You can learn more about societal plotlines in "Writing the Societal Plotline."
And you can learn more about writing multiple plotlines in "Writing & Structuring Multiple Plotlines (with Visuals)"
Does a Change-arc Character Always Have an Internal Plotline?
Most commonly characters who don't have internal plotlines are steadfast characters, but it's arguably possible for a change character to change without one.
Indiana Jones is often noted for not having an internal plotline, with people considering him a steadfast character.
But actually . . . when I went back and watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy does change, even in a thematic way. He just doesn't suffer through internal antagonism and conflict to get there. He doesn't have an internal journey.
At the start of the story, Indy clearly expresses he doesn't believe in the supernatural: "I don't believe in magic, superstitious hocus pocus--we are going after something of historical significance." Yet at the climax, he chooses not to look at the ark when it is being opened and begs Marion to close her eyes, which conveys he now believes, to some extent, in the supernatural. This relates to the theme, which questions whether or not man is meant to disturb the power of God (and that power is supernatural).
Watching the film again, I actually think Indy is a change-arc character, but I don't think he has an internal plotline.
Rather, it's simply the external adventure alone that leads him to flip.
In the end, though, all of these categories and terms are just there to help us as writers, so we can better discern how stories work, and then create great ones. The truth is, there is adequate room for variation and nuance and rule breaks.
A "Flat Arc" Does Not Mean a "Flat Character"
Before ending this article, I want to briefly address a misconception. Some in the writing community argue that all round, complex characters have change arcs. But they don't. Just because a steadfast arc is also known as a "flat arc" does not mean the character herself is flat. Contrary to what some believe, roundness and flatness . . . aren't determined by character arcs. After all, there are plenty of steadfast characters who are round, like Fox Mulder, Wonder Woman, Elle Woods, Clark Griswold, Detective Blanc, and more.
While a change arc, or internal plotline, can help round out a character, they aren't a requirement. There are other ways to do that.
In closing, if you feel your story will be great without the protagonist "having a character arc" (i.e. internal plotline), then, don't give him one. 😊
Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back.
The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act.
For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body.
The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser.
Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology.
Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.
Happy Octoboss Friday! Peak romance is being pinned down in a ditch, running out of water and ammo, and confessing shit normal people would not think of concealing because you think you're about to die.
one thing I like about Tumblr is, in 2019 I reblogged a piece of art from 2017 of a book written in 2015 and Yesterday in 2022 someone liked it, and this is how this website is supposed to work, I have art made this week in my queue next to stuff from 2014, 2013, 2012, hell even 2011, sometimes I post 10-11 year old fan art from accounts that haven't been active since before One Direction broke up. Nothing is ever truly dead and gone on here, you can always dust off an old treasure and say "hey gang look at this!" other social media isn't set up like that, if you wonder why it feels like The Batman was released 100 years ago, its because corporate media wants you to move on! go to the NEW THING! BUY! etc but hey guess what I have fan art of Battinson being emo in my queue. So if you're a fan artist, writer, gif maker, or just fan who wants to gush, guess what, here, here we're still spreading around old art, gif sets and someone will be happy you made something new in the tag
as much as everyone loves "the power of love won't save us, we need the power of incredible violence" i'm sorry to rain on your parade but we've actually tried that about ten million times as a species, and you'll be shocked to hear the power of incredible violence, without the power of love behind it, is just brutality. the power of incredible violence has been ruling (various parts of, and then the entire) world for the past 5,000 years. ours is not that damn special.
like yes use that gun you found but WHY are you using it? on who are you using it? what would make you stop using it? is your goal to live in a world where every problem is solved by violence, or is your goal to do the violence necessary to live in a world where that necessity is unthinkable?
This is where I write stuff @themummersfolly-writblr - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
