Which Character Can Best Be Described as Dynamic?
Critical Concepts
"Static" and "Dynamic" Characterization
Curiosity most the possibility and conditions of "change in identity" has been remarkably intense, in fiction and in psychology, during the terminal century. In talk about literature, this has led to the evolution of a crude but useful terminological distinction of 2 sorts of characterization: "static" and "dynamic." A static character , in this vocabulary, is one that does non undergo important change in the course of the story, remaining essentially the same at the terminate equally he or she was at the beginning. A dynamic character , in contrast, is one that does undergo an important change in the grade of the story. More specifically, the changes that nosotros are referring to as being "undergone" here are not changes in circumstances, simply changes in some sense within the grapheme in question -- changes in insight or understanding (of circumstances, for instance), or changes in commitment, in values. The change (or lack of change) at pale in this distinction is a modify "in" the grapheme (nature) of the grapheme (fictional figure).
If a character inherits a 1000000 dollars from a rich aunt in the course of a story, this may or may not result in the sort of change in his personality or values or in his general outlook on life that would brand him count as an instance of dynamic grapheme in this special sense. (The same goes if his impressive stock portfolio goes up in the smoke in a bear market.) He might remain the same cheerful, apprehensive, piece of cake-going, out-going boyfriend he was before this fortunate turn of events. Or he might remain the same bitter, cynical, resentful, suspicious, selfish person he had ever been. Or he might keep to be the same smug, big-headed snob he's already exhibited himself to be. In any of these cases, we'd have an example of static grapheme . Of course such a drastic modify in one's circumstances (whether good fortune or bad) might motivate a change in one's outlook on life. And if -- but only if -- it results in this sort of change, we are confronted with a dynamic character .
This means that, while we certainly exercise want to accept account of what the story implies every bit the motivation of this "change in character," nosotros don't want to include these causal or conditional factors as role of our description of what the change in character consists in. (A "cistron" is not an "element.") Nosotros'll want to avoid the temptation to substitute externals (which are oftentimes explicit and obvious) for internals (which are frequently implicit, and take some piece of work to become a clear grasp of). It is surely true that Ivan Ilych, in Tolstoy'south novella The Death of Ivan Ilych is greatly inverse in the course of his dying. But we volition non do ourselves justice if nosotros are content with merely recalling the details of his worsening physical condition, and never get round to reflecting on just what are the exact changes in assumptions and feelings he undergoes between his awareness that he is not (physically) well and the moment of his death. Among other things, we'll miss the cardinal paradox of the story, that while he was "doing well," he was spiritually gravely ill, and that in gradually taking stock of this and in facing upwardly to some newly emerging concerns, he eventually achieves a soundness of spirit more profound than that which he left behind with his babyhood. (Even the formulation just given is too general to do justice to what we should take stock of, on the level of particulars, in the change of character Tolstoy wants to acquaint us with.)
Note, by the manner, that what is going on "inside the trunk" counts equally "external circumstance" from the point of view we are adopting here. It is not a "change internal to the character" in the sense in which we are using the terms "internal" and "graphic symbol" at the moment!
Some tips on using these concepts in a articulate and tactful mode
Commencement off, we don't want to confuse the distinction betwixt static and dynamic label with the stardom between flat and circular characterization.
Secondly, at that place are some of import other senses of the phrase "dynamic grapheme" in mutual apply that have naught to exercise with the term dynamic graphic symbol in the particular sense with which we are concerned here. They are perfectly good in their place, simply nosotros have to take care non to misfile them with what nosotros've been talking near.
If we say of someone nosotros have met that "she is a dynamic character," we may be using this to hateful that she "has a dynamic personality." We want to say that she is "full of free energy," perchance, and that she has "an ambition for action," for "getting things done." Alternatively, we might mean that she is a "not bad motivator," able to inspire others to action. (Nosotros might of grade mean both. Only they are singled-out: a person could be quite full of energy, and burning to become things done, just a real put-off equally an organizer, a miserable motivator of others.)
Of course, we may run across with such a grapheme in a literary work, but when nosotros exercise nosotros would be well advised to use the term "dynamic personality" or "dynamic person," rather than "dynamic grapheme," because the latter is already "pre-empted" in talking about literature. (If nosotros were talking reckoner talk, nosotros'd say that inside this program that term is "reserved.") In talk almost literature, the term "dynamic character" means just a character who undergoes some important change in the course of the story.
Thus a character who is portrayed as a "mover and shaker," and is that style throughout the story, is a static grapheme , in the literary-disquisitional sense of the term. A fictional character with an "inspiring personality" would qualify every bit a dynamic graphic symbol , in the literary-disquisitional sense of the term, only if she became that way -- or ceased being that style! -- in the class of the story.
Moreover, within literary disquisitional discourse, these terms are meant to be purely descriptive, not evaluative. That is, "dynamic" characters are not necessarily improve, in narrative fine art, than "static" ones.
The question, from the aesthetic standpoint , is whether a portrayal is what is called for in low-cal of the work equally a whole, and whether it is done skillfully or ineptly, interestingly or boringly. (Indeed, even a persistent diameter tin can exist portrayed in an interesting -- for example, quite comic -- fashion.) Even in works intensely interested in the way in which personality tin reformulate itself, subordinate characters are likely to be "static," if for no other reason than that to do otherwise would be to distract the reader from what the story is designed to get u.s.a. to observe. In this special literary-disquisitional use of the terms, "static" is not, for example, synonymous with "sterile" or "hung-upwards" or "stultified." (When an writer "develops a character" as "static," that does not mean, at least not necessarily, that we are faced with a case of "arrested development.") Similarly, "dynamic" in this usage says nothing about whether a character is what is popularly referred to as a "dynamic personality" -- i.eastward., an individual with a power of impressing others, energizing them to activity or compelling their adoration. (Such a person appearing in a fictional work, in fact, might well provide an instance of a "static" graphic symbol in the sense in which we are using the term here.)
And from the ethical standpoint , as well, information technology is important not to suppose that "dynamic" characters are superior to "static" ones. Whether any change -- in personality or character, just as in society, or medical condition -- is good or bad, depends on two distinct kinds of factors: the framework of values within which we assess states of diplomacy, and what happens to exist the initial state of affairs. This means that a modify in personality may be for the improve -- merely it only as well may exist for the worse. And the same goes for a refusal to change: this may signify an intellectual or moral failure, but it may be just what is called for. After all, if we are confronted with a temptation, the promise is that we can muster the resources of insight and resolve to resist giving into it. If a fictional character does this, he or she is a "static" character, and this "stasis" of character in the confront of circumstance is a virtue.
In fact, it is precisely because change in identity can exist skillful or bad, depending on circumstances and on the framework of evaluation, that it is often useful to classify plot in terms of characterization.
The bespeak of the stardom
Noticing which pole it may exist towards which an author has decided to steer in characterizing a given character is useful -- but only if we are prepared to use what nosotros observe as a starting point for these new curiosities.
(1) What, exactly, is the change we are to take stock of as having occurred?
How precisely are we to understand the motivation of this alter?
How is it distinct from what the change itself (in graphic symbol) consists in?
What's the extent of this change? (That is: what we first notice may be only a piece, or an attribute, of the fuller change are invited to notice.
(ii) How is it that the author's decision to treat this character as he or she has an appropriate one, given what is called for from the standpoint of the focus and purpose of the story as a whole?
(3) Or, put the other fashion around: supposing the author decided appropriately, what can we infer the overall focus of the story must be? What are the problems information technology is crafted to heighten, and why are these worth our attention (if they are)?
What is important about the change that a dynamic grapheme exhibits? And why is this of import?
Why is information technology important that this static character does non undergo an of import change?
(iv) If we feel, provisionally, that the writer's determination is not effective, then it must be nosotros sense the story is "torn betwixt" culling directions in which a more "clearly conceived" story might go.
We might and so endeavour to clarify for ourselves what would be at stake in deciding to reshape the story along one or some other line of possible development.
But we should also go along open to the possibility that we have not yet adequately grasped what the overall aims of the story in fact are.
Related discussions.
Character and Characterization
Return to the Index to the Glossary of Critical Concepts.
Suggestions are welcome. Please ship your comments to lyman@ksu.edu .
Contents copyright � 2000 past Lyman A. Baker.
Permission is granted for non-commercial educational use; all other rights reserved.
This page final updated ,( January /),( .
Source: https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english287/cc-static_vs_dynamic_characterization.htm
0 Response to "Which Character Can Best Be Described as Dynamic?"
Post a Comment