Change isn't always a good thing, nor necessary. Likewise some characters, be they Round or Flat, will end a story with much the same personality and traits they began with. These Static Characters can go entire seasons or books without changing or experiencing the Character Development that a more Dynamic Character does.
This is NOT necessarily a bad thing, as some characters don't needCharacter Development. A Badass does not have to decay intoThe Woobie to stay an interesting character—while some consumers may embrace the evolution, others will cry out, "We Want Our Jerk Back!" Such characters are useful in secondary roles, serving as yardsticks against which your central (and Dynamic) character's growth can be contrasted. If you want your Static Characterin the central role, just enforce it internally, using a Pygmalion Snapback or a painful collision with Status Quo Is God. Some comedies built around characters whose personalities are set in stone and will not change, whatever happens. For that matter, every tragedy is built around characters whose personalities are set in stone and will not change, whatever happens.
Also note that a Static Character is not by definition boring. Obviously, it helps if you've got a Round Character, as exploring all their pre-existing facets can entertain without requiring character evolution. Furthermore, the introduction of Hidden Depths or an exploration of a Dark and Troubled Past accomplishes similar things; while the character is technically not evolving, the audience's perception of the character very much does. And these characters are ripe for internal conflict, since we already know a fair bit about them. Interest can also be wrung out of exploring how and why the character stays so constant in the face of the dramatic events of the plot — this can in itself be evidence of unusual self-assurance, determination or unflappability.
Having said that, Flat Characters who are also Static may get dull unless the author takes care to make them entertaining somehow, be they the Butt Monkey or perpetual Fish out of Water.
Despite their unchanging nature, Early-Installment Weirdness is still a distinct a possibility; Static Characters are frequently the result of Flanderization.
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
Lina Inverse from Slayers is actually a good example of how a Static Character can still be quite unique. She changes in subtle ways, going from an Anti-Hero to more a conventional hero, from loner into someone with a team, but in terms of her actual behavior, she can pretty much be expected to do certain things, such as put restaurants out of business with her appetite, and blowing up cities with her magical powers.
Homura Mitokado and Koharu Utatane from Naruto do not change a bit in the series. While nearly every major character in Konohagakure has the Will of Fire, the two are more militant and only concern themselves with protecting the actual village itself, and often lean in favor of Danzo's view points. Their static status is possibly due to their little interaction with other characters (aside from Hiruzen, Danzo, Tsunade, Shizune, and Itachi) and the fact that Naruto has yet to influence them like everyone else he has come in contact yet.
Shu from Now and Then, Here and There is a rare example of a static protagonist. He faces torture, the deaths of several beloved characters at the hands of his friends, and somehow manages to stick to his principles. That he managed to both survive and avoid compromising his core self shows just how Bad Ass he is. Oh, and surviving oodles of torture.
Sort of. Nozomu underwent a sort of reverse Flanderization as he tries to commit suicide less as time went by and has his heart of gold emphasized more. In contrast, Chiri retained her OCD, but had it dialed past eleven and straight into Ax-Crazy levels.
Cowboy Bebop has Ed and Ein, contrasting the more dynamic main trio. Jet is also arguably rather static as he goes through several instances of cleaning up his own past without it affecting his current outlook and lifestyle.
Bleach has a tendency to do this to anyone who isn't important, making them into this, Flat Characters, or monsters. However, it's subverted with some of the Arrancar except the fact that they never get to do anything with their character development.
Suzy Mizuno from Zatch Bell! is a prime example, seeing as how she remains a ditz throughout the whole series, while receiving no character development or any involvement in the Mamodo battles.
Elmer C. Albatross of Baccano! is a case that's both lampshaded and deliberately maintained - Over the 300 or so years that they've known him, all of the surviving Advena Avis immortals have noticed that Elmer hasn't changed in character at all, and this is one of the many reasons he unsettles most of them. It turns out he's doing it at Huey's request, though it wasn't actually very difficult for him.
Erika Kurumi/Cure Marine from HeartCatch Pretty Cure! is the only member of her team to not undergo significant Character Development. As explained here, she has no problem accepting herself, and her character arc revolves her struggle with having others accept her.
Naruto's Jiraiya is accused of being this posthumously by Orochimaru, who claims he died without changing anything about himself.
Rorschach from Watchmen. We do see him change into what he is at the time of the story via Flash Back but within the main plot itself he's probably the only character that doesn't change in some way. He's definitely a tragic example of this trope. He's totally unable to give in or alter his moral code based on the situation which leads to his unavoidable death.
Most comic book villains, at least after their tragic backstories. And that's part of what makes them villains; they don't change. The Joker will always be a psychotic murdering clown, and he shouldn't be anything else. Any changes that do occur are due to Alternative Character InterpretationDepending on the Writer as opposed to character development per se.
Wolverine from the X-Men is a great character when he has little character development.
The cast of Peanuts haven't changed much throughout their extremely long run. Frankly, it would be fairly disturbing if they did.
Many other daily cartoons behave this way.
This is the trope driving Dream from The Sandman to his choice to commit suicide
In All Fall Down, we have Paradigm. Of everyone who's suffered a loss, he is essentially the same person afterwards as before.
Superman. Then again, part of his appeal is the fact that he very rarely gets into any dark and edgy personality traits. While he's oft-derided as a "boy scout", the fact that he still holds a moral code stronger than almost anyone else after all the crap he and the entire DCU have gone through, including dying and coming back to life in various ways, keeps him as the shining beacon for Metropolis and in fact most of the world. Attempts to alter him (besides serious threats that let him let his full strength out once in a while) are usually downcried far more strongly than any complaints about his "old fashioned" truth, justice and the American way outlook.
Tintin has always been the same character in all of his adventures. He has no backstory, no family, not even a last name. He is intentionally designed to be as bland and generic of a character as possible.
Throughout the entirety of Judge Dredd's career, his sole defining character trait has been JUSTICE.
A subversion of a subversion is played beautifully by Michelle Pfeiffer in Stardust. By the end, when the heroes have killed her two sisters, she breaks down and laments that the only people in the world who she loved are dead, and immortality without them (by stealing Yvaine's heart) would be intolerable, and so she says she'll let the heroes go. Then she telekinetically locks the doors, cackles, and starts exploding glass all around the heroes, thanking them for killing her sisters so that she doesn't have to share immortality. Of course, given that all her sisters did throughout the film was nag her and act like Jerkasses, one can see why she wouldn't be inclined to mourn them.
James Bond. Although 007 is portrayed differently by each actor (Connery and Brosnan are more suave, Lazenby is subdued, Moore is comical, Dalton and Craig are brutish), its always essentially the same guy, and these minor changes in personality are rarely portrayed as being the result of Character Development.
Somewhat averted by the Craig films which provide a bit of the back story to how Bond became 007.
The Man with No Name is quite possibly the ultimate static character, in that he doesn't even have a name. We are told nothing about his backstory (save for a little snippet in A Fistful of Dollars when he reunites a husband and wife), and the only change he ever goes through in his films is the size of his wallet.
Indiana Jones, to a certain extent. In terms of character arcs, he only goes through extremely minor changes in personality. Sure, he may go from non-believer to believer in each of his adventures, but it doesn't really cause him to do things any differently. The most jarring example is how he gains a respect for the power of the Shankara Stones in Temple of Doom but goes straight back to being an atheist in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can be considered exceptions.
The titular character of Monk went through almost the entire show without much of a change, despite a dizzying array of both traumatic and hopeful events. It was only at the end that he overcame many of his difficulties.
From his first episode to his last, Major Frank Burns was a whiny, self-absorbed, power-mongering hypocrite who could barely perform surgery.
Star Trek: Voyager. Ensign Harry Kim starts off as Ensign Newbie and seven years later is still portrayed the same way, despite being one of the main characters and thus subject to all the traumatic events that befall a Star Trek character (including dying enough times it became a fan joke).
Hence why "Timeless", the Bad Future episode featuring a bitter, cynical Harry suffering from post-traumatic stress is widely considered one of the best episodes of the series.
Star Trek: Enterprise, Ensign Travis Mayweather was mixture of this and a Flat Character. Despite being born in deep space and having more experience than the actual Captain, he was nonetheless relegated to being a low-ranking Ensign, had very few plotlines (that didn't involve being injured), let alone a mandatory line in most episodes. He was there, consuming oxygen, but got about as much development as the chair he was sitting on.
Sam from iCarly started off as a mean, bullying jerk, and ended the show as a mean, bullying jerk. There was no development, no self-awareness, and only the out of universe realisation from the writers that she was going into a Spin-Off and couldn't be the lead and behave like she did meant there was even a little toning down towards the end of the show.
Joey from Friends is a prime example of this. When he was one out of six characters in an ensemble, and had little (to no) development, he was great. And when he received a Spin-Off, Joey, it didn't work at all.
Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. He suffers from some episodic out of character behavior, but he always reverts to his "normal" self.
Well, it is worth noting that he did somewhat evolve over time. From being a very stiff spock with No Sense of Humor, to being slightly more prone to joking (even though he still fails at the sarcasm department sometimes). By season 5 he's even upgraded his She Is Not My Girlfriend status with Amy!
Lydia is, from beginning to end, a spoiled brat who cares for nothing except flirting and officers. Interestingly, her mother, Mrs. Bennet, is also a Static Character. While she does change opinion rapidly about a suitor based on how likely they are to want to marry one of her daughters, this never varies through the whole novel.
Mr. Collins is a static character too. Frankly, he wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if he wasn't.
He does get some minor developments, though not enough to move him out of this territory. In A Study In Scarlet, he doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun, deeming it unimportant to detective work, his knowledge unrelated to detective work is seen to increase substantially. The most recent TV adaptation, being a bit of a Compressed Adaptation, is an aversion only because Sherlock's relatively modest Character Development took place over a matter of months rather than a couple of decades.
J. R. R. Tolkienclaimed that in heroic sagas like those of the Vikings or the Ancient Greeks, characters do not develop; instead, different aspects of their fixed, essential nature are revealed by new circumstances.
For example, at the end of The Lord of the Rings we know a lot more about Aragorn (and he knows more about himself) than when we met him in Bree, but who he is hasn't changed. Ditto for Legolas, Gimli, and Gandalf. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, on the other hand, have changed a lot. Note that Peter Jackson changed this in his films, making Aragorn a dynamic character, and even Legolas and Gimli have a few shades of further development now.
Gandalf is actually a mixed case. He did undergo development of a sort, one that Merry and Pippin observed, but that change came with his death and rebirth, so it may have been development reached on his own, or development from an outside force.
The vampires of Twilight. Word of God is that a vampire is forever frozen at the level of emotional maturity they had when they died: hence how Edward can be an Emo Teen at over a hundred years old.
A similar setup exists in Angela Sommer-Bodenburg's Little Vampire series, where one of the characters was unfortunate enough to become a vampire while in the middle of puberty.
On a different level, the only real difference in Bella Swan's character from the beginning of Twilight to the end is the fact that at the end, she has everything she's ever wanted. Her character and personality are never particularly changed.
Albus Dumbledore is an example of the static-character-as-yardstick device. He is a Cool Old Guy and former trope namer for the Eccentric Mentor, but his role in the story is to foster Harry Potter's character development, not have his own. (Because, as we find out belatedly, he's already had a ton.)
Lampshaded in Prince Caspian by Trufflehunter the badger. According to him, all of Narnia's Talking Beasts have this as their Hat.
Trufflehunter: I'm a beast, I am, and a Badger what's more. We don't change. We hold on.
BIONICLE has many due to its Loads and Loads of Characters, but Onua and Pohatu stand out in particular, as they're the two main characters who've been around for the line's entirety yet still haven't changed much. Onua's the wise and solemn but incredibly badass kind of guy, and Pohatu's a perpetually optimistic friend-to-everyone, so their only roles are complementing their other four teammates and soothing the tension between them if need be, with Onua at times doing tasks that the others can't bring themselves to do.
Final Fantasy VI has Edgar Figaro, why does he never change? Because he already has his act together by the time we first meet him.
Keyblade Master Aqua of Kingdom Hearts fame. She stays the same kind, strong-willed, Badass invidual that made her presence known in the very beginning and doesn't change, whereas her two male friends Terra and Ven end up different (and much less happy) people.
JacobTaylor fits this in Mass Effect 2. Unlike his teammates, Jacob doesn't carry any emotional baggage, so most of his dialog tends to be focused on the present mission. It's even lampshaded in his Shadow Broker file, which notes that he was put on Shepard's team as much for the stabilising elements of his personality as his combat skills. However, since he rarely has anything interesting to say and almost never interacts with other characters he instead comes closer to The Generic Guy than anything else.
Ambassador Udina. His character changes very little throughout the series, except for being a massive Jerkass to Shepard in all three games, even if you nominated him as Councillor instead of Anderson. His only real plotline comes in the third game, where he sells out the Council to Cerberus, but even then, it's left ambiguous whether he was Indoctrinated, desperate, or just plain greedy.
Iori Yagami. Not only he actually was one of the many characters to keep the same outfit till XII came out, but his vendetta with Kyo became a literal running line for the entire series.
Members of Ikari and Art of Fighting teams are also these, except you couldn't expect Robert and Leona changing outfits all of a sudden.
An odd case in Assassin's Creed, in the 2nd game Ezio goes through a character arc from naive young man, to badass assassin. Then by the time the next game roles around, we're still playing as the badass, tough as nails Ezio and there isn't much more development to even do.
The Sonic the Hedgehog series features quite a bit of Character Development especially in the Dreamcastera, but the title character never gets any. This is because the development of other characters mainly play off of him, such as Tails learning to be less dependent on Sonic, or Blaze learning about friendship from him.
The cast of Sheldon is fairly static. As one webcomic critic pointed out, this is not a bad thing, as they're well-rounded, interesting, and funny, which is pretty much all a simple gag-a-day strip of this sort needs.
Durkon from the Order of the Stick has largely stayed the same as when we first saw him, although a flashback from a prequel book showed he was surly and irritable when he met Roy, due to the way he had been treated in human lands. He finally got a bit of development after befriending a fellow cleric, which was promptly subverted when he turned against said cleric with the revelation he was a vampire. This was then double subverted when his new "friend" slays him and raises him as a vampire.
Bun-bun from Sluggy Freelance hasn't changed over the run of the comic. Lampshaded by the Ocean's Unmoving plotline, in which the reader can't tell the present character from the one from before the strip started. That wouldn't work with any other major character in the strip.
"Now With a Sound Effect" lampshades this. After talking at some length about her shyness, Fluttershy declares "I hope all my episodes revolve around me being shy!" This is immediately followed by an image of Fluttershy shrugging, over the caption "Character development?"
It happens again in "So Random!"
Twilight: Well, have you tried having some character development? Pinkie: Well, I was going to, but apparently only Rarity's allowed to do that. Twilight: Hey! I had character development! Pinkie: Bro, that was like, one time at the start of the very first season. You haven't changed since then at all.
Many of the secondary characters from Avatar: The Last Airbender — Suki, Ty Lee and Iroh in particular — precisely because they're secondary characters. However, Toph doesn't particularly evolve either, able to get through the entire series on her existing personality (except for becoming a bit softer and more willing to work with others).
Iroh is justified as he had already gone through a life-changing experience before the series started. His job was to help others, primarily his nephew Zuko, develop.
Skeletor, from pretty much any incarnation of Masters of the Universe and related series. Despite his undeniable iconic status, he's one of the most one-dimensional characters in the entire franchise. Why is he evil? Because he wants to conquer Eternia. Why does he want to conquer Eternia? Because he's ''evil''. And not one of the fascinating kinds of evil. (According to Paul Dini, writers on the Filmation series were actually told by Mattel to not do anything interesting with Skeletor. He was to be the boss of the bad guys. Period.)
There is very little character development in Code Lyoko to begin with aside from Aelita, Jeremy and (surprisingly) Sissi, but Odd is a particularly egregious example. He eats a lot, he dates a lot, and he makes bad jokes. And that never changes.