Does every character need character development?

While character development is hardly a straight forward or a one way street, I wonder if every character need character development? Lets say you have a story and that story had been mostly a comedy series until something happens that causes a character or the group to develop into something of hero, does that mean that you need to develop every member of the group? I read somewhere that all characters need character development because if they did it would actually ruin their character rather than deepen it. I am not sure if that is true but I don't know if every character needs development as it would make them any less than they already if they weren't really much to begin with. Do you need to develop every character for the story to work? Or do you need to develop certain characters and just leave the rest?

If your work is not about or focused on the characters, you don't need to develop them. Many works about adventures focus more on the setting than the characters, who usually stay static.

I don't think it would actually be possible to give every character in a story character development, unless you had a very minimalist cast.

Development meaning you as a writer sitting down and trying to make each character their own person and not a bare device: yes. Development meaning a plot arc in which they are changed as a person: no.

Character development can be overrated. That's all I'm saying.

Methinks you don't need to develop minor characters as long as you can paint the illusion that they are developed characters. Random crazies in the city are a good testament to that. Haven't you met someone before that's left a strong impression on you for saying one sentence?

Pretty much that. Major characters should have some depth, while walk-ons being developed would most likely slow the story.

I defy you to develop that random guy over in the background of a crowd scene every time.

If a character in your work, however minor, has lines, and/or actions that serve a purpose in your story, i.e. move the plot forward, or reveal important information about the main character, they have to exhibit at least a modicum of character development.

I'm not saying that, the random clerk your protagonist buys smokes from, needs to have an extensive backstory. On the other hand, if that clerk also happens to have a weapon stash in the back of his convenience store, and directions to the Big Bad's hideout, then our Hero needs him, and we in turn, need to know more about him.

Aside from the whole "You can't develop the background characters" thing, I'm going to assume the spirit of this question concerns important characters, so I'll give my answer with regards to that:

As noted, there really are a couple different types of stories, and a character-driven story is going to need different things out of its characters than a plot-driven one. If the focus is on the characters, they're going to need to be more dynamic and interesting in order to hold the audience's attention, but if the focus is on the plot? Not so much.

And just because a character gets not development doesn't necessarily mean they'll be a Flat Character. A character can have multiple facets and a rounded personality without ever changing over the course of the story. And there's all sorts of reasons to have a more static character. One that springs immediately to mind is a situation with two protagonists who are foils to one another, and one is generally more level-headed and stable whereas one is more wild and erratic, and the more stable one serves as a grounding force to the wilder one, who emotionally grows with the help of their foil. And that's only one possible scenario.

Our own page on Static Character stuff argues that tragedy is by default based on static characters, which... I don't know how true I'd say that is, but a lot of them are in fact about people who refuse to change and what that means.

Agreed in every respect. Having characters that can't/won't/musn't change can be great for conflict, because growing characters run into them like into a solid brick wall. So the growing character stops growing, or breaks the wall, or learns a way around it. A lot of people don't change IRL, because they're too old, stubborn or shut-in. As long as it helps your story and your MCs are rounded, you can use as much or as little character development as you want.

Plus static characters can be very interesting as protagonists, for a given value of static. Say you have a main character and an 'impact' character: traditionally the main character is the one who changes while the static impact character drives the change (e.g. Luke and Obi-Wan in Star Wars). But you can flip this, and have a static MC who defends their stance against all comers - the IC bounces off them and they're the ones who change their views. Sam Vimes and Granny Weatherwax of the Discworld develop and learn over the course of each book, but their essential values and personality remain the same.

I just read "The Bookshop" by Penelope Fitzgerald (great book, brilliant writer, read them) and the only characters who really change are the protagonist, Florence Green, and her 10-year-old assistant. Everyone else has depth but remains unchanged: like the town of Hardborough itself, they're stuck in a rut.

edited 10th Jan '13 1:21:04 PM by LongLiveHumour