On Change

"The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it." - Marcus Aurelius

Thought I'd start out with a quote. Let's get to the post, shall we?


I. Change as a catalyst

Let's look at change where most storytellers get it right; change as a catalyst for the story. After all, if there's nothing going on but the status quo, what's to tell? While there are stories that can pull such a situation off well due to an excellent writer at the helm (Such as One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich) most plots do better when they're kicked off by an event creating a great deal of change and thrusting the main characters into the plotline.

Change, thus, must be wide-reaching enough to affect the protagonist and justify his involvement in the story. Whether he is already in a position to be concerned, such as in Terry Pratchett's Guards Guards! with Captain Vimes, or whether he is forced into a position where it suddenly becomes his concern, such as in Lord of the Rings with Frodo (Though not several other characters). Of course, then you have that rare story in which the hero is not the one affected by and trying to react to change but rather trying to change the world around him, such as in L. Sprague De Camp's Lest Darkness Fall with Martin Padaway trying to change the world around him to suit his own ideas and lifestyle. This is arguably not the best example, as Padaway's world was certainly changed from 20th Century Italy to 6th century Rome, but as I said, it's a rare story where the hero is the active component instead of the reactive component.

II. Change as a storytelling device

Now, change doesn't have to just start the story, or even simply continue in spite of or in reaction to the protagonist's efforts. Change within the plot is important to give your audience a sense of progress with the hero's efforts. In some bad media, the change of choice is 'training' the protagonist to fight the villain/enemy. Again, I'm not saying that this is always a bad choice, only that I've rarely seen it done well. To name a few movies (Not even going to get into books) where this has been tried and poorly executed: Eragon, The Mutant Chronicles, and . I regret watching all of them. Batman Begins is a mixed case where the training scene wasn't necessary for the further development of the main character but necessary to set up the plot. As such, I wouldn't say it was poorly done so much as only partially relevant. A rare example of successfully showing training would be the 1979 version of All Quiet on the Western Front. The reason that All Quiet does it well is because:

A. It gives a sense of considerable passage of time.

B. It shows the training in a realistic manner, and not as the character suddenly and skillfully mastering everything taught while developing a sense of camaraderie with their trainer.

And

C. It is relevant to the plot and not just the development of the character being trained.

Change, then, can include such things as the destruction of Saruman as a major player in The Lord of the Rings, or the development of Padaway's reputation from an unknown brandy merchant to a major political player in Lest Darkness Fall. To move from the beginning of either of those stories to the end of either results in an odd sort of disconnect, even if the narrative is adjusted. It feels as though one had skipped over a proper resolution and march towards the end of a story, it makes the end feel rushed if there is little or no change in the middle, in the main plotline.


III. Change as an ending

Now, if everything returns to the status quo at the end, one must wonder what the purpose of the protagonist's struggle? There is neither a sense of victory nor despair. Everything simply falls into place without purpose or reason. Stories must end with change. The change doesn't need to be final, it doesn't need to be world-shattering, but there must be change. If it is bittersweet, if the protagonists have won but at a cost, let that show in the end. Show the protagonists counting their losses despite the defeat of the threat, or the completion of their goal. If they've won a total victory, show their victory, show them returning to a world changed, whether for better or for worse then what the story started out in.

But don't make the mistake of creating an end without change, whether that be a return to the status quo or a simple refusal to wrap-up ongoing conflict. That's what makes the comic book industry so unbearable at times and endless movie sequels so annoying.

To recap again...

I. Change starts stories, few people can make a story about the status quo and make it interesting!

II. Change moves stories and gives a sense of progress.

III. Change in the end gives a sense of finality and completion, as well as payoff and reward for one's audience better than a simple return to status quo.