Activity

@seekjustice You’re right. Negative arcs are quite difficult to pull off well. I think this is partly because they delve into a part of the human experience that is nuanced, complex, and difficult to portray realistically: the devolution of an ideal.

We are very familiar with growth. It is probably the most common character archetype, and for the first two decades of our lives, we are personally undergoing dramatic growth in every dimension of our identity. This continues throughout the rest of one’s life, but is most obvious and new when we’re younger. Suffice it to say that if we pay attention, we can rather easily come to understand the process of change/growth. The steps needed to lead up to it, and the actual process itself. For those of us with a strong moral upbringing, this process is linked very closely to our identity as Christians who are being sanctified (a process of growth).

But decay – devolution: the abandonment and death of an ideal, and its replacement with a principle of falsehood or immorality – decay is another matter. We know it, and the principle pervades both the world around us and our own minds, to an extent. But we don’t often trace it’s path, or the key moments of change that lead up to it.

As far as I can tell (at the moment), there are two main aspects of negative personal devolution:

1. We begin with a faulty foundation for life (ie CMP). Then tragedy strikes, shaking the heart of that foundation. Because it was faulty or incomplete, the foundation falls apart, leading to the adoption of a false or morally wrong CMP as the new foundation of life.

This is dramatic, has a clear arc or path, and is easy to transfer into a story. It’s probably the most common kind of arc that we see for villains. However, I believe that this is far less relatable, because if/when we experience negative change in our own lives, it is not usually this dramatic.

So that brings us to the other aspect:

2. We begin with an ideal, a good foundation for life. Then, through a prolonged time of apathy, or morally corrosive actions, the strength of that ideal’s hold over your life begins to erode. You still profess to believe and act on it, and it may inform one’s conscious thoughts, but the habits and tendencies begin to speak otherwise. Eventually, there is usually a trigger point, or axis moment, where an event brings about the realization that you no longer believe what you used to believe. At this point, there’s usually the adoption of the new norm as one’s CMP, and the rebuilding of an entirely new system of thought around it.

This is not dramatic, but gradual. At no point is there one simple factor causing all of this change, but the coming together and eventual effects of an entire symphony of factors. This is extremely hard to portray accurately within fiction; for one thing, it doesn’t lend itself well to high levels of tension. For another, all of that detail is rather boring to read out. But when accurately portrayed, it causes a level of deep introspection in the reader because it is a process which we all can recognize within ourselves (though God forbid that we experience the entire process from beginning to end).

So, back to writing. Negative arcs are hard. The ones that lend themselves to being written in a story are (generally) less deeply impactful, but the ones that are more deeply impactful don’t make good writing (unless you’re a Russian novelist with space and to spare in your story; looking at you, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy).

The solution? As best I can see, do your best to include elements of both in a long-form novel. Perhaps the axis moment from the second aspect could be the major tragedy from the first aspect.

+++

Anyway, ramble over. I really like your analysis of the characters in The Prestige, and even started watching it this evening!

Thanks for sharing!

@princess-foo GRANT WARD! THAT EVIL, EVIL MAN. Ugh. I hated him so much when he turned. But after thinking about it, I realized that there was nothing really motivating him except basic goodness. He was a flat, two-dimensional character who was a good guy with no real motivations; which is perfect because he’s a freaking bad guy all along just pretending to be that good guy which nobody really thinks twice about. Honestly, he was much more engaging as a character after revealing his true colors because he had an arc, motivation, etc. Good thinking and writing on the part of the creators of that show, honestly.

Excellent analysis of his particular negative arc, too. Thank you for adding to the discussion!

 

@morreafirebird Ah yes! Heathcliff is an excellent example, and I agree with you that he probably fits the best into the second category. It’s also quite likely that my system of categorization is simply not varied enough to provide for the true level of complexity that Bronte achieved with this character. It has been so long since I read that book – thank you for the memories!

Also, Denethor is an excellent example of the third category! Like Smeagol, his ability/agency dwindles to nothing in the face of despair, and his end is quite definitely not successful. Somehow I don’t find as much empathy for him as I do with poor old Gollum, though. XD Maybe has to do with trying to KILL his GOOD SON.

I think in the end, Boromir has a combination of a soft negative arc (that closely resembles the third category) with a short redemptive arc tacked onto the end of it. Which illustrates the variety that we can have with our characters and their arcs. If you know how to use them well, you can really mix and match and create some powerful characters. His death scene still gets me every time in both the books and the movies. I think I’ve even cried a little!

Anyway, excellent examples and I’m so glad you contributed!