Is it possible to have a character who does not develop?

@LaurenIpsum Definitely related, but I think this question contains a different enough shade of meaning to stand on its own.

A classic example is Sherlock Holmes, who generally solves the case brilliantly and continues entirely unaffected. A story whose focus is on plot or setting might not need character development at all; character development might actually distract from the focus. But it depends on so much, particularly on what it is that you're trying to do, that I really can't say much beyond "yes, it can be done."

@Standback ACD's Sherlock Holmes does not lack character development. The man who meets Dr. Watson in The Sign of Four is not capable of the emotional outburst in "The Adventure of the Three Garridebs" when Watson is injured and Holmes fears for his life. And if he never changed or developed, he wouldn't be willing to settle down and retire to Sussex to keep bees; he'd continue to try to solve crimes from Baker Street regardless of age or infirmity. He may not change much, but he changes.

@LaurenIpsum: My intention wasn't that Holmes never has character development, but that many of his individual stories don't have any character development.

10 Answers 10

You can always have a character who doesn't develop; flat Disney villains come to mind. But the flat character is generally in opposition to the hero/ine, who does develop.

So the question is, why would you write such a story? What could possibly happen in it? If you have one character, period, and that character doesn't develop, what is that person doing?

The TV show "Seinfeld" is an example of a show where the characters didn't develop. They never learn anything about themselves and this was a source of humor in the show. Or at least it must have been for the people who liked it (and there was a lot of them), personally I never really got into it.

I think also some of Samuel Beckett's work would have one or two characters and little or no character development, some of it is also comic, and indeed absurd.

This is actually a great example. Maybe it's one of the reasons I couldn't stand the show either; you had four horrible people who never got any less horrible.

Comedy is maybe the only genre where static characters can work. However, a sitcom like Seinfeld is mostly about interaction between characters, and the question was about a story without character interaction.

Is it possible? Probably. It may depend on the definition of "character development". I was just looking for a definition and didn't find one in 30 seconds, but it's normally understood to mean (a) revealing the nature of a character to the reader, and/or (b) a character growing and changing over the course of the story.

By definition (a), if you write, "Bob walked into the room", you have told us several things about the character: He is named "Bob". He is capable of walking. He has some reason for wanting to be in this room. Okay, trivial things, but you have begun the process of character development. It's hard to imagine a story where you literally tell the reader absolutely nothing about any of the characters, even indirectly.

It's a little more plausible by definition (b). I suppose you could imagine a story where the characters learn nothing and do not change in any way. But at the very least, you would think that SOMETHING must happen to the characters in the course of the story, so if nothing else they have gained experience. Even if you do not spell out how the character's react to these experiences, the reader is likely to draw inferences.

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you have in mind.