One subject has been plaguing me, and it's this: Character Development. Two little words which have absolutely started to bug me. There are courses and workshops on this subject, it's been described as an art form, and I'm choosing to ignore it completely.Bizarre, I know.
I've discovered that as readers, most people are suckers for consistency. Every action and every word seem to require some sort of reasoning. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be reasons behind why certain characters do things (indeed, you wouldn't have a plot if they don't), I'm just saying it's not necessary all the time - and here's why.
I don't like planning what's going to happen to my characters. When I start writing, I myself don't know where they'll go. I feel as if designing how they develop as a character impinges on my creativity, and I don't like a character that's predictable, even to me.
People in real life don't always act the way you expect or think they should. Ever roll yours eyes at that incoming call from that friend you just know has done something stupid? Only to pick up and realise they've surpassed your wildest dreams? Mind you, these are your friends, some of them best friends, and they still constantly find ways to amaze you with their creativity (or stupidity). Sometimes we as humans do things that we ourselves don't understand, why are our character's any different?
If I feel like writing a female character who starts off as timid and shy, but has a flirty streak, why isn't that alright? If she's an angel in book one but an assassin in book three, why isn't that okay? It's as if 'Character Development' encourages authors to design their character around a certain stereotype, and this is a dangerous trap I stress must be avoided.
Emotion is also a property subject to a lot of criticism. Things like anger aren't always a slow build up. Not everybody gradually gets angry before they snap, and they don't have to be a villain to do so. So if my character has an anger meter that goes from 0 to 200 in 0.7 seconds, why is that irrational? Writing about encounters of love are more often then not, unexplainable. If two people are connected from the get-go, why is that an issue? So don't tell me that the way a certain character I wrote was unrealistic - I know my character better than you do, and that's what they did.
I've come up with a personal motto while writing books: Don't blame me for the story, I just wrote what happened. To me, my characters are real. What they did while I was sleeping was real, and when I type it down, I'm basically reporting what happens.
In my writing, I'm trying to perfect how I write. That includes the use of correct grammar, tense, words and techniques. I'm always looking to improve how I write, but not necessarily what I write.
I like reading about characters with oddities, and I like writing about them just as much. I'm a sucker for protagonists and antagonists that get themselves in trouble by acting out of character. If a book doesn't have a character that doesn't have me asking why they do things, then I won't be interested for long.
Naturally, characters have to be likeable, or at the very least, intriguing. If they aren't, then no one will read your work; audience's need to be able to sympathise.
I guess in short - it's not 'Character Development' that I'm so much opposed to, because no matter what, your character will undergo some form of journey that changes them somehow. It's the consistency expected behind Character Development that I refute. Character's don't have to be consistent, and it makes them all the more enjoyable to read.
