The idea here isn't just that things simply change; they evolve for better or for worse. Like in writing, the common misconception in evolution is that is has to be "forward". In theory, human minds will shrink in the future due to overreliance on technology, as well as myopia and other problematic conditions if we don't figure out how to minimize the interior working conditions of everyday people. Regardless of this theory, it is just that, a theory, a possible way the human race could evolve. Our inventions are often hubristic, and we believe that what's good for eliminating more work for us is the same as good for us, especially if it can generate a profit. The darker part of humanity is this.
Evolution itself is complicated, and while you could evolve "forward" or "backward", it's not possible to reach a stasis in a traditional sense. Change can be scary for both the characters in a story and the people going through everyday life. The lack of change is something a lot of people find comfort in, knowing that their stability is ultimate, but even just experience and life will change you little by little every day. The characters can be the same way, but the bottom line is that everything evolves, it changes.
Forward character arcs imply a character is weaker at the beginning of the story and stronger, more complete at the end of the story. While this can be the case, it's worth noting that no well-written character is perfect. The "perfect" characters that are liked by everyone, oh so nice, good at everything? They're your Mary/Gary Sues. That's not to say that the Sues can't be a tactic in writing, but more often than not, they're irritating in an otherwise compelling narrative. The characters who never evolve, who are instead pushed around the plot, are your Sues. Needless to say, if you have to put one in the story, make them a toxic villain so that it's all the more satisfying when the protagonist defeats them.
On the flip side, negative character arcs are exactly as they sound. The protagonist starts the story in a good place, but the story itself by the end leaves them in a worse place. Recently, I've been watching Better Call Saul (after finishing Breaking Bad and El Camino; excellent stories) and this much is true about the protagonist, Jimmy McGill, who eventually becomes Saul Goodman. In this story, Jimmy's struggling to be good, to placate his brother, and to do anything for his love interest to make sure he stays afloat. As the story progresses, however, he falls off a cliff as far as morality goes (and that's the whole point of this show: how he became Walter White's lawyer). You can make the argument that Saul is a stronger character because of the arc he had since he's mentally tougher and more financially stable, but as far as morality goes? It diminishes significantly throughout the story, and thus you can argue that this is a form of negative character arc.
While I suppose this is the primary purpose of this post is that "oh, evolution is both forwards and backwards!" I think there's more substance than the superficial values given. I was having a discussion with a friend just yesterday about bringing back old characters for different stories, and I think the only way this could work well is if the characters themselves are different (especially if a lot of time has passed). Years ago, I remember having a different conversation with someone else who didn't like the Hobbit movies, and one of the reasons was that they reused the characters. At the time I thought, "But how? It's just trying to adapt the novel?", but then it made sense to me. To no fault of the actors or Peter Jackson's adaptation, a lot of the reused characters are almost exactly the same as they'd become 60 years later in Lord of the Rings. While any LOTR nerd will tell you that there's a lot more wrong with it, we'll just leave it at that as one of the things they could've done better. Looking back at Better Call Saul, starting Breaking Bad versus starting Better Call Saul, you immediately notice that Saul is a completely different character, and that's only around six years of timeline difference between the two.
Complexity and imperfection layers an interesting character. If immortals existed and they lived through all of human history at any ambulatory and healthy age, they too would change in their personality, philosophy, and everything else as hundreds of thousands of years pass by. You could even go a step further and have a primordial character, but even they will still evolve and be different. Personally, I love the idea that even a character as old as time itself is still not perfect; it shows that there is always room to evolve, whether backwards or forwards.
One of the most volatile genres in terms of character development is, in my opinion, the post-apocalyptic genre; especially the characters that survive the cataclysm. Whether it's a pandemic, nuclear war, or alien invasion, it doesn't matter: the characters are forced to change or they don't make it in the end. A clear example of this is The Walking Dead; Season 1 Rick Grimes is the undeveloped, fragmented counterpart of the complete, survivor, battle-hardened Season 5 Rick Grimes (it's the beard that gives him strength, right?). That's not to say that even good characters like Rick Grimes don't do evil things; they have to in order to survive. Does that make them anti-heroes? Not really in this instance, I'd argue, since it's a basis of morality and what he does.
Furthermore, these types of stories are fascinating because of their evolution. If such a horrible cataclysm happened, how does humanity come back and ultimately survive? It's essentially what these stories explore; they're stories of after the world ended, and yet there are typically still humans in these stories. Such is true in nature: you need to adapt and change in order to survive and evolve. As far as nature is concerned, being able to survive is the only thing that matters. We often forget about that since we're in a society that's engineered for every single need we have. It's quite amazing we're in such a world that our ancestors couldn't even imagine.
Thanks for tuning in everyone, and welcome to June! Throughout these next few months as I prepare to release my book, I will attempt to do more for promotions, QNAs, and hopefully build a community around these stories and our shared interest in science & history. Next week, I will have a post on Friday (like usual) and one on Sunday for the special occasion post. If you've read this far, thank you so much, and please consider joining my newsletter. It's free, and you get to keep up with my thoughts!
Until we meet again,
Dustin