Tips organized by topic
Read about me
Editing Services
Get handouts, worksheets, and workbooks
Read Testimonials

Monday, May 3, 2021

Principles of the Steadfast, Flat-arc Protagonist


Last week I debunked six myths about the steadfast (also known as the flat-arc) character. Now, I would like to share some of the basic principles of writing a positive steadfast protagonist. 

Steadfast/flat-arc characters are characters who don't drastically change their worldviews over the course of the story. In contrast, a change character will do largely a 180 flip in worldview from the beginning of the story to the end of the story. 

For example, in Wonder Woman, Diana begins the story with the perspective that we should fight for the world we believe in. At the end of the story, she proves that true by using it to defeat the antagonist (this helps make up the story's theme). But in Frozen, Elsa begins the story with the worldview that one must be closed off to be safe and authentic. Because of the story, she learns that, actually, we must be open to be loved authentically (that might mean we get hurt, but some love is worth the hurt). This enables her to set things right, which proves that perspective true (and helps make up the story's theme).

Both flat-arc characters and change characters have negative versions: a character who remains steadfast to an inaccurate worldview and suffers punishment for it, and a character who changes from a true worldview to an inaccurate one and suffers punishment for it. Negative versions of each type are harder to find, but not nonexistent. 

Almost all protagonists are positive change-arc protagonists. This means that almost all writing resources help writers write positive change-arc protagonists. This also means there are very few resources to help writers write steadfast protagonists.

You often can't apply change-arc advice to steadfast characters. It doesn't work.

Luckily, whichever protagonist type you're writing, each story actually has pretty much the same structural pieces--they're just arranged differently. Some are reversed while others receive more emphasis.

Today I'm going to explain how these pieces are different for a positive steadfast protagonist story, in comparison to the common positive change protagonist story. 

This is a little like being left-handed in a right-handed world. That's it--the steadfast protagonists are the lefties of the storytelling world. 

First, I would like to acknowledge those in the industry who have helped me understand the flat-arc protagonist and therefore influenced this post. If you want to learn more about this protagonist, check out these resources:

K. M. Weiland's Character Arc Series (Katie is amazing and this is honestly the best resource I've found so far on flat-arc characters.)

Character Arcs by Jordan McCollum (This book has a brief section on the flat arc.)

"Character Arcs 102: Flat Arcs" at The Novel Smithy (Lewis succinctly breaks down the flat-arc protagonist's three-act structure.)

Dramatica Theory (I already mentioned last week how Dramatica uses the term "steadfast" instead of "flat arc")

Writing Characters Without Character Arcs by Just Write (Youtube video)

I'll also be doing more posts on this protagonist type in the future.


Reversing Orientation: Change <--> Steadfast

Despite being the "lefties," almost every story will feature a key flat-arc character, like I mentioned last week:


In stories that have a change protagonist, the steadfast character will be the Influence Character. The Influence Character is typically someone the protagonist has an important relationship with, especially through the middle of the story. This is usually a love interest, mentor, or sidekick, but it can be almost anything. Of course, there are variations to the Influence Character, and you can learn more about them in my article on them. The Influence Character also serves as a thematic opponent, to some degree.

Why is the change protagonist most commonly paired with a steadfast character?

Dramatica Theory argues that it's because in order for a story to feel "complete" or "whole"--to properly mimic the human experience--we need to witness each perspective. Otherwise, it feels like something is missing.

It's not impossible to have a change protagonist be paired up with another change character, it's just that when this happens, usually an outsider who is steadfast gets involved and becomes the real Influence Character for both of them. It's also not impossible for the "Influence Character" to be more than one person. A story may have multiple Influence Characters, or even have a group that functions as the Influence Character. 

In a story that features a flat-arc protagonist, the types are reversed. The Influence Character becomes a change character:

Moana is steadfast while Maui is change.

In Arrival, Louise Banks is steadfast while Ian is change.

In Cinderella, Ella is steadfast while the prince is change.

In Princess Mononoke, Ashitaka is steadfast while San is change.

In Wonder Woman, Diana is steadfast while Steve is change. (Steve's change isn't as drastic, but if you watch, he moves from disbeleiving the world Diana talks about, to believing in it.)

Usually, this pairing is positive steadfast protagonist and positive change Influence Character. This means that the Influence Character will usually start on the inaccurate worldview--the opposing side of the thematic argument. They will at least voice or tap into it in some way. By the end, they will have an accurate worldview, adopting the steadfast protagonist's perspective. 

Generally speaking, anyway, as there are of course exceptions and variations. 

So in a sense, when working with a steadfast protagonist, you are reorienting the structure to focus on the steadfast character, instead of the change one.


Inaccurate Worldview: Within <--> Without


The positive change protagonist has an inaccurate worldview in the beginning--this is sometimes referred to as the "lie" (as K. M. Weiland says it), "misbelief" (as Lisa Cron says it), or "flaw." He will overcome this on his journey and embrace the accurate worldview--the "truth." The truth is also the thematic statement. 

The positive steadfast protagonist has the "truth," the accurate worldview, the thematic statement, from the beginning. This means that the inaccurate worldview needs to come from outside them. They need to encounter it in the environment. 

You need to have the inaccurate worldview present. Otherwise, there is no opposing argument, no moral conflict. 

A theme is essentially an argument about how we live our lives. You can't win an argument if no one is disagreeing. Someone needs to oppose the truth--I like to think of this opposition as the anti-theme. It is essentially the "lie," "misbelief," or "flaw." It is the worldview that is proven wrong by the end of the story.

It's just that with the flat-arc protagonist, that will hit them more from the outside. They will either:

- Enter a society run by the inaccurate worldview

- Have the inaccurate worldview enter their society

- Already live in a society riddled with the inaccurate worldview

Remember, a "society" is simply a collective--it can be as small as a school club or as big as a global government. 

I don't know for sure that it always has to be a collective, but even if it's primarily an individual, the inaccurate worldview will still be within the surrounding characters--so in a sense, still part of the environment and society. 

In Arrival, Louise is quickly surrounded by people who don't value or understand communication, or how it can avoid confrontation. She does. But she has to put up with that opposition and convince others to share her perspective. 

In Princess Mononoke, a demonic boar full of hate and rage enters Ashitaka's peaceful society. After killing it, Ashitaka must journey far away to a land ruled by hate--where he is the only person who stands for peace.

In Wonder Woman, Diana must leave her society behind and enter a world war where humankind doesn't simply fight for a better world, but actively kills the innocent. 

Rather than the protagonist transforming within, the positive steadfast protagonist will transform those around them, making the environment a better place as they hold steadfast to the true, accurate, worldview.


Internal Journey: Changed vs. Challenged



There is sometimes this idea, this . . . inaccurate worldview 😉 in the writing community that steadfast protagonists can't have rich internal journeys. As someone who loves the internal journey the best out of the plotlines, and who loves many steadfast protagonists the best, I don't find this to be true. Some of the most emotional internal journeys I've experienced, have come from positive steadfast protagonists. And one doesn't have to look far to find examples: The story of Jesus in the New Testament has moved whole nations. 

It's fair to say that some steadfast protagonists don't have much of an internal plotline, like classic Superman or 007, but that has more to do with structuring plotlines than it does with character arcs. 

For the change protagonist, the internal journey will largely be about transformation--a change. It's a journey to become a better person, and that can be a rich journey indeed. 

For the steadfast protagonist, the internal journey will be a test of their beliefs--a challenge. It's a journey about ultimately choosing to hold strong in what you believe in, even if it seems the whole world is against you, (and for a steadfast protagonist journey, that's probably a good idea).  

In a strange way, though, these two internal journeys are two sides of the same coin. After all, the change protagonist believes his worldview is the accurate worldview--that's why he has it! He doesn't believe, or at least doesn't clearly see, that he needs to change. The obstacles of the plot will reveal to him he could be wrong, that he needs to fix something about himself. Similarly, the steadfast protagonist believes she's right, and the obstacles of the plot will challenge that by suggesting she could be wrong and needs to bend to the opposing force.

One might argue that the main difference, then, is that the positive change protagonist succeeds at the end by changing, and that the positive steadfast protagonist succeeds at the end by not changing. But I think most of us would agree it'd be more helpful if we differentiated them a little more. 

Because the transformation aspect is missing from the steadfast character, it becomes arguably more important to nail the other features of the internal journey. It's not that those features don't exist in the change journey, it's just that without the change itself, they carry more weight and become more centre stage (generally speaking).

One of the aspects that becomes critical, is that the steadfast protagonist needs to pay a high cost. If having an accurate worldview and using it to change the world around them is about as difficult as a stroll in the park, it can become annoying fast. Real life just isn't like that. Even when we are doing good, we still experience hardship, suffering, and opposition. If the steadfast protagonist doesn't have to pay a cost, then they're not really having their beliefs tested.

While a change protagonist's pain may come more from being wrong and having to change--in a sense being "punished" for being wrong--a steadfast protagonist's pain will come from being right and suffering for it, and having to remain true despite that. Essentially they embody the adage, "No good deed goes unpunished."

For example, in Princess Mononoke, in Ashitaka's quest to bring peace to a world at war, Ashitaka must endure a bullet, stabbing, and face death. He's no one's enemy, but he sometimes gets treated as one. He would likely suffer less if he just joined the war efforts and embraced the inaccurate worldview, or if he simply left. Likewise, Jesus holding true to his beliefs in the New Testament, led to him being crucified.

As the obstacles of the plot mount, the steadfast protagonist will be asked to doubt their worldview. Some steadfast protagonists entertain doubt more than others. This may lead to the protagonist wavering in his or her beliefs. Ashitaka entertains doubt only a little, while in Wonder Woman, Diana is brought to her knees by doubt, nearly turning her back on her beliefs. Doubt will usually be strongest at the end of the middle--what some call "The Ordeal," which will lead into the "All is Lost" and "Dark Night of the Soul" moments.

Often, in order for this to work well, the opposing argument needs to appear valid. It needs to look as if the inaccurate worldview could actually be the accurate worldview. It needs to look like the anti-theme could actually be the theme. Like the "lie" could actually be the "truth." This means it becomes perhaps even more important, for you as the writer, to show the legitimate strength of the opposing perspective. If it's obvious the theme is the "truth," then there is no need for the protagonist to experience doubt. There isn't even a need to have a thematic argument. The protagonist may also (or sometimes, instead) doubt his ability or worthiness to live and spread the truth. For more on the power of doubt with flat-arc characters, check out K. M. Weiland's article "Why Doubt is the Key to Flat Character Arcs."

Like costs, stakes become more critical. Stakes are potential consequences. They put pressure on the protagonist and give their choices meaning. If sticking to their worldview means they must suffer steep consequences, their actions carry more weight. It's easy to do what is right when you have nothing to lose. If I found a lost dog, it would be easy for me to look at its tags and return it to its owner. If I found a mean dog trying to bite my hand the evening before my piano recital, wrangled it, saw it belonged to my worst enemy, and still chose to return it--that reveals just how committed I am to saving those lost. 

The steadfast protagonist needs to be challenged and tested--one of the best ways to do that is to raise the stakes. Raise them high enough to get them to hesitate, to doubt, to pay a steep cost. In a rich internal journey, we want to push the steadfast protagonist to her limits. What is it going to take to get your protagonist to consider the opposing side? To tempt her to give up her beliefs? In a sense, through the middle, we are really throwing temptations at the protagonist, trying to get her to give in to the opposing argument. Sometimes the most powerful way to do this, is to give the protagonist conflicting wants. 

In reality, the audience can't fully see just how steadfast the protagonist is, if she doesn't have to suffer costs, legitimate doubts, and high stakes. It's only in the face of adversity, can we measure true character. 

That is the meat of the steadfast protagonist's inner journey.  

* I would like to add just one warning, however. In your quest to make your steadfast protagonist struggle, it's important he or she still has some victories along the way. Just as it becomes annoying if the steadfast protagonist never has to struggle, it can also become annoying if the steadfast protagonist never has any success.


Ghost/Wound: Inaccurate Belief <--> Accurate Belief

(This is a repeat section from last week. I just thought it would be helpful to have all these elements on the same webpage.)


A "ghost" is a past, significant, often traumatic event that motivates the character to adopt an inaccurate worldview (the "anti-theme" or the "lie" or the "misbelief"--depending on your preferred terminology). In the industry, this is also sometimes called a "wound." You can learn all about ghosts/wounds in my article, "Giving Your Protagonist a Ghost."

But in a positive steadfast protagonist, this is often flipped. The ghost is often a past, significant, sometimes traumatic event that motivates the character to adopt the accurate worldview (the "theme" or the "truth" if you prefer). 

For example, Cinderella's mother, while on her deathbed, tells Cinderella to always be kind. This motivates Cinderella to do just that. 

Of course, not every character will have a ghost addressed in the story. 

For the positive steadfast protagonist, the ghost may be largely resolved. 

But not always. They may not have complete closure and peace. And it's possible they are still traumatized by the event.

Sometimes adhering to what is true can be nearly as haunting as having regrets. It's just that the haunting will come from either the cost of the truth, or, a lack of power--a lack of control--during the ghost. Generally speaking anyway.

In The X-Files, Fox Mulder, in the overall story and theme, is a positive steadfast character. The ongoing theme is an argument of belief vs. disbelief. (The motifs, "I want to believe" and "The truth is out there" speak to that.) However, Mulder has an unresolved, traumatizing ghost: his little sister was abducted by aliens. 

This event cements him to the thematic truth of belief and motivates him to investigate anything unnatural. But this happened at the cost of his sister.

Sometimes the trauma comes from not being able to do anything, just as Mulder was powerless to stop the abduction. 

Other times it may come from not being able to stop a loved one from choosing the inaccurate worldview--the "lie," "anti-theme," or "misbelief." The steadfast character may be haunted by the outcome of someone else choosing the lie. 


Want vs. Need <--> I Want the Need


For all other character arcs, what the character wants and what the character needs will be two different things. You can learn about want vs. need in depth here

In a positive change arc, the protagonist will want something that will manifest in concrete goals, which helps make up the plot of the story. Elsa wants to live in isolation to be herself, so she runs away and creates an ice castle (accidentally freezing the kingdom in the process). The need will be a realization that is thematic--it will be the thematic statement. Elsa needs to learn to be open to love to be authentic--that's what will actually solve her problems.

For the positive steadfast protagonist, the want and the need will be more closely aligned. The protagonist wants what is needed. In a sense, he starts the story with the need. However, the need still has to be applied to the concrete world, which isn't necessarily easy. In a sense, we are taking the need that is within, and trying to apply it to the "real world," which is left wanting, without. For example, if I know I need to exercise to be healthy, then I probably also want to do that. But that means I still need to put in the work. It also doesn’t mean I know everything about the process--because I may not have full experience with it. I might need to learn a new skill, like how to swim properly. 

In Moana, Moana already knows who she is on the inside (thematic statement)--she knows she and her people are meant to sail--but she still has to learn how to sail. 

Ashitaka knows the world needs peace, but he doesn't know how to make peace happen within a war. He knows how to have an inner peace, but he doesn't know how to make the external world--the societies around him--peaceful. He's trying to figure it out along the way. He's trying to figure out how to apply a personal experience to the public environment. 

The protagonist may still need a greater, more complete understanding of the need, the theme, and how to properly apply it to the real world. We all want to solve world hunger--but how do we actually do that? 

On top of that, as the protagonist struggles to meet the need, you may want to tempt him with a conflicting want. In Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker both wants what is needed (to be a self-sacrificing hero) and wants a personal want (to live an ordinary life with Mary Jane Watson). This creates inner turmoil. (And also gives more meat to the internal journey.)

As tests and doubts get heavy, the other want may appear more "right" and enticing. It will almost certainly appear easier.

As tests and doubts get heavy, the flat-arc protagonist may lose sight of the need. In Wonder Woman's "All is Lost" moment, Diana doesn't want to fight for the world she believes in anymore. The world doesn't deserve it. She loses sight of the need, the theme.

In short, the struggle comes from trying to apply the need, being tempting with another want, and/or losing sight of the need.


Protagonist Changes <--> Cast Changes


I touched on this earlier, but it's worth giving its own section. 

In many positive change protagonist stories, the protagonist will change to the worldview some of the cast members around him have. In Spider-verse, Miles Morales must learn to persevere like the other spider people around him. 

In many flat-arc protagonist stories, the cast around the protagonist will change their worldviews to match hers. Moana's journey changes not only Maui's understanding of himself, but Te Fiti's, and everyone's on the island as well. 

In some flat-arc stories, this can be critical at the "All is Lost" moment, because if the protagonist is suffering serious doubt, the supporting cast can bolster her by now acting on the accurate worldview, which is essentially what happens in Wonder Woman. As Diana crumbles under doubt, all of her team members enter the fray, prepared to die to make the world a better place. Their selfless sacrifices wake her up, and she recommits to the theme, finding the strength to take on Ares. 

Some stories may emphasize these changes more than others, but pretty much always, the Influence Character will at least experience a noticeable change--usually demonstrated near the same place in structure that the change protagonist will change.

But applying the steadfast protagonist to story structure will be for another day (hopefully in the coming weeks). Stay tuned!


10 comments:

  1. 'Luckily, whichever protagonist type you're writing, each story actually has pretty much the same structural pieces--they're just arranged differently. Some are reversed while others receive more emphasis.'

    Like a resolution makes a protagonist's life better, should the resolution make the steadfast character's life better because the environment/people around him changed and therefore his or her's life is now better?  If so, does that mean they should be stuck or struggling because of the flawed world around them?  They are also affected by the incorrect world (they're not some shining pillar unaffected by things?)  How personal should the outside world be/get and if too close and disruptive, will the steadfast/flat arc seem to shift more towards fixing their personal issue (revenge for example).

    'So in a sense, when working with a steadfast protagonist, you are reorienting the structure to focus on the steadfast character, instead of the change one.'

    I think I understand.  You've done such a great job explaining, but I of course need more to really get it.  When you say reorient the structure, you are not referring to the plot points/beats happening in orders different than a change arc, correct? Do the plot points and beats happen for both types of arcs?  And since the world is the one that needs to change in a steadfast character story, would the world get highlighted/tested/triggered at the plot points/beats --similarly to how a change character would?  Or no, the steadfast character would?  

    Do You mean the plot points/beats will still fall exactly where a change arc plot points and beats fall, but instead of functioning as a change arc's inner struggle, they will function as.?  ways in which the steadfast character is navigating the flawed world OR are the plot points/beats highlighting the flaw of the world, such as, instead of showing the steadfast protagonist struggling with the world's lie, are we showing the power of the world's lie (poverty, selfishness)?  since the world is the one who needs to change. >_<  I guess I'm trying to know if 3 act structure plot points/beats should involve/emphasise the protagonist's truth/struggle with the world, or, if it should involve/emphasis/highlight the world's lie more directly.  Which gets the spotlight, the steadfast protagonist or the world? 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I talk of reorienting the story, I don't mean changing the plot points or beats--those are nearly the same regardless. The protagonist helps provide context for the plot, so in that sense, "orients" the story. Here, we are just having the a steadfast character be the main focus instead. I took the term "orient" from writer Dwight V. Swain, who talks about the protagonist helping provide plot context for the audience.

      Some of these questions relate more to the plot goals, as opposed to the worldview/theme. A steadfast protagonist will always struggle with plot goals, even if they don't really waver in their beliefs.

      How much we emphasize the steadfast protagonist's inner journey (struggle) depends more on which plotline types the writer chooses to focus on. A protagonist may have a rich inner journey, because that is a major plotline. Or they may not, if it's not a plotline the writer chooses to explore deeply. For example, in the film Interstellar, the focal plotline types are the external journey, the relationship, and the world/society (https://www.septembercfawkes.com/2020/05/how-plotlines-add-dimension.html) Not the protagonist's inner journey. Therefore, we do not see many scenes with Cooper struggling internally, but rather struggling in his relationship and external journey. I'll try to expand what I mean more someday in a future post.

      Some of these questions will be answered in my future posts on steadfast protagonists.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for explaining further!

      I look forward to reading and learning more, about the different types of plot and which to emphasis and why (and how). I would imagine (though I'm so new to all of this, so I don't really know yet) it would be wise for the writer to determine which types of plot or conflict the story should have throughout, so that the story is comfortable and resonant. What do I know?!

      Your guides and insight and explanations are so helpful, and the more I read them, the more I can see them more clearly.

      I don't want to confuse myself or others, so I'll ask just briefly, does the world/other characters get the plot points and beats that a change arc character would normally have? Do THEY react and experience those moments, or does the main character, even though steadfast, still get those moments? Or maybe it's in shared between both the protagonist and the world? I guess I'm just wondering if the functions of story beats (such as Inciting Incident, Plot point 1, pinch point 1, mid point, pinch point 2, plot point 2, climax, resolution (and any I missed) are reserved for the world/other characters, or for the protagonist -like in a change arc (though I can't imagine how the steadfast protagonist experiences and navigates these moments seeing as how these moments seem specific to flaw/lie based characters -for example the midpoint usually has a self reflection as part of the inner story, and maybe a
      new reveal or surprise to further the plot on the outer story.) I'm sure it'll be more clear to me when you go over this, which I can't wait for!

      Delete
    3. Hi Snug,

      From my observation, it depends on the writer. Some writers don't like to know everything ahead of time, because they feel it ruins their process. They like to "discover" the story as they go, then come back and edit it into a more solid story. Others (like me) prefer to know more before they even start.

      I think that will be clearer as I go over everything. But I do think it kinda depends. I feel like I've seen some steadfast protagonist stories where the focus was more on the protagonist at those points, it's just rather than them struggling with a flawed worldview, they may be struggling with a fear that they can't accomplish what they need to accomplish, they may struggle in that they don't want to take on the big Lie of the world, or they may start to question their Truth. Other times, it seems the steadfast protagonist doesn't struggle on a personal level much at all, in which case, the supporting cast or the Influence character gets showcased at those points more. I'm not sure that the examples I've chosen for later show the first example too well . . . though I have seen it in some more obscure stories, so . . . I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't know that my posts are capable of being fully comprehensive--it could probably take up like a whole book to do that. In short, I think it's helpful to remember that basically, some things are reversed. It may be that the Influence character or world get more emphasis at those parts, like in Finding Neverland. Or it may be that the steadfast protagonist does, in regards to some form of doubt. In a situation where the steadfast protagonist may entertain the Lie as a possibility, that will probably sort of take seed in protagonist at the midpoint (a reverse of the change arc). For example, in Glass, David Dunn begins to consider the Lie could be the Truth, at the midpoint. By Plot Point 2, he's basically convinced that the Lie is the Truth, and then has to re-embrace the Truth.

      I'm still learning some of this stuff myself, but those are my thoughts for now.

      Delete
  2. Comment continued..

    So, will you be going over setup, inciting incident, plot point 1, pinch point 1, midpoint, pinch point 2, plot point 2, climax and resolution, as well as overall function of act 1, act 2A, act 2 b, and act 3?  

    I can imagine a steadfast character being challenged and maybe wavering and as you say, encounter/experiencing conflict in the form of doubt, costs, stakes, etc, but not sure how best or where those would fall in the story structure, plot points/beats, or acts in general.  

    And I'm wondering if in those points/beats should we have the steadfast character being tested/reflecting or if we should be using those points/beats to showcase the world around them changing.  

    On, during, and around the points/beats, a change character arc seems to really focus on the character's inner journey and the changes/challenges/struggles/reflections they are experiencing, but with a steadfast character I'm having trouble balancing the steadfast character's inner journey (even though they don't change much), their doubts, considerations, etc, with the rest of the world's - it seems to me like we'd be writing and needing to fit in two things in one: the steadfast character's moments (where a change protagonist's moments would normally/usually be in structure) and the world's moments/pov changing (but I don't know when or where in structure to apply those, unless they happen during the same moment as the steadfast protagonist's, which would make sense now that I think of it because as the world changes or resists, it will have an impact on the steadfast character's inner and outer journey, and all of those things could potentially align at the normal points/beats.

    When do we highlight the changing of the world?  Do we reserve the plot points beats to show the world changing for resisting, or do we reserve the plot points beats to show the steadfast character struggling/failing (or succeeding?).  

    For instance, should the inciting incident BE a direct attack/moment revealing the world's lie and/or the steadfast protagonist upholding their truth? (which may also supply the theme/thematic statement, I suppose.) Similarly to how the inciting incident of a change arc story might test the flaw or misbelief or ghost/wound of the character?  I'm really not sure who gets the highlight, the steadfast character or the world around them.

    Would the dark night of the soul/second plot point have the steadfast character sink/fail, or would it show the world's lie at its strongest?  

    Anyone reading this, ignore me, I'm a noob, and trying to figure things out as I go!

    Wonderful article, keep them coming!  I've learned/read more about steadfast/flat characters and stories from you than anywhere else (which seems to be one of your missions!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be dissecting at least a couple of steadfast protagonist stories beat by beat, which should help clarify a lot of these things.

      Delete
    2. Thank you! I'm looking forward to this and learning more about steadfast arcs as you're able. You break things down clearly and I appreciate your use of easy to understand explanations, and examples!

      Delete
  3. *standing ovation
    This is a phenomenal breakdown and resource, September! Great explanations and guide points. I'm saving this one on my desktop so it's at my fingertips for all eternity. Much appreciated. =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh, thanks for the standing ovation ;) And thank you! Yay!

      Delete

I love comments :)