Does My Character Have to Arc Out of Their Want?

Last week, I taught a class at WorldShift: The Speculative Fiction Writers' Summit on raising the stakes, and I got a few questions and comments that spoke to some complex concepts, which I couldn't thoroughly address because it was a < 1-hour presentation, and they went beyond the scope of the class. These related to the concept of "want vs. need," and implicit in them was this question: What if my character arcs (or doesn't arc) out of their want? And in a sense, by extension: Does my character have to arc out of their want?

The answer to that is, it depends.

It depends on the story, the character arc, and the want.

But first, let me quickly lay out some groundwork so we are all starting on the same page.

If you've followed me for a while, you may know about (what I call) the "abstract want." Most recently, I wrote about it when I did this post on misaligned character wants and plot goals. But in case you are new here, or need a reminder . . . 

Every protagonist (or really, any lead character) should have an abstract want, a motive, behind his or her plot goals. 

The protagonist tries to fulfill this want in concrete ways, and this is what makes up the plot (or it should). 

For example, in The Hunger Games, Katniss has two major abstract wants, to survive and to save others (particularly the innocent). This is why she hunts for her family in 12 and wants to win the Games. This is why she volunteers to take Prim's place, chooses to team up with Rue, and aims to win with Peeta.

In Star Wars, Luke's abstract want is to become, or be part of, something great. He tries to fulfill this in different ways for each act. First he aims to go to Academy. Then he desires to go with Obi-Wan to Alderaan and become a Jedi. Then he hopes to rescue the princess. And finally, he strives to destroy the Death Star, helping the rebellion.

The abstract want isn't just any want--it's something the character keeps close to his heart and will go to great lengths to fulfill, often saying and doing things and taking risks he wouldn't ordinarily, because it means that much to him. Typically he is willing to risk his life (literally or figuratively) to fulfill that want.

But some confusion can come up here, because it's not uncommon for the character to arc out of his want by (or within) Act III, the end.

For example, in Barbie, Barbie's abstract want is to maintain her perfect lifestyle; she wants to keep living the same perfect day over and over. However, in Act III, she realizes--because of her inner journey--she doesn't want that anymore. She wants to live in the real world, where change is inevitable, but where she can be a creator, and not just a product.

Likewise, in Hamilton, Hamilton's abstract want is to build a legacy. This is why he wants to join the war, lead the men to victory, and found the U.S. government, serving as Secretary of the Treasury. But at the end, as Hamilton faces death, he lets go of this want and realizes he has no control over his legacy. Unfortunately though, he learns this a little late, so the story ends with some tragedy.

Often the writing community is telling others that the character must arc out of her want--if you want a great story with a great character arc. This is typically excellent advice. Because the abstract want means the world to the character, giving it up or sacrificing it, is often ripe with depth, complexity, and emotion; we are essentially requiring the character to change--in some sense--the very nature of who they are. This is usually extremely difficult to do, and therefore it's very meaningful when the character sacrifices her abstract want to do what is needed.

Barbie must give up her want for a safe, perfect life, in order to become someone who does the creating, and in the process, she learns, "It is better to live an imperfect life and die, in order to experience a real life," which is one of the main themes of the story.

Similarly, Hamilton should have fully given up his abstract want earlier and embraced the stark truth George Washington has been telling him the whole time: "You have no control who lives, who dies, who tells your story." (Also the main theme.)

There are a lot of facets to this--enough to take up a full post--but that's the basic idea.

However, despite this argument that this is the ideal way to handle a story, it's actually not a requirement, and if you are working with a different kind of character arc, or a different kind of abstract want, it may even be a bad idea to have your character arc out of it.

There are plenty of successful stories where the protagonist does not arc out of his want.

For example, in The X-Files, Mulder's abstract want is to find and reveal the truth. This shows up in his concrete goal of solving the X-Files. While he is no longer on the X-Files by the end of the original series, and while he has moments of doubt, he ultimately never stops wanting to find and reveal the truth.

Likewise, in Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack's abstract want is to live free, preferably forever. This is why he wants The Black Pearl back, this is why he wants to avoid Davy Jones and the Kraken, and this is why he later wants to replace Davy Jones. But by the end of the original trilogy, Jack hasn't stopped wanting those things, as the denouement shows he has plans to find the Fountain of Youth next.

Similarly, one may argue that although Katniss does sacrifice her want of survival at the climax of The Hunger Games, it's still a very large part of her character in Catching Fire and Mockingjay. She still very much wants to survive.

And also, in A New Hope, Luke never actually arcs out of his abstract want. Admittedly, though, he does that in the next installment, when he turns down Darth Vader's offer. In order to be truly great (as a Jedi), Luke must, ironically, let go of his desire to be great.

This need not only be for series, though. After all, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was originally a standalone.

So suffice it to say, like anything in writing, there is a lot of room for variation. But, like anything in writing, there are also some principles that can guide you on what to do.

When should (or shouldn't) a character arc out of her want?

It depends on the arc and the want.

The Character Arc

At the most basic level, there are only four kinds of character arcs: change positively, change negatively, remain steadfast positively, remain steadfast negatively.

Either the character goes through a transformation (changes) or she doesn't (steadfast). 

And that's either considered a positive thing (read: she embodies the theme of the story) or a negative thing (read: she embodies the theme's counterargument (more on that below)).

Just about any character's arc should fit into one of these four types. If it doesn't very obviously, you are likely working with a variation of one, or the character actually has more than one arc (which often means there is more than one theme, like in The Hunger Games).

You can certainly get more detailed and specific in fleshing out the arcs, and there are a lot of great resources for that, but these are your most basic options.

Whether or not your character should arc out of her abstract want, depends quite a bit on which arc she fits into.

Let's start with the negative arcs.

If you are writing a negative steadfast arc, the character likely won't arc out of his abstract want. Instead, he's more likely to double down on it. He starts with a want that is "wrong," "incorrect," or simply "flawed" (within the framework of the story), and doesn't give it up for what is needed--what is "right" or "correct," what is necessary.

So in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Coriolanus wants wealth and respect, and arguably most of all, to function and fit into his lawful society. At the climax, he must choose between running away with the love of his life into the free wilds, or killing her to return to the Capitol--where there are (oppressive) laws, and where he'll eventually find wealth and respect. He chooses to kill her.

He chooses his own wants over what is "right" or "correct" (or "needed") within the framework of the story.

If you are writing a negative change arc, the character likely starts with a "right," "good," or "correct" want (the "need"), but arcs out of it into a "wrong," "incorrect," or "flawed" want.

For example, in 1984, Winston wants truth, freedom, and love. This is essentially what is "needed" in his society (it is denying people these things). This is a "good" and "right" want. However, at the end, Winston arcs out of that and embraces a "wrong" or "incorrect" want; he wants to betray Julia and love Big Brother--in other words, he wants to uphold that lies are the truth, that slavery is freedom, and that love has no place. He chooses to embrace a flawed worldview in order to save himself from torture.

In any case, regardless of which negative arc you are writing, a key characteristic is that the character is ultimately not choosing what is right, what is correct, what is needed, at the climax of the story. Instead, they are choosing what they personally want for themselves.

If you are writing a positive steadfast arc (also sometimes referred to as a flat arc), then usually your character already wants what is "right," "correct," and "needed," and he won't arc out of it. Fox Mulder wants to discover and reveal the truth. This is also what he needs to do. This is the right thing to do. Finding and revealing the truth, is what the story is all about. It's the theme--as embodied in the tagline: "The truth is out there." Mulder does not ultimately arc out of his want, and instead his struggle is about continuing to pursue that want when everyone and everything else is trying to stop him and convince him otherwise. His arc is about remaining steadfast.

However, sometimes positive steadfast characters are given a competing want. Katniss wants to save others, to the point of being willing to sacrifice herself. This is what the trilogy is all about, and the main theme: We should be willing to sacrifice ourselves to save others, as opposed to sacrificing others to benefit ourselves (which is what the Capitol, Snow, and the Careers are doing). Katniss is willing to do this in chapter one, as shown by her volunteering to take Prim's place. Katniss is still ultimately willing to do this at the climax, by risking her life to save Peeta instead of outright claiming victory.

But Katniss also has a competing want. She really, really wants to survive. Because of this, her two greatest wants are often in conflict. Initially, she's tempted to kill Peeta, because she wants to win, and she wants to win because she's a survivor at heart. But ultimately, she prioritizes sacrificing herself to save him, and risks her life with the berry stunt.

Sometimes the positive steadfast protagonist must sacrifice a competing want, but because one of their wants is the "right" or "correct" one, that want will remain largely intact.

Then we get to the positive change arc. This is the most popular arc and where much of this advice about sacrificing the want to the need, comes from.

Often this character's initial want is "flawed" or "incorrect." It may even be outright "wrong."

For example, in The Emperor's New Groove, Kuzco wants to maintain entitlement and be selfish. This is why he aims to build Kuzcotopia (which he needs to return home and become a human again to do). However, this is not a "good" or "right" want. Kuzco has the flawed worldview that he's the most important person and that being selfish is the best way to live. This is his misbelief (as Lisa Cron calls it) or the lie he believes (as K.M. Weiland refers to it).

Because of the conflict of the plot, Kuzco learns what is needed: that you should care about others, and not just yourself. This is the theme of the story. Kuzco must be willing to give up this want to do the right thing and save Pacha. He changes positively. That's his arc.

Similarly, in The Greatest Showman, P. T. Barnum wants the world to accept him. But this is a "flaw," a misbelief, an inaccurate worldview. Through the plot, he learns he must give up this want and embrace the thematic truth, which is that we don't need the world to accept us, only a few loved ones.

This setup often creates powerful character arcs, but it is not the only way to write a great story. There are plenty of other arcs that are impactful.

But the thing is, most protagonists are positive change protagonists, so arguably most often, the character is arcing out of their abstract want.

Yet still, it is not always this clear-cut.

This is because it also largely depends on what that want is.

The Abstract Want

While most of the time the positive change character will arc out of an "incorrect" or "flawed" want, this is not always the case.

It depends on where that want comes from.

And it depends on what the theme is.

(And it arguably depends on what angle we are looking at it all from.)

The theme is the argument the story is making about life.

But it's not really an argument if no one is disagreeing.

In order to have a strong theme, you need to have a counterargument. You may have heard this counterargument called other things, but I call it the "anti-theme," because it goes against the theme.

So while the main theme of The Hunger Games is that we should sacrifice ourselves to save others, the counterargument is that we should sacrifice others to benefit ourselves, which is what the Capitol, Snow, and the Careers are doing.

And while the main theme of Hamilton is that we have no control over our legacies, the counterargument is that we can control our legacies by taking every opportunity to act and never throwing away our shots.

While the theme of The Emperor's New Groove is that we should think of others first, the counterargument is that we should think only of ourselves.

Are you starting to notice anything here?

The abstract want often relates to one or the other side of the argument.

Katniss saves others by sacrificing herself--that's the theme.

Hamilton wants to build his legacy, by not throwing away his shot--that's the anti-theme.

And Kuzco wants to be selfish--that's the anti-theme.

The positive steadfast protagonist wants the theme, so the want stays intact.

The positive change protagonists often want the anti-theme, so it must be sacrificed.

And then negative arcing characters ultimately choose the anti-theme at the climax.

This is why character arc matters.

And it's all great in theory.

But in the "wild," stories can get more complex, and there can be variations. . . . 

The Want is Unattached to the Theme

In A New Hope, the theme is that we should trust in and rely on faith (which is represented by the Force). The anti-theme is that we should trust in and rely on technology (which is primarily represented by the Empire's Death Star). Luke succeeds by shutting off technology and relying on the Force, which obliterates the Death Star.

But what about Luke's want?

You'll notice that Luke's want has essentially nothing to do with the thematic argument. Luke isn't necessarily strongly driven to rely on technology (though we do see him buy droids when we meet him), nor is he driven to trust in faith (he has basically no concept of the Force; faith is not on his radar). He still arcs in the sense that he learns to trust in faith (positive change). But his abstract want has little to do with it (at least in the first installment).

So for A New Hope, his abstract remains intact because it has little to do with the theme and character arc.

But there are other variations as well.

The Method--The How

In Zootopia, Judy wants to fight bias/prejudice. This shows up in the concrete goal of proving she can be a cop, by solving a missing person case.

Wanting to fight prejudice is not a "wrong" want, of course (and the want is not always inherently wrong; it's just usually somewhat incorrect).

The problem is, Judy is going about it the wrong way.

The how is the problem, not the what.

How she is trying to fulfill that want is her "flaw" or "misbelief."

She's trying to fulfill it by fighting the prejudice in others.

In reality, she needs to fight prejudice by addressing it within herself first.

She herself is biased, and if she really wants to rid the world of bias/prejudice, she must rid it from herself.

So she still changes positively.

But arguably her abstract want remains intact. 

She still wants to fight bias/prejudice at the end of the story.

The problem wasn't the want itself. It was the method--the how--she was using to fulfill it.

The Worldview about the Want

Similarly, in The Pirates of the Caribbean, the main theme is about what it means to be an honorable, good person (and the irony is that often that person ends up being a pirate).

Will's abstract want is to be an honorable, good person, and he also wants to save others.

But his worldview of who is honorable, and good--what kind of person that is, how that is defined--is flawed. Will has a very black and white worldview: All pirates are bad, dishonorable people. He thinks being honorable means never breaking the law.

Through the conflict of the plot, he learns that life is not so black and white. Sometimes one must do what society considers dishonorable (such as breaking the law), to do what is truly honorable (rescuing Elizabeth and saving Jack from a hanging). 

Will's want remains intact after the first installment, because it wasn't "wrong." 

But he still has a positive change arc, because his worldview of what makes someone honorable has completely flipped. It's possible to be a good, honorable person and a pirate (breaking the law). In fact, sometimes breaking the law is necessary to be an honorable person.

This is also how Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone works. Harry wants love, belonging, and family. The theme is that love is the most powerful force (i.e. magic) in the world. However, Harry still has a positive change arc because his worldview about love has flipped. He didn't know the theme in the beginning, but he learns it by the end. He continues to "want" love through the series, but now that he has found the Wizarding World, that want usually shows up as him protecting (read: maintaining) the places and people that make him feel loved. The places and people that make him feel like he belongs and has found family.

So as with anything in writing, there are guiding principles, but there is a lot of room for variation and complexity.

Prioritizing & Costs

Sometimes what happens with the want is a matter of prioritizing--choosing what is most important in a particular situation.

While honor is the main theme of Pirates of the Caribbean (both the first installment and in the original trilogy as a whole), freedom is a secondary theme. And while this shows up in several places (Davy's Locker, freeing Calypso, Beckett wanting to capture and kill all pirates), it's very much embodied in Jack's journey.

Jack's abstract want is to live free, preferably forever. And wanting freedom is not "incorrect," and it's not even "flawed," really. The theme is arguing on behalf of freedom. This is a pro-freedom story.

But the theme questions the price of freedom. What is okay, and not okay, to do, to live forever free? Is it okay to hand over 100 innocent souls to keep your own freedom? In Dead Man's Chest, this is exactly what Jack intends to do.

At the climax, Jack flees the Kraken for land to save himself, while his crew faces death. But as he's rowing, he's thrown into a crisis. This is a dishonorable act. Can he live with himself? Is freedom worth this price?

He decides it is not.

And he rows back to the ship to risk death, to save his crew. This is the honorable thing to do, and when it really gets down to it, Jack will do the honorable thing--he'll prioritize that over his freedom.

But wanting freedom isn't a problem.

Wanting freedom at the cost of others' lives--that's the problem. So Jack prioritizes doing what is right, what is needed, over what he wants. But his want still remains intact. He didn't arc out of his want. It propels him through At World's End, and even into the fourth installment.

Sometimes how the want is handled is a matter of priorities and costs.

So . . . all that to say . . . whether or not your character should arc out of his want, depends. It depends on the character arc, the want, the theme, and the story.

(It also depends on how you are looking at the story, as arguably some of these variations overlap in places--but that's okay!)

All of the writing rules are really principles--they are more like guidelines--but when we thoroughly understand them, we can not only write great stories, but also know how to write great stories that don't follow them to a T, like Pirates, Zootopia, A New Hope, and so many others. We need to learn them to understand why stories work, and then we'll know how to deviate from them to create something different or more complex, but just as satisfying.