Stories Are Not Always About Transformation

October 18, 2009

Early last week I posted a link to a sneak peek at Blake Snyder’s forthcoming book Save the Cat Strikes Back! At the time I stated that I had a “mountain of disagreement” with some of his concepts and ideas and so, this article is an attempt to explain myself more clearly.

I present this rebuttal with all due respect. Blake Snyder was a massive inspiration to many writers (yours included) and I have no desire to denigrate or downplay his contributions to the wide world of story. I hope the following is taken as it was meant to be, a simple disagreement between two fans of great storytelling.

Growth, Not Transformation

The thing I disagree most with in the chapter, is his notion that stories are always about transformation. This is a common misconception among storytellers that revolves around two similar, yet definably different aspects of character: growth and transformation. Transformation is defined as “a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance.” Metamorphosis, conversion, remake, overhaul – these are all terms that can be found in the thesaurus entry for transformation.

Growth on the other hand is defined as “the process of developing or maturing physically, mentally or spiritually.” Maturation, development, progress – these are the terms that are closely related to the idea of growth.

Because a story is not a static entity, characters have to grow. The progress of time is an essential element towards the creation of a story, so yes, without a doubt that growth has to be prevalent.

But not every character has to transform. For a more in-depth explanation of why be sure to check out the article entitled what character arc really means. To categorically say stories are about transformation implies that if your Main Character doesn’t undergo some major change in how they approach life, the story somehow doesn’t work. Check out the video in the linked article above and see if those stories don’t work.

Characters need to grow certainly, but they do not need to transform.

Character Development

From the sneak peek chapter:

This is the part [the finale] where the hero has to find that last ounce of strength to win but can’t use normal means to do so. And lest you think this is a goofy, “formula” thing, in fact it is the whole point of storytelling. For this is the part we’ve waited for, the “touched-by-the-devine” beat where the hero lets go of his old logic and does something he would never do when this movie began.

I can’t tell you how grossly inaccurate that last statement is. Sure, this happens in stories where the Main Character changes…but that only applies to 50% of the stories that can be told!! (I loathe exclamation points, but here I find it is necessary).

To prove my point Blake goes on to compare Luke’s turning off the targeting computer with Maximus’ (Russell Crowe) finding “that last bit of energy to stab Joaquin Phoenix.” What? I agree that the Star Wars example is transformative, but Gladiator? Maximus is a classic Steadfast Main Character. His finding “the last bit of energy” was proof that he didn’t change, he always had it in him. Regardless of what was thrown at him and regardless of all the crap he had to go through, Maximus still found it within his character to give that one last try. There was nothing remotely transformative about it at all.

I do agree with his idea that a story is about “stripping away” the Main Character’s baggage till they get to a point where “only by stepping into the unknown – and trusting – that the hero could find the way to triumph.” That sounds right (although it implies that every story should end triumphantly).

But it is also possible to step into that unknown by doing what you have always done. There is power in that message and the consequences that come from taking such an approach. That is essentially what Maximus is doing at the end of Gladiator. He’s stepping into the unknown when he faces Commodus. He is not sure how it will turn out, but he knows deep down within his heart that this is the approach he should take.

There can be great meaning found in stories like this.

Better and Better Stories

On this much, I’m sure both Blake and I would agree. Fantastic storytelling is a wonderful aspiration for any author. Whether it is achieved by following Blake’s teachings, or by finding inspiration from the concepts discussed on this site, the end game is exactly the same. We want great stories.

Presently, the goal of brining people back into movie theaters is being met with promises of greater and greater advancements in technological presentation. “3-D Adventures of a Lifetime” are becoming so commonplace, they almost seem like cover-ups for bad storytelling. Believe it or not, they are even promising suits that shock you when someone on screen is shot. Trust me, these suits work, I’ve tried them on. But that jolt isn’t what audiences everywhere are craving.

They want meaning and that meaning can be found in stories of growth. Transformation may occur, but it does not always have to happen within the Main Character. Sensory stimulation is window dressing.

In the end, audiences want the shock of a well-told meaningful story.