Do major secondary characters need character arcs

Laura C asked a question in the comments about what happens when the heroine is the protagonist and hero rather than operating as a co-protagonists operates as a major secondary. Does he have to have a character arc?

I would argue that if two characters are involved in a life changing romance, both of them had best change. If the hero is acting as a major secondary, he might not have as dramatic curve but he will have a character arc. If he can successfully take part in the final climatic scene at the end of the story as the same person he was at the beginning, you don't have a story. Any time you are involved in an emotional relationship, you are changed in some fashion.
Perfection in a character is boring. Imperfection makes more interesting characters. What is your secondary's flaw? What are his fears? Why can't he be with the heroine at the start? What lesson is he going to learn from her?  How are you goign to show that he has learnt the lesson and is worthy of the changed heroine's love?

If you look at Romancing the Stone, Jack does change through out the story. He wants to become a better man. He doesn't steal the map from Joan. He is no longer involved simply for the money. He is not the main POV character but he does change and he does decide to invite Joan onto his yacht or rather to share the adventure of his life. He needs her in his life.
Joan has changed the most but Jack has also changed.

If you look at Casablanca, Rick changes the most but Ilsa also changes.  They both in their own ways put Paris from them and then have been able to recapture that.

The amount of change a character has to go through depends on the character. the protagonist of a story should always go through the most change, but if it is a romance which forms the spine of the story, then both characters should change. Or otherwise what is preventing the non changing character from having his or her HEA?  The change can be small. It may be that the character learns they need the protagonist in their life to be complete bu they should change.

I hope this makes sense.

Secondary characters

Because I have started writing something a bit different, I have gone back to the beginning with looking at craft books etc. I am reminded of the clock face Twyla Tharp mentioned -- how craftsmen have to polish up one skill, and then the next. Anyway, I started to read Donald Maass Writing the Break Out Novel Workbook AGAIN and not just going for the bits I like butthinking about some of the other bits and thinking about how I can apply this. It has highlighted so many areas that I need to work on, areas I thought I knew instinctively. It is the old things you think you know syndrome. And it is helpful to go back to basics.
Last night, I happened to be looking at secondary characters. All too often, Maass point out secondary character's main motivation is to say their lines and get off stage as quickly as possible. He says that it is impossible for a secondary character to take over, but I am not so sure about that -- nearly having had Simon Clare take over A Question of Impropriety. But I do know what he means -- secondary characters need to have a life. They need to have conflicting qualities, extra dimensions and larger than life qualities. They simply have to do in less space. Sometimes a lightening quick sketch can give a lot of insight.
The exercise about choose a character who aids your protagonist got me thinking. How can I add an extra dimension? How can make the motivation different from the easy one? Why is this character with his hopes and dreams going to become real to me? And how can I use him to add colour to the world?
One of the good things that I have done this year is to look at different lines. Some lines have far more characters but about the same line count. It has been interesting to see how a few deft words can really create an impression.

The decorating continues. The plastering is done. The first coat is on in my study. And I like the colour (always a bonus.) BUT it does mean the living room has to be cleared now...

Rereading crafts books --The Writer's journey

Because I remain ill, and unable to sleep due to this stupid cough, I have been rereading some of my craft books. Also i want to get a handle on this governess wip.
The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler is a book that bears rereading every so often. Some of elements are old friends, but sometimes, the words take on new meanings and twists. In other words, my own appreciation of the craft has grown enough to make me understand more of what he is trying to say, and to grasp the thoery behind it.
It can be helpful when planning a story to think -- which mask is each character wearing. Which archetype? Which role? And have I done enough to lift the character from the archetype and breathed life into them? Sometimes, the character has such a small part that is not worth it. Bit part secondaries by their very nature will be unable to display more than one or two characteristics. The time is better spent rounding and shaping the main characters. When you narrow your cast, inevitably, the number of masks each character wears increases. This adds to the complexity (or at least that is the theory).
But various threads are starting to come together in my head and this is good. I trying to figure out mentors and threshold guardians, plus shapeshifting.
I have also spent sometime writing my latest Dear Reader letter. This is for Simon Clare's story as I think the prelims will be next week. I am also redoing my biography. Some people think of Dear Reader letters as a chore but I enjoy them. I recently had a very letter from a reader who had been touched by the Dear Reader letter in Viking Warrior, Unwilling Wife. And that is what it is all about -- touching readers, connecting with them.
Anyway, hopefully this cold/thrachea infection will improve.

Taking another look at secondaries

Tomorrow marks the official publication of Viking Warrior, Unwilling Wife in paperback. This means my local Tescos should have it out on the shelves. They tend to stick to the publication dates. WH Smiths often has it out earlier. Seeing the book on the shelf in person always fills me with a sickening combination of horror and anticaipation. And I do feel much better when I see that a book or two has sold.

Anyway, one of the aspects of VWUW that I enjoyed writing about was the different way characters can be portrayed. If anyone has read Taken, Bose the Dark is not a very nice character at the end. He is ruthless, manipulative etc. In VWUW, the heroine, Sela is his daughter and she worships him. She sees only her father who has kept her family safe. Her blind trust in her father led partly to the failure of her marriage. Some of the book for me was about how Sela learns that her father has feet of clay and how she is still able to love him. In other words, how things stop being painted black and white for Sela and how she was finally able to grow.

One of the things I did have to do was to examine how different people perceive other characters and their motivations. The saying that no one is a villain in his own mind helped me. But one of the temptations as a writer is to always portray a secondary character in the same way, never to show the other side. This can result in cardboard cutouts. One great exercise is to start thinking about the villain's journey. Or the secondary character's journey. What are their goals/motivations? Or can you eve reverse the motivation? What sort of conflicts can you show? How does that alter the character? How has the role changed from the last book? If the character's role is exactly the same, then your book may have a repetitive feel to it.

All this held me in good stead because the next book that I wrote was An Impulsive Debutante. Lottie Charlton was the Mean Girl of A Christmas Wedding Wager, but she also had a lot of life and spirit in her. And I had to spend time in her skin and get toknow her and what drove her, rather than proceeding with Emma's perception of her. My editor did mention that I had never done a heroine quite like her before. I think had my dd not begged, I would not have been tempted, but I am pleased I did. She became one of my favourite heroines.

Taking another look at characters and their motivations is one of the fun parts of writing linked books.

Secondary characters and info

There was a post on Romancing the Blog yesterday and Julie Cohen also did a blog awhile back on JK Rowling's revelations about Dumbledore. I will admit that I wasn't surprised, mainly because I had read the last book and knew about his intense relationship with Grimwald, and it did remind me of the Charles Ryder/Sebastian Flyte relationship in Brideshead Revisited. I also tend to think of Dumbledore as a Mr Chips type character. He was someone who loved passionately once (perhaps unwisely) and then suffered. It also goes someway towards explaining why he was wary of Tom Riddle -- namely that his pursuit of knowledge echoed Grimwald's. Or was it his own and he knew what dark passages it could lead to if unchecked. In many ways, it doesn't matter as the main story would have still played the same, as the end result is the same.
But it does through up an intriguing question -- authors have to know much more about their world than readers do, should they share that knowledge? Or should it be something that readers if they want to can fill in the blanks? And when should that knowledge be shared? Because sometimes, if the author is going to write more stories about that particular milieu, the author could need to keep secrets.
When I am writing, I do know why other characters are in the cast and what their backgrounds are. The tip of the iceberg principle. I do a lot of research on both the setting and the characters that populate the worlds I write about. It is always a juggling act - -what does the author need to know and what does the reader.
For example, with The Gladiator's Honour, I knew the whole back story of Aquilia and how he came to be as well as how Tigris and his wife met. With A Noble Captive, I had to know how Helena's aunt became the sybil and Helena's mother was like and her romance with Helena's father. I also had to understand Tullio's relationship with his former wife. With Taken, I could describe the whole journey Haakon took with Asa ten years before the book started. I also know a lot about Asa's motivations and about Thorkell and the court intrigue. With A Christmas Wedding Wager, I ended up know all about Lucy and Henry Charlton's courtship and the Charlton family dynamics. This held me in good stead when I came to write Lottie's story (still untitled but will apparently have the word Debutante in it and possibly scandal). BUT the information does not really impact on the story and readers do not need the info to enjoy the story. In fact if they did know the info, the focus would be lost and the pace would slow to a crawl. Hopefully, the knowledge I have ultimately makes the world more real to the reader. However, if the end result stays the same does the motivation of a secondary character matter to anyone beyond the author?
I would argue very strenuously that an author needs to know the motivations of their secondaries, in particular their major secondaries if they want to avoid two dimensional characters and flat worlds, but should they reveal it afterwards? Is preliminary work interesting or distracting? Or does it depend on the author and the book? I am undecided about it but there again, I am a writer and I like to play guessing games about characters.
I am blogging at Tote Bags today about preparing for Christmas and am giving away a copy of A Christmas Wedding Wager.
My newsletter should go out at the weekend and it will contain another chance to win a copy of A Christmas Wedding Wager.