Designing a character (arc): wants and needs

[Muphrid]

http://wrongeverytime.com/2014/05/18/character-design-101-want-and-need/

In a nutshell, a simple character growth arc can be described as follows: a character seeks an overt goal (a want), but the process of seeking that overt goal actually denies--or fails to seek--something fundamental that the character requires to be at peace (a need).  The character grows through realizing the discrepancy between the want and the need and pursuing or fulfilling the need instead.


I have mixed feelings about this model.  Perhaps it is so broad and encompassing that almost any character growth arc can be described in this fashion.  Still, at least one question comes to mind: must a character misunderstand his/her own needs and exhibit this discrepancy between want and need?  Or can a character understand his/her needs perfectly and still have a meaningful character arc?

[KLSymph]

I'm entirely meh on this model as a paradigm, and rather than think it's too broad, I think it's too narrow.  Taking Luke Skywalker as an example (because I use Star Wars as a first test case for all my modeling), what is his want?  At the beginning of A New Hope, he wants to get off the moisture farm.  What fundamental thing does he need to be at peace which conflicts with that want?  Does he have anything under that definition?  He wants/needs to know his father.  He wants/needs to fight the Empire.  These things don't really pull against each other, but Luke Skywalker does have a character arc that takes him from farm boy to something quite larger than that.  If anything, the arc in that movie comes down to whether he grows into trusting the Force, but has little to do with his want of leaving the farm.

If this model is just a simple example, fine, it's just one kind of character arc.  But if it's being put forward as a paradigmatic model that all others are based on, the idea that a character growth arc involves abandoning the want in favor of the need is quite restrictive.  Following that plan straight means it's impossible to write a character who, uh, doesn't abandon his goals.  At the very least, you wouldn't be able to write a tragic character arc where the character embraces his want and rejects his need, and suffers for it.  So Anakin Skywalker embracing his want to protect people important to him but rejecting his need to have a balanced, non-Dark Side lifestyle and ending up as Darth Vader... would, according to that model, not be a character arc (or the model and the direct opposite of the model both create legitimate character arcs, which undercuts the significance of the model).

I've seen the want/need model before (with fear also thrown in there), but I've never gotten it to work for me as a character creation tool.  I've always felt those traits were something you see in hindsight, not something you base a character from; the sheer ambiguity and lack of concrete definition for the terms seem to confirm it.  In the article you linked to, the author describes a want as:

What a character wants is simple. It's their goal – it's the thing that consciously drives them forward.

And in the next breath says:

Shinji from Evangelion wants to avoid being hurt, and so he takes the path of least resistance and avoids dangerous contact with others.

For me, Shinji's "want" is exactly the opposite of what a "want" is described to be: his "want" is the thing that consciously drives him to stay exactly where he is and not go anywhere.

What a character wants is basically what they, from their very biased and unenlightened early position in the narrative, believe will "solve" their personal journey.

This demands that the character thinks about his life in terms of a personal journey.  I don't think Shinji Ikari considers his life at the beginning of Evangelion a journey, and I doubt he is trying to avoid being hurt as a way to "solve" that journey (hooray for mixed metaphors).  To me, this "want" is something that an onlooker to his life conceives in hindsight from a comfortably long distance away, probably after that life has ended.

What a characters "needs" is what will actually resolve their core issue – it is the hard lesson or truth that their conscience "want" is normally just attacking the symptoms of. <...> Shinji needs to accept the pain of human connection – though he moves away from it because it is easier, in order to escape his unhappiness, he must embrace the pain of contact and move forward.

Although the article says "the easiest way to consider character writing is to start with two key variables", what it's not explicitly stating is that under the want/need dichotomy lies the assumption that a character is fundamentally about--not the want or the need--but some sort of personal issue.  The character goes on a personal journey to resolve that issue, and has the want/need dichotomy driving that journey.  The personal issue is the key variable, the rest are secondary.

To me, this smells of Hollywood psychiatry, where a person has An Issue, and what he needs is to Go On A Journey that's conveniently the length of the story, so that he can have An Epiphany at the climax, whereupon he is conveniently Cured Forever.  I know why Hollywood movies and TV shows tend to write such characters, given the rigid requirements of their story structures, but real people aren't like that, and characters who live believably real lives aren't like that for longer than an hour and a half.

As a critic's tool for examining a character in hindsight, using the conflict between wants and needs as a basis is fine.  As a writer's tool for creating a character from scratch, I find it severely restrictive.  The kind of character arcs that it produces tend to be highly archetypical (read: stereotypical, generic, simple, two-dimensional).  The closest I get to that is a different model involving the conflict between motivations and personal principles, which are more customizable.

Disclaimer: I've read the linked article, but I admit I didn't read it very closely since it uses a lot of anime examples I'm not familiar with.  And I admit that I'm not a writer of emotional character arcs.  I personally prefer complex characters who don't change much over simpler characters who change visibly, but neither way is better than the other.

Edit: minor clarifications

[Muphrid]

Thinking about the Star Wars examples, it doesn't bother me that Luke has no clear-cut want/need pair until after the droids land and he talks to Obi-Wan.  That seems like the point where he embarks on the journey to become a Jedi and avenge his father (or so he thinks).  Of course, if we are to accept that argument, then we have to admit that the main part of the arc might start partway through the story, unless we think that these elements are somehow present earlier.

I don't think a character arc needs to end in success--I may have paraphrased a bit too much on this point.  I think the key element is the discrepancy between wants and needs and how seeking one thing may only imperfectly help in achieving a need (or may even hinder it).  And in that respect, I wanted to explore how well this model holds, as well as how general it is.  I definitely think the Anakin example is one where the main character never recognizes his needs and thus suffers greatly for it.  That's still a totally valid arc, in my opinion.

Now, I do agree that there's a tendency in sloppy character design to make a character too dependent on a single issue for their characterization.  In a longer piece, I think this can be defused by giving a character several smaller realizations, each of which builds to a larger whole.  And even a story that is mainly about one big epiphany, a character can be well-rounded enough to react realistically and faithfully to situations, to have interests and flaws that are outside the scope of that main arc destination.

For some reason I associate the concept of "tightness" of a story with this dimension of storytelling.  A story that is too loose has no unifying concept and doesn't say anything.  A story that is too tight seems contrived because almost everything relates to a single, overarching idea or theme.  I feel like beginning authors tend to start off too loose--throwing in a hodgepodge of cool concepts or things they want to see--and then they tend to compensate by getting too tight to let the story breathe.

So, perhaps one antidote to this overtightness is to realize that a single character can have (or should have) several distinct need/want combinations, which may or may not be related to one another--at least, if one insists on writing character arcs in such a manner.

Now, as you observed KL, it is not strictly necessary that a story focus on an emotional character arc (though I would be interested to hear about other drivers of stories), and certainly not every arc needs to follow this simplistic model.  I guess I'd like to explore what alternatives there are to this model, though, for the purposes of writing character arcs.  Simply going with "use several need/want pairs" seems boring if it's the only option, even if it happens to be an effective option.

[Dracos]

Not wanting to be very thinky at the moment, but I think KL gave an excellent answer on why viewing character arcs like such is a very limiting angle.

[Ergoemos]

I think this form of character breakdown is really only relevant for certain kinds of stories. I think romance or "growing" up stories are easily fit into this want versus need mentality.

In many romance stories, the protagonist may want to find their love interest and fall in love together. Before that can happen, they need to own up to their own qualities and understand what is and is not realistic about themselves for that to work. I am thinking of literary classics like Great Expectations and Pride and Prejudice, but it shouldn't be hard to fit the conflict of Want and Need in almost any romance story.

Likewise, growing up stories are very similar. The character is in some place in their life and they want it to be X, but they need to understand Y and Z about themselves and the ones around them for them to really know what they want, which is W.

I think the biggest argument I have against this definition is asking: "Who decides what a character Needs?"

An audience of individuals will all have a completely different opinion of what a character "Needs" to be "complete" based on their own experiences, politics, personalities, etc. If there is no unified opinion on what the Need is, then this method is really saying "Personal Want Versus Audience Want", which is a silly and irreverent question to ask.

The author makes a broad statement that Spike from Cowboy Bebop needs to accept his past and move on. If Cowboy Bebop were about Spike's redemption, then I agree completely. But I have never felt that Cowboy Bebop was a story about Redemption. Dealing with the past, maybe, but not redemption.  Spike doesn't want it, and I don't think he needs it

Likewise, the wants and needs of a character do not have to conflict for a story to have character development.

Sarah Conner wants to escape from the unstoppable killing machine, and needs to find hidden depths of strength to escape. Her growth comes from coming up against external barriers and breaking through them in ways she wouldn't have done before the Terminator comes back in time to kill her.

Earl, from "My Name is Earl" seeks to right all the people he wronged in the past, because of a personal realization that he was kind of a terrible person. He wants to find redemption and forgiveness. He needs it to move on with his life. His growth comes from the struggle to find out how far he is willing to go, and encountering those people who will not forgive him.

The Bride from "Kill Bill" seeks revenge for being nearly killed by her once fellow assassins. Her wants and needs align completely, as she can't move on with the specter of their existence hanging above her.  She grows out of the challenge posed by each individual, whether mentally or by stretching beyond her previous conceptions of her physical limit.

I think this way to break down a character is an interesting side-note, but I think it is better as a character study method, to see who fits and who does not. An end-all-be-all technique it is not.

[Jason_Miao]

I've seen the want/need model before (with fear also thrown in there), but I've never gotten it to work for me as a character creation tool.  I've always felt those traits were something you see in hindsight, not something you base a character from; the sheer ambiguity and lack of concrete definition for the terms seem to confirm it.

I think the biggest argument I have against this definition is asking: "Who decides what a character Needs?"

I find a more useful way to think about character development is in terms of sacrifice.  The character has a choice to take between multiple routes, and whatever choice is made says something about that character.  It could be minor (do I take the well-traveled path to work, or do I risk a bit of extra time to try this new route) or major (do I betray my society to gain the power I need to protect the ones I love, or keep the faith and let my family perish?), but whatever the decision is (even if it's to not decide at all or to forge a new path) shows the sort of person the character is.

Not the OneTrueModel either, but it usually works for me.

[Muphrid]

I think the biggest argument I have against this definition is asking: "Who decides what a character Needs?"

An audience of individuals will all have a completely different opinion of what a character "Needs" to be "complete" based on their own experiences, politics, personalities, etc. If there is no unified opinion on what the Need is, then this method is really saying "Personal Want Versus Audience Want", which is a silly and irreverent question to ask.

The author makes a broad statement that Spike from Cowboy Bebop needs to accept his past and move on. If Cowboy Bebop were about Spike's redemption, then I agree completely. But I have never felt that Cowboy Bebop was a story about Redemption. Dealing with the past, maybe, but not redemption.  Spike doesn't want it, and I don't think he needs it

From an analysis standpoint, I think some of that is inevitable: it's hard enough to get two people to agree on how to interpret a character, let alone a whole audience vs. the author.  Now, if that's how you interpret the story, then I think the only conclusion you could be expected to draw is that there isn't enough of an arc?  Or that it goes nowhere.

Likewise, the wants and needs of a character do not have to conflict for a story to have character development.

Sarah Conner wants to escape from the unstoppable killing machine, and needs to find hidden depths of strength to escape. Her growth comes from coming up against external barriers and breaking through them in ways she wouldn't have done before the Terminator comes back in time to kill her.

Right!  I think this is the kind of thing I was trying to get at: a case where the direction of growth is clear and "right" and the story is about the little hurdles along the way, about getting there.

I find a more useful way to think about character development is in terms of sacrifice.  The character has a choice to take between multiple routes, and whatever choice is made says something about that character.  It could be minor (do I take the well-traveled path to work, or do I risk a bit of extra time to try this new route) or major (do I betray my society to gain the power I need to protect the ones I love, or keep the faith and let my family perish?), but whatever the decision is (even if it's to not decide at all or to forge a new path) shows the sort of person the character is.

Not the OneTrueModel either, but it usually works for me.

A character is nothing if he makes no meaningful decisions, indeed.  Even a story focused away from character development needs those decisions to help depict and paint the characters--to characterize them, if nothing else.

[Edward]

As others have noted this is a restrictive and simplistic model.  A character can have multiple needs and goals. Needs themselves may conflict with other needs. There can be conflict and growth, not just in changing goals, but in deciding what the character will do to achieve those goals or discovering how to achieve them.  Characters can grow by developing goals when they had none before.  Character growth does not have to be self-centered, either, it can be the character placing the goals of others over their own goals.