In character arcs, as in plot, the Climax is the dot on the end of the exclamation point. The Climax is the reason for the story. This is where the author reveals what the journey the character just endured was really all about—and, in a positive change arc, why that journey has turned out to be worth all the heartaches and trauma.
Creating Character Arcs (affiliate link)
Most important to our discussion, the Climax is where your character proves that he really is a changed person. Your readers have witnessed his evolution. They’ve seen him get shaken up when he was kicked out of his Normal World. They watched his desperate reactions as he tried to regain his footing in the First Half of the Second Act. They saw his revelation at the Midpoint, and his subsequent transition away from his Lie and toward the Truth. They saw him act on the Truth at the Third Plot Point—and pay the price for doing so.
Now, approximately halfway through the Third Act, the conflict has revved to the point where a confrontation must happen between the protagonist and the antagonist. If the protagonist is to have any chance of winning that conflict, he must prove he is able to stick with the Truth for the long haul. If he can’t gather all the lessons he’s learned throughout the story and hang onto them now, when the pressure is greatest, then all will be lost forever.
As you consider what has to happen in your character’s arc in the Climax, keep in mind the following structural guidelines for your plot as well:
- The Climax is a scene or series of scenes that forces the protagonist to face the main conflict in a decisive confrontation.
- The Climax brings the primary conflict to a resolution in a way that fulfills the book’s every promise, while still surprising readers in pleasant ways, because not every bit of what happens is what they could have predicted.
- The Climax begins near the 90% mark in your story and ends right before the final scene or two.
- The Climax will sometimes be divided into two climaxes (the first of which is known as a “faux climax”), depending on how complex the conflict is and how many antagonists the protagonist must confront.
The Climax
We closed out our discussion of the Third Act by mentioning the renewed attack upon your character’s new paradigm (i.e., his embrace of the Truth). Although that renewed attack can take place entirely before the Climax (as it does in Jane Eyre when St. John tries to prevent Jane from returning to Thornfield), more often than not, this psychological attack will continue right into the Climax itself. In The Writer’s Journey, Christopher Vogler explains:
The psychological meaning of such counterattacks is that neuroses, flaws, habits, desires, or addictions we have challenged may retreat for a time, but can rebound in a last-ditch defense or desperate attack before being vanquished forever.
Timing the Final Rejection of the Lie Your Character Believes
Rejecting the Lie in the Climax
Depending on the nature of your story, and particularly how closely the exterior conflict with the antagonist is related to the character’s internal conflict, the character may not throw off this assault until the Climactic Moment itself. The antagonist may batter the protagonist with the Lie, hammering at the newly healed skin that’s formed over this old wound. This is the protagonist’s weak point, and the antagonist knows it.
Placing the renewed attack and the final rejection of the Lie and embrace of the Truth in your Climax allows you to harmonize your exterior and interior conflicts. It also ups the stakes and the tension. Readers sit on the edges of their seats, chewing their nails, because they know full well that if the character can’t complete his arc right now, the antagonist will destroy him.
However, harmonizing the two conflicts also has its downfalls. Because the Climax is such a busy section of your story, you won’t always have the time and space to logically complete your character’s arc at the same time as he’s battling the antagonist. A saber duel to the death isn’t usually conducive to involved existential decisions.
Rejecting the Lie Before the Climax
Depending on your story’s pacing, you may decide your best choice is to have your character face and defeat his Lie for this final time before he charges into the Climax. At this moment, your character will reject the last remnants of doubt about the Lie and step forward to claim the Truth. He is, at last, completely centered—and, as a result, completely empowered to face the antagonist. He is transformed.
The Climax begins as the character acts upon his new Truth, finally and fully. By this point, the character should be finished with all lengthy internal pondering. The uncertainty that remains now is more about the ramifications of his new Truth (will it let him defeat the antagonist? or will it get him killed in the process?) than his own inner choices.
Whatever you decide, keep in mind Jordan McCollum’s advice in Character Arcs:
One of the biggest things to watch out for with this type of ending is making sure that the character learns her lesson very close to this climax. If these events occur too far apart, the causal link between learning the lesson and the ultimate success at the climax is weakened. If it’s possible to make the final choice in learning the lesson coincide with the climax instead, that helps to prevent the timing problem.
The Climactic Moment
The Climactic Moment is the climax within the Climax. It’s the single moment that resolves the story’s overall conflict. In identifying your Climactic Moment, look for (or create) the one scene readers have been waiting for from the beginning of the story. The bad guy dies. The hero proposes. The girl gets the job she’s been after.
The conflict ends because the protagonist has finally conclusively destroyed the antagonistic force. The obstacle between him and his plot goal disappears. This does not, however, mean that the character necessarily gets the Thing He Wants. Positive change arc stories are primarily about the character finding the Thing He Needs.
As such, by the time he reaches his plot goal, the goal itself may have completely transformed, so that he no longer desires the Thing He Wants. (In Clarence Brown’s National Velvet, Mi Taylor has gained self-respect and no longer wants to steal from the Browns or trade off his father’s name.)
Or he may still desire the Thing He Wants, but he rejects it, knowing he can’t possess both it and the Thing He Needs. (In Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, Peter Parker rejects the opportunity for a relationship with Mary Jane, because he knows it’s the only way to protect her.)
Or his reasons for wanting it may have changed, giving him mixed feelings about his victory. (In Jon Turteltaub’s The Kid, Russ Duritz finally gets rid of his younger self, only to find that he misses him.)
Or he may gain the Thing He Wants, but only because he is now focusing on the Thing He Needs. (In Jane Austen’s Emma, Emma gets to marry Mr. Knightley, but only because she’s overcome her selfishness and conceit.)
How Does the Climax Manifest in Character Arcs?
Your character’s arc in the Climax could manifest as:
- A renewed attack in which Thor’s brother taunts him, briefly, back into his aggressive mindset. Thor then finally proves his devotion to his new Truth by destroying the Bifrost and (seemingly) any chance he has of returning to his new love, in order to protect the other realms. The Climactic Moment arrives when Loki (seems to) kill himself, thereby removing himself as the obstacle between Thor and his goal of peace. (Thor)
- Jane fully rejects St. John’s renewed attack upon her Truth when she hears Rochester calling her and drops everything to return to him at Thornfield. She proves her new mindset in her determination not to marry him—only to be happily surprised when circumstances, including her own transformed self, allow her to be with him after all. The Climactic Moment arrives when she tells Rochester she has returned to him. (Jane Eyre)
- Dr. Grant battles the raptors at the risk of his own life in order to save the children (not exactly a renewed attack, but it fulfills basically the same function in this action-heavy, character-lite story). The Climactic Moment arrives when the T-Rex crashes into the lobby and destroys the raptors. (Jurassic Park)
- Walter holds fast under the physical attack by his mother’s abusive boyfriend and refuses to believe his beloved uncles are thieves. He actively claims as Truth their stories of youthful adventure and proves he is willing to be tortured for it. The Climactic Moment arrives later when he confronts his mother and insists she allow him to stay with his uncles. (Secondhand Lions)
- The other toys scoff at the idea that Woody has changed his tune about Buzz, even after he jumps into the moving van and tries to use RC to save Buzz. The Climactic Moment arrives when he and Buzz land safely in Andy’s car. (Toy Story)
- Archie, Troy, and the Chief’s superior officers threaten to court-martial them and return the Shiite refugees to Saddam’s soldiers. The Climactic Moment arrives when, in order to allow everyone to survive, they decide to barter their gold in a deal to get the Shiites across the border to safety. (Three Kings)
- The renewed attack comes mostly from within Matt himself. He can’t bear the thought of leaving his mates to fight by themselves when he knows they’re likely to die. He returns, with his sister and nephew, in an attempt to help them, only to realize the best thing he can do for them is protect his family. The Climactic Moment arrives when his brother-in-law sacrifices his life in order to help them escape. (Green Street Hooligans)
- The renewed attack comes from Leo, who straps Bob to cases of dynamite, calling it “Death Therapy.” After a moment of fear, Bob finally embraces the therapy and is “cured.” The Climactic Moment arrives when Bob ends his own ability to torment Leo by accidentally blowing up the lake house and sending Leo into a catatonic state. (What About Bob?)
Further Examples of the Climax in Character Arcs
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens: Scrooge’s transformation is basically complete before he exits Christmas Future and enters the Climax. He swears to the Ghost of Christmas Future that he will be a changed man if only he is given the chance to live again. Once back in his bedchamber, in the present day, he immediately sets about proving his change, by doing good for everyone he snubbed in the First Act. The Climactic Moment arrives when he decisively demonstrates his devotion to his new Truth of charity and goodwill by donating gifts and food to the Cratchits and giving Mr. Cratchit an extravagant raise.
Cars directed by John Lasseter: Lightning embraces his friends and their importance in his life when he joyfully accepts their help as his new pit crew. He races with renewed purpose, making up lost ground. But even though his attitude toward the townsfolk from Radiator Springs is demonstrably different from how he treated them in the beginning, he still hasn’t actually done anything to prove his devotion to the new Truth. He gets his chance when Chick Hicks acts selfishly (just as Lightning would have at the beginning of the movie) and wrecks the respected old racecar The King. Lightning, just about to win the race, sees what’s happened and realizes helping The King is more important than winning the race. In a lovely Climactic Moment, he slams on the brakes, just before the finish line, allowing Chick to win. He then circles back to help The King finish his race.
Questions to Ask About Your Character’s Arc in the Climax
1. How does your character prove he is a changed person in the Climax?
2. Does the renewed attack upon his new Truth happen before the Climax or during the Climax? What are the pacing challenges of either choice?
3. How does the character’s final embrace of the Truth enable his victory in the exterior conflict?
4. Does he fully embrace the Thing He Needs in the Climax?
5. How does he use the Thing He Needs to defeat the antagonist?
6. Does he gain the Thing He Wants?
7. How has his view of the Thing He Wants changed? Does he still want it?
The beginning of your story asked a question: Will the character overcome his Lie to gain the Thing He Needs? In a positive change arc, the Climax answers that question with a resounding yes. More than that, it provides visual and dramatic proof of how the character has been changed by the Truth.
Congratulations! Your character has just completed his arc. He leaves your story a better person than he entered it, and readers can be sure that, whatever trials he may face in the future, he is now better equipped to face them. All that remains now is the (very important) emotional mopping up of the Resolution.
Stay Tuned: Next week, we’ll be talking about your character’s arc in the Resolution.
Previous Posts in This Series:
Part 1: Can You Structure Character?
Part 2: The Lie Your Character Believes
Part 3: The Thing Your Character Wants vs. The Thing Your Character Needs
Part 4: Your Character’s Ghost
Part 5: The Characteristic Moment
Part 6: The Normal World
Part 7: The First Act
Part 8: The First Plot Point
Part 9: The First Half of the Second Act
Part 10: The Midpoint
Part 11: The Second Half of the Second Act
Part 12: The Third Plot Point
Part 13: The Third Act
Tell me your opinion: How does the Thing Your Character Needs (the Truth) allow him to triumph in the Climax?
Click the “Play” button to Listen to Audio Version (or subscribe to the Helping Writers Become Authors podcast in Apple Podcast or Amazon Music).
___
Love Helping Writers Become Authors? You can now become a patron. (Huge thanks to those of you who are already part of my Patreon family!)
Write Better Action Scenes: Make It About the Characters
Announcing Archetypal Character Guided Meditations! (+Giveaway)
What Are Antagonistic Proxies? And How Can They Help Your Story?
Hot Tip for Character Relationships: The Relationship IS a Character
About K.M. Weiland | @KMWeiland
Tough question today, since with my current project, my character arc happens over a series of stories. My MC will eventually learn that the thing she wants most is her freedom, and is worth sacrificing the thing she thought she wanted the most, her career. But, it takes about 4 – 5 years, and is told over 3 novellas and 3 novels.
Most trilogies can be approached, in regard to character arc as if each book is an act within the overall arc. But it’s useful to focus on smaller aspects of the arc that can be completed from book to book, to present readers with a sense of growth in each installment.
Probably a good thing then that my main genre is one that allows for relatively static characters. 😉 Seriously, I hope that Darby is making small advances that ultimately leads to her final development in the final book.
Nothing wrong with a flat arc. I’ll be talking about them in (a much shorter) series next month.
It was an April article I checked out first; it was to do with ‘great premises not making great stories’…….I have to say: I’m astounded, after now having glossed over this article, by the degree of intricacy you indulge in. Superb dissection of art.
From a conventional point-of-view, in looking at fiction, the most perhaps interesting thing about The Representative, (my own work of fiction) is that Croyan’s story is in fact traditional (his is a narrative of beginning, middling progression, and then climax) yet he never develops; he is through all the way an unchanging character. He’s a constant – at least in the narrative’s present context.
What’s more……..he’s also a subversive entity in that he is himself a third player – if now we switch from conventional narrative outlook, and transfer to the story’s internal reality:
He’s such a subversive creation – and yet in fact fully sound, with all reason and logic on his side.
I’ve created an absolute contradiction in The Representative.
It was fun, reading your article and seeing how TR measured up to it.
Thanks for stopping by! Your character isn’t necessarily an anomaly at all. Character arcs come in many shapes and flavors. What I’ve been discussing in this series is pertinent to the positive change arc. But many excellent characters pursue negative change arcs and even “flat” arcs – both which I’ll be delving into in future posts.
Croyan’s is a “flat” arc……it’s actually his that’s the perspective of ‘Truth’:
It’s in part for this reason that he’s so magnetic. (Though there are many more reasons, trust me!!)
(It’s very intelligent, the lexicon you’ve created in order to discuss these storytelling intricacies).
The interesting thing about the flat arc is that it works exactly how you’ve described. Instead of being the one who changes, the protagonist becomes the catalyst for change himself. The story still incorporates change, but it’s the world that changes rather than the character.
Yes! Yes! You’ve hit the nail right on the head.
Croyan’s an interceptor: without his deciding to intervene in the context he does, there would be no TR.
The final thing you said….”but it’s the world that changes rather than the character.”: that’s beautifully worded.
Croyan is a benchmark, actually; it’s in fact his that’s a pinnacle story, showcasing at a pinnacle level the link between status and power.
It’s explosive, the language of TR: strictly speaking, not literally representative (no pun intended) of the truth, but deliberately chosen – in order to maximise effect.
I struggle with knowing if I’ve done enough of an impact with the climax. I worry that it seems too pat, isn’t long enough, and isn’t much of a hurtle. That’s why I study my craft so much, to learn as much as I can and to make things better. I appreciate your advice on all this!!
Climaxes need to be big, not necessarily in terms of action, but always in terms of emotion. We have to stretch our characters to the limit so that we can stretch our readers right along with them.
Well, the Thing She Wants – her Lie – is that she needs to know and be accepted by her birth parents; that she needs to find her family. The Thing She Needs – her truth – is that she already HAS the ‘family’ that really counts, and that she needs to accept and believe in herself rather than be accepted by her birth parents.
In the showdown scene, she faces the antagonist in order to save members of both her biological family and her foster family. The antagonist tries to break her spirit, and although the abilities she inherited from her biological parents are vital to beating him, it is the self-belief she gained from her foster family, and her love for them, that give her the will to withstand him and to use those abilities to defeat him.
Excellent example of how to tie in the external conflict with the character’s internal conflict: she can’t win the external conflict without conquering the internal conflict first.
Thank you! 🙂
I like the concept of the unassumed main antagonist; a central antagonist who, within the story’s internal reality isn’t centre stage – such as being a periphery-ranking character – but eventually narrative-wise becomes so.
These are what I think make for memorable narratives.
Many stories don’t allow for the “main” antagonist to be share screen time with the hero for much of the story. Sometimes the hero won’t even *know* whom he’s fighting until late the story.
I suppose an exception is when that antagonist is someone who spends most of the story an ally, or a ‘supposed’ ally…..then pro- and antag- can share almost equal screen time.
Gollum’s an example, of this sort of main antagonist. I know there are better ones though.
I had an idea actually, for the next Star Wars trilogy:
What if the inverse was played out? The prequel trilogy had been about a concealed enemy, who’d spent most of those movies duration being in the shadows, plotting from behind the scenes……what if, for this next sequel trilogy, it was the opposite – a concealed hero, spending most of these next movies duration keeping things in order from behind the scenes, and only making themselves then known more or less in the climax of the third movie?
Star Wars has been about mirror events, and symmetries – I think a concealed hero for this third and final trilogy would be an outstanding approach to take.
It would be an interesting take, although arguably, that’s what Lucas was trying for in prequel trilogy. The only problem was that views knew who the villain was, even though he hadn’t proclaimed himself in the story itself.
A sequel trilogy’s hero, to Palpatine’s prequel trilogy villain…..I’m certain, that would be opted for were only one of the writers on the project to just think of it.
The source of inspiration for it in fact came from Asimov’s Foundation trilogy (exceedingly better than Star Wars, in my opinion)…..more specifically, from Second Foundation:
The essence of that particular novel is concealment, by a series of hero First Speakers, who in each their own time act to control things from behind the scenes.
Asimov…..he hadn’t been an inspiration for me, with respect to The Representative, though in writing it, he was someone whose level of brilliance I aspired to.
Hi,
This is a great series. I’m getting started with writing and have a few different characters that are to take the lead in different stories / books, all coming together into one in the end. This would be a negative character arc (the Godfather has a negative arc, right? But it also becomes positive as Michael legitimises the family business). It will have the similar styled no morals only perspective style, how does the negative arc fit into all of this?
And for the one at the moment, I have two brothers, do you think I can keep the story alive and focused enough if I have them as dual MCs, or does one character usually take preference in your experience?
Thank you ever so much, I shall continue to read the rest of your stuff, and sorry if another post answers this 🙂
Yep, Godfather does indeed have a negative arc–a Corruption Arc, which I talk about in this companion series: How to Write a Negative Character Arc.
As long as you’ve given readers a reason to enjoy and be interested in both characters, dual characters can be a very effective technique, especially for exploring complex moral themes.
What would the final battle between the protagonist and the antagonist be like if the two both believe in the truth?
If they both believe the Truth, why would they be getting in each other’s way? Why are their goals so utterly different? (Not saying it can’t happen, but I’m having a hard time coming up with any scenarios where this works.)
Could they believe in different versions of the truth? An example being that one character believes that freedom achieved through war is right while the other believes that freedom achieved through diplomacy is right. Or is it (in a positive change arc) better for a story to have the antagonist believe in a lie that the protagonist will grow to oppose?
Ultimately, those are two very distinct Truths, so I’d say one is the Lie.
The end may be the same for the two characters, but the means decidedly aren’t.
Is it possible to have a positive character arc in a tragic story? The protagonist pursues a goal based on their Lie. Over the course of the story they come to realize the Truth, only it’s too late. They achieve their story goal only to realize that that’s a bad thing. If so, how would this affect the way you portray their arc?
Positive-Change Arcs will always end happily on the interior level. It’s possible the exterior goal will end badly–aka, the character won’t gain the Thing He Wants–but it will be worth it to him because of the inner peace he’s gained. If he doesn’t end with inner peace, he may be on a Disillusionment Arc instead, in which he discovers the Truth, but it’s a painful Truth.
Is it possible to have a positive character arc within a tragic story? Where the hero accepts on the truth but it’s too late to change the trajectory of the story. If the negative outcome of the climax is the result of things she set in motion earlier in the book, would that be enough to avoid an unsatisfying ending where events beyond the hero’s control decide the outcome?
I literally just scrolled up and realized that I’d already asked and had this question answered months ago! But I don’t know how to delete this comment, so just ignore me! Sorry about that :/
I literally just scrolled up and realized that I’d already asked and had this question answered months ago! But I don’t know how to delete this comment, so please just ignore me! Sorry about that :/
I just realized that I’ve already asked this question and you answered it months ago! So please just ignore me! Sorry about that 😉
No problem! 🙂
I have a question about positive change character arcs and the climax of the story. The outline I’m currently working with actually has the protagonist dying, due to the lie he believes, at the end of the climax but is brought back to life by a once selfish support character risking their life to perform a resurrection on the protagonist. It’s not until the resolution, pretty much the last paragraph or two of the novel, that the reader finds out that the protagonist has actually let go of the lie and embraced the truth via a letter to a different support character/love interest that provides a little bit of closure but also opens up for a second novel to continue the story.
Scanning over the character arc its a tragic negative change arc because of the climax but then changes into a positive change arc because of the resolution. Is having both the tragedy of the negative change arc and the feel good feeling of a positive change arc trying to have my cake and eat it too?
Thanks for all the work you’ve done with your website, podcasts, and your workbooks on amazon. I’ve been on a binge the last two or three months learning about the writing process and I think you have the most comprehensive collection of great advice concerning everything that goes into writing a great novel.
It all depends on how well it’s set-up. At first glance, it would seem to me that the Positive Change Arc is conveniently tacked on without any real development. But if it’s set-up in a way that readers will find satisfying, that’s what counts.
Thanks for that. While I think the set-up is good, I do appreciate your words of caution and will make sure I polish it as much as I can.
Can a character have his positive arc after suffering a negative climax? He has not used the tools he was taught during the highest tension but following this he reflects or learns new details about himself, based on the results of the climax, during the falling action. And there is no final major plot point where he utilizes this knowledge of himself, other than a conversation or an internal promise. Thanks!
It’s not uncommon for tragedies to end with the protagonist’s realization that he failed for want of the Truth. It’s fine to hint that the protagonist may now be on the verge of a more positive arc, but to cram a full Positive-Arc into an epilogue usually feels forced.
Thank you for your quick response! It makes sense to not have a full arc during the falling action.
To clarify, during the climax, the protagonist faces off with his allies (feeling like foes to him at the time) and the antagonist. He has a moment of hesitation where he knows what he should do but chooses not to in blind, drunk rage. Then he storms away and passes out. The next day, his phone is full of texts and voicemails with concern from his allies and the antagonist. He realizes that he was wrong in his words/actions and should have not made that final decision and despite what he did/said the previous night, everyone cares about him. He knows he must change, maybe has one quick call but no actual “Rocky montage”.
And thank you for your amazing site!
My protagonist’s arc is about the importance of seeking the truth (rather than an ignorance-is-bliss mentality). I’ve talked to several people and they all agree that her actually finding out the truth is the burning question they need answered in order to feel satisfied with the book, so that is obviously going to be my climactic moment. But after the protagonist finally faces the antagonist and rejects the Lie, there is at least a small gap between that and her finding out the truth, and by that point the antagonist isn’t part of it anymore.
Plus, the whole book has been hinting at/heading towards a big battle, which can’t happen until after she rejects the Lie. But I think the readers will feel cheated if they only hear about it secondhand. Can I get away with having the climactic moment in the very beginning of the battle (which could put it just a page or two after the rejection of the Lie/defeat of the antagonist) and then tie it up in an incredibly condensed, low-to-no stake way as the first part of the resolution? If the outcome has already been determined by what happened in the climax?
Although the character’s relationship to the thematic Truth should be instrumental to resolving the main conflict via the main plot goal in the Climactic Moment, they don’t always have to take place simultaneously. As long as the further resolution of the the battle doesn’t feel anticlimactic (i.e., readers don’t actually care because they sense the story/culmination of the plot goal is in fact over), then you’re fine.
Thanks! And thank you for being so willing to answer all our numerous questions in such a timely manner, especially considering how busy you are! I think I can speak for everyone in saying how much we appreciate it 🙂
The work is just awesome.
So insightful to recognize the correlation of plot and character arc.
Thank you!
(Might be interesting for you to know that you have readers from Iran)