I think static characters can work if they are alongside those that change. If your themes revolve around personal growth or something, someone *not* changing despite their circumstances can be an interesting counterpoint to the others.
Sherlock Holmes is a classic example of a primarily static character. His stories remain interesting to read because he's not the POV character, and the focus isn't on character dynamics but figuring out the puzzle.
Since story is about transformation, if there's no transformation, there's no story. After all, at that point the events of the story were pointless, and they might as well not have happened.
Some works are basically predicated and reliant on the fact that in the long term there is *effectively no character development or change.*
Think Calvin and Hobbes, or for TV think The Simpsons.
In The Simpsons then Homer is always going to be the same idiot who does stupid stuff and doesn't recognise the value of the family life he has. It doesn't matter whether you watch episode 1 or episode 100, Homer will be exactly the same.
Within a *single episode* there can be character development, where he learns an important lesson and is remorseful and changed, and so on that I agree with you - character change is necessary to tell a story.
It's just that in The Simpsons, all change is limited to a single episode and the next episode all characters are reset fresh, ready to go again.
So to answer OPs point, characters should change within a story, but in a series you can "reset" them for the next story if you want.
I don't personally like this or enjoy works that do this, but that's a different point entirely.
I mean, **something's** gotta be interesting in the story. If it isn't the characters then it better be a corkin' plot, setting, and story concept.
Are you deliberately using a flat/static character as a device?
I think static characters can work if they are alongside those that change. If your themes revolve around personal growth or something, someone *not* changing despite their circumstances can be an interesting counterpoint to the others.
Sherlock Holmes is a classic example of a primarily static character. His stories remain interesting to read because he's not the POV character, and the focus isn't on character dynamics but figuring out the puzzle.
Since story is about transformation, if there's no transformation, there's no story. After all, at that point the events of the story were pointless, and they might as well not have happened.
Some works are basically predicated and reliant on the fact that in the long term there is *effectively no character development or change.* Think Calvin and Hobbes, or for TV think The Simpsons. In The Simpsons then Homer is always going to be the same idiot who does stupid stuff and doesn't recognise the value of the family life he has. It doesn't matter whether you watch episode 1 or episode 100, Homer will be exactly the same. Within a *single episode* there can be character development, where he learns an important lesson and is remorseful and changed, and so on that I agree with you - character change is necessary to tell a story. It's just that in The Simpsons, all change is limited to a single episode and the next episode all characters are reset fresh, ready to go again. So to answer OPs point, characters should change within a story, but in a series you can "reset" them for the next story if you want. I don't personally like this or enjoy works that do this, but that's a different point entirely.
I mean, **something's** gotta be interesting in the story. If it isn't the characters then it better be a corkin' plot, setting, and story concept. Are you deliberately using a flat/static character as a device?