No Arc in the Spear of Achilles

They are unrelenting in their ways and it is exactly those unstoppable forces of personality crashing against each other which keeps us drawn to the unfolding plot.

Lack of character arc does not mean uninteresting character, either. Their positions and ideals colliding with opposing stances and approaches are part of what makes them so interesting.

These characters also do not have a “flat arc”.

I am starting to think I have a handle on “flat arcs” since those are the characters I gravitate toward most. From everything you’ve shown me and what I’ve read and watched, I think I understand the concept of a flat arc — the protagonist stays the same and the world changes around them.

Gladiator, Braveheart, and Princess Mononoke seem to have those clearest examples. Those heroes don’t change who they are and don’t make any choices at the end of the story that they would not have made at the top of the story. In fact, all three of those examples have strong willed characters who are absolutely bent on their ideology succeeding — Rome should be a just republic, Scotland should be free from the tyranny of England, and there must be a balance between human civilization and nature. These protagonists stop at nothing to mould the world to their vision. And they succeed. Their worlds do change from the start of the story to the finish.

That is my understanding of the flat arc - a character does not change but their world around them does.

The characters in The Iliad have no arc and the story is still compelling. My reasoning is that even if Achilles changes his mind or shows moments of sadness or vulnerability he is not changed as a person. His character would make the same choices before the story and again well after the story ends. No action he takes is “out of character” for who Achilles is from the start of the story to the end.

To have a growth arc, a character must make a choice or take an action they never could have done at the beginning of the story because it was outside of who they were as their character.

In addition to his character being unchanged, the world of Troy and the Greeks is largely unchanged minus a few score of dead heroes. The war rages on. Therefore, no flat arc.

The biggest moments I could see as pushback are Achilles breaking and calling truce with Agamemnon and again when he releases Prince Hector’s body to King Priam. I don’t think either of these moments produce a permanent change within Achilles.

Could Achilles and Agamemnon had an argument years earlier in the war where Achilles eventually relents? I imagine it must have happened several times over the 9 years they were engaged in the war. This time may have simply been the last straw - or the most recent episode.

What about releasing the body of an enemy combatant? Again, even if unlikely I could see Achilles being persuaded to do so. If Odysseus were to have used Priam’s same reasonings and reminded Achilles that his grandfather Zeus was watching then he might have given over the body after his rage burned itself out. Would he simply give over a body? Perhaps if the house of his enemy and the house of his father were once aligned like the episode with Diomedes from a few chapters earlier. I see it as a possibility rather than a line Achilles would not cross.

On the other hand, maybe Achilles never shows that mercy again and feeds every dead hero as carrion for the birds and dogs. Maybe Achilles only did this because the gods were present, right next to Priam, when Priam begged for Hector’s body.

Either way, this does not feel like a monumental shift or foundational change in character. No, this feels like a rare moment that we see a softer niche within a warrior of rage. If any of these actions were possible for the character at any point before the story began, they are not signs of growth but of complexity.

Agamemnon, definitely no change. Odysseus and Nestor? No change. Hector? As noble and dutiful all the way to his death. Priam goes and begs for mercy for Hector’s body, but he holds out for the rest of the war until his city is completely plundered. Clearly his change is not fundamental or he would have parlayed for total peace instead of just his son’s body.

For illustrative contrast, let’s look at some really clear and simple Disney examples. One, Simba. He’s got one of the most pronounced arcs I can think of. He goes from childish would-be-tyrant who looks to rule without responsibility, to a man who wants nothing to do with rulership or responsibility, finally to a man who must responsibly rule with righteous justice. Simba at the end of The Lion King is nothing like the character at the start. He would never dream of abandoning responsibility.

Aladdin the resourceful thief would always choose the honest route by the end of his story. Shrek (DreamWorks) accepts friendship and even love. I’m not sure if Belle changes much but the Beast allows himself to soften and care for others. Woody from Toy Story accepts change as well as sharing the crown. He never, ever would have allowed any of the other toys to get that close to Andy or make leadership decisions before he went on his adventure with Buzz and learned he is an equal. It just hit me that there are some strong similarities to Gilgamesh. Enkidu is sort of like Buzz and Woody becomes a more fair ruler because of their adventures. Woody does save Buzz from the underworld and he was never the tyrant Gilgamesh was, but there are some parallels!

All of that just to show none of the guys in the Iliad have the same level of transformation as a traditional arc and that their environment does not change like Rome under emperors back to a republic or Iron Town and the forest learning to live in harmony. No arc, still compelling.