In the narrative chapter, Brooks is cited as describing a story as having characteristics that involve moving from a “state of equilibrium or stasis through a disturbance of this stability, and back to a state of equilibrium at the end.” But what of the stories that do not return this equilibrium? Are they truly narratives? Or is there something inherent in the story itself that says a failure to return back to equilibrium is making a final comment nonetheless through it’s lack of conventional ending?
I was also concerned with the idea about character as a “complex but unified whole.” While I agree that these traits are what make characters relatable and “real,” this also raised a question about flat characters. As said in the chapter, flat characters do not have this complexity to them and therefore are more of stereotypical ideas than actual people. While they most certainly have their purpose, I wonder what a narrative would be like without flat characters. If every character was as complete and complex as a protagonist, would it make the story itself more real or more difficult to comprehend? Would the excess of human realism offer too much for the reader to handle?