Help

I'm someone who enjoys powerscaling, and even more so, writing scale. Many of the works I've read recently are thanks to it. It's helped me rethink things and see many aspects I hadn't considered in a new light, thanks to different perspectives. I appreciate this approach (though many people who use it seem even more immature than those who use powerscaling, which is a different matter entirely).

Now, I have some persistent questions, mainly regarding certain points. I'll explain them to see if I understand them correctly or if someone can clarify them for me.

Consistency: This has been a major recurring theme, and, strange as it may sound, it's the diverse interpretation that many channels and people give to this point. What exactly is it? As far as I understood it, at least for me, it was the consistency of a character's evolution, development, and themes—whether they remain interesting, maintain a steady pace of improvement, or don't decline.

But others have told me that their objectives, or even goals, are so consistent that they remain the same from beginning to end. And that's where I lose them, because, again, it seems that both interpretations work, but at the same time, the second one becomes even more... interpretive in my view, and less objective.

What's good or bad about a character being consistent in a work? (Using the second interpretation), I'm not saying it's good or bad, but rather that I feel it makes the point less important. I don't know, it seems to have no effect, since part of the evolution of many characters is how their goals or mindset change. It almost seems that consistency, within this explanation, is more like stagnation. (Note: I'm not saying that a character maintaining their specific goals from beginning to end is bad, not at all; the reverse is also true, I'm discussing the meaning or importance of consistency).

Peaks: This is something I don't understand. What does it mean? How does it apply? Does it refer to the impact or reward of resolving a conflict? The most satisfying or epic moments for a character? I don't know, I just can't get it. And in that case, isn't it a very... ambiguous and overly subjective point? Because, while I admit that much of writing scaling is subjective, in terms of things like this, it seems more based on the reader's own emotions.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing the meaning, since, naturally, not every resolution or satisfaction in the face of a conflict or goal within a work is well-executed or uses the same processes to make it memorable.

Enjoyable: This one, ah, I'm not going to lie, I have my issues with points like this, since I feel they're too subjective to have any real weight. I don't think it says much about the story or the characters, much less their essence, since enjoying something or not doesn't mean anything about that product.

Damn, I can say I like Twilight, I enjoy it, but it will still be a flawed work.

However, I've seen a second interpretation, which I think adds more meaning and makes more sense, and that's how relatable and enjoyable a certain character or work can be for an audience unfamiliar with it. Let me explain: according to this, a good work or character should be able to capture the attention of even those who aren't accustomed to the genre or character in question.

For example, Rocky—even I, who am not a sports fan, like the Rocky movies.

Okay, that's all. Did I misunderstand anything? Corrections and feedback would be helpful.

Thank you.