I hear it fairly often: unless there is character development in a story or book then the writer hasn't done his or her job. I don't believe this is true. I like character development. I would say that it happens in most of my books. Under the Ember Star is an example, I think. Some of my favorite books and series certainly show character development. The Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling. To Tame a Land by Louis L'Amour. The Conan series by Robert E. Howard.
However, I also enjoy books in which the character, at the beginning of the work, already has an interesting and well developed personality. Doc Savage, The Spider, Sherlock Holmes. In stories and books told about these characters, there is not much character development. Instead, there is character "reveal." We ferret out elements of the character's personality during the course of the book but we don't actually see any development of that personality. At most, we might, through flashbacks, get some hint as to past events that led to the character's current state. However, many of these kinds of characters are series characters and it's usually not until later in the series that we see this kind of thing.
The mistaken idea--in my opinion--that we must always have character "development" is partially responsible for how almost every superhero movie in the last twenty years has had to tell an "origin" story for the character. I think there are characters who don't need an "origin" story on our first exposure to them. Instead, I'd prefer some character "reveal," and then, if the series is a hit or takes off, go back and later tell some kind of origin story.
Anyway, there's my two cents. I could say plenty more on this subject but I've got essays being turned in today and better get to grading those. Let me know what you think, though.