Flat vs Round Characters

Rounded characters are people, flattened on the page. Flat characters are just things used to add plot points or to allow the main characters to be more rounded. They may think they're the main characters, but for the story they are only facilitators.

Example:

Hamlet is a rounded character. He has his motivations, his strengths and his flaws. He seems like a real person, albeit larger than life and a little over the top, but a relatable character

Rosencratz and Gildenstern are flat characters. They pretty much just appear to allow definition for the main characters.

There can be as many rounded characters as you feel comfortable. Hamlet has Claudius, Gertrude, Pollonius, Ofelia, Hamlet, Laertes, Horatio and plenty more. They all think they are the main characters, they all think the story's about them.

This is a pretty, uh... basic question. In the sense that wikipedia answers it correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_character#Round_vs._flat

De-rail: I'd say Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are round characters with bit roles. Gollum is a better example of a flat character.

Re-rail: Round isn't necessarily better than flat. Still, you should have six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Shar-Jan gave a great explanation of the difference between rounded and flat characters.

As for how many 'rounded' characters (I've always called them 'real' characters) you need, that really depends on the book. Generally, a book that's intended to have sequels will have more 'real' characters than a completely stand-alone story. My YA book is the first in a series, and has 2 MCs plus *counts* 6 more fully-developed characters. My contemporary stand-alone only has two 'real' characters. I guess that means you should aim for somewhere between 2 and 10, lol (I would personally struggle to write without the interaction of at least 2 fully developed characters, but other writers have successfully written with just one). You can have as many of the 'flat' characters as you need (a lot of books have a dozen or more).

I can't give much advice on how to make well-rounded characters because mine just walk into my head fully-formed for no apparent reason.

I don't like treating flat vs round as a dichotomy. I prefer to see it as a continuum: the more important the char is, the more rounded he or she should be.

Main characters should be fully round. Important secondary characters should be almost round. Minor characters should have some dimension. The taxi driver who appears in only one scene can be completely flat.

DwayneA said:

What's the difference? How many of each should there be in a story? How do I make characters more rounded and how do I avoid making them flat?

Click to expand...

Remember: every character should want something.

A character who has motivation and purpose and goes after what *they* want will seem more real.

The taxi driver who appears in only one scene wants a tip. Will he engage the customer in friendly conversation? Will he offer a choice of routes? How can he get that tip?

Everyone wants something. No one should be a 2D extra just standing around blending with the wallpaper.

-Derek

DwayneA said:

What's the difference? How many of each should there be in a story? How do I make characters more rounded and how do I avoid making them flat?

Click to expand...

I think that's a really interesting question and one I hadn't thought to ask before in that way.

IMO take up paper (or words) to flesh out a character only if they add something to the story. They can add a little or a lot, but even the minor ones must be there for a reason - to add colour to a scene, to create a sense of time and place for the MC, to faciltate the MC's movement from point A to B, e.g. But we don't need to know a lot about them, and telling us a life story for the doorman only makes us think he's an important part of the story, when really he's only there to say "good morning" to the MC.

For me, I start thinking like my bigger characters. I start to live through them on paper, so that their mannerisms, speech and personalities can come through without seeming forced. Who knows if I succeed, but this is the way I get to know them and make them more "real."

I don't have the energy to reproduce David Isaak's fascinating post on this topic, so please click over. To get your mouth watering:

As long as I’m jabbering about characterization, let’s chat a bit about ‘flat’ and ‘round.’

As far as I know, the distinction between flat and round characters originated with EM Forster in his Cambridge lectures, later published as Aspects of the Novel. That book is often referenced but apparently seldom read, since Forster is often cited as encouraging the use of ‘round’ characters and assaulting the use of ‘flat’ characters. That was not at all his point.

According to Forster, a flat character is one who can be summed up, one whose behavior is predictable in almost any situation. By definition, then, a flat character can’t have a ‘character arc,’ and develop across a novel.

Forster doesn’t mean that flat characters are to be avoided. He feels they are less of an artistic achievement than memorable round characters, but are still vital in the construction of a novel:

Click to expand...

Perhaps I disagree with everyone else, but I wouldn't have any truly "flat" characters in any story. Just characters who aren't nearly as developed as the important characters.

You can't spend an equal amount of time developing every character, nor should you, because it would overwhelm the reader if even bit characters had their entire personalities and histories presented. Not to mention it would be extraneous--if they're bit characters we don't NEED to know all this stuff about them. Hence, you just describe/develop them a little bit. The reader doesn't know nearly as much about them as they know about the main character.

Maybe they APPEAR flat, because the reader doesn't know them well, but they should not truly be flat. Just like nobody in real life is flat, we just don't know them that well so they merely look flat to us. Somebody steps briefly onto the stage, then slips away. They have a life going on that we don't see, a life that isn't important to the story being told. They're still three-dimensional, just not in the context of the story.

People used to think the world was flat because it looks that way, but is it really?

Don't aim to make characters flat just because they're playing bit parts! Just don't spend nearly as much time describing or developing them. Sometimes a mere comment or two about a character is enough to spark the reader's curiosity. Once in a while it's the bit characters who really stick with the reader.

Dwayne, I really don't want to be rude here, but it seems like you're trying to write a novel at a time in your life when you haven't read many novels. I think that reading more novels might be more helpful to you than asking this kind of question.

Writing a novel isn't like making a cake: it's not like you add two flawed characters, three flat characters, a hero's journey, and a plot twist, and there you are.