Do 1 and 2 Dimensional Characters Have Any Use?

Sometimes a story needs extras -- characters whom the main character meets but who only have a few words to say or a minor action to perform, to help the main character on his way through the story.

They're usually not around long enough or explored deeply enough for the reader to notice they're not fleshed-out 3D characters, so there's no need to spend time filling out their profile details. Although you can give them personal vocabulary quirks or visual distinctions just so they don't feel like blank cardboard cut-outs.

If and when such characters need to be brought into the spotlight, and have to react to events and think for themselves, you can add more 3D paint then.

-Derek

I think of those types of characters more as living, breathing scenery. It's part of making the picture real, but they are more likely static elements of your scenes. (They move, physically, but don't change in significant ways.)

Yes it's appropriate for minor characters to be more 2-dimensional because they're not supposed to steal the spotlight from the main characters. The book is not about the minor' characters inner turmoil or personal growth; minor characters are, as lonely one says, a living landscape for your story. Also, if you're looking at a genre like humor or horror, even moderately important characters may be somewhat 2-dimensional because they are obsessed about one thing, and this is either a running joke or what makes them frightening.

My definitions:

A 3D character has internal tensions and reasons to feel as it does. We use these characters to anchor the story's themes. They tend to be main or major characters, and we care about whether they change. 3D characters tend to last for a whole story (though you can kill them off too).

A 2D character has passions and reasons to feel as it does but has little internal tension. We use these characters to complicate the plot without detracting from the major characters. 2D characters appear for a few scenes, or particular parts of a character arc.

A 1D character has information to move the plot along, or reflection on the emotion of the story, or it's just an 'extra' -- put in the background for colour and verisimilitude.

Some examples of 1-dimensional characters we often need in our writing: the waiter at the restaurant who brings the MC's lunch, the random passerby glaring at the MC for whatever strange thing they are doing in public, the security guard at the courthouse who won't let the MC into the building, the nurse who changes the MC's bandages while he sulks in the hospital, or the teacher sending the MC to detention. You CAN have nurses, teachers, security guards, etc. who play a bigger role and are more fleshed out as full 3-d characters, but they sometimes work as 1-dimensional.

If you think about it, you probably have 1-dimensional characters in your life too Like, your family members, friends, landlord, teachers are probably 3-dimensional. But the cashier who rings up your groceries, for instance, you know nothing about him, he's wearing a store uniform, he has no personality when he interacts with you. He's just Generic Guy Who Works In A Store. He's 1-dimensional to you, and that's okay. (In his mind, you know, he's the MC!)

Ruv Draba said:

My definitions:

A 3D character has internal tensions and reasons to feel as it does. We use these characters to anchor the story's themes. They tend to be main or major characters, and we care about whether they change. 3D characters tend to last for a whole story (though you can kill them off too).

A 2D character has passions and reasons to feel as it does but has little internal tension. We use these characters to complicate the plot without detracting from the major characters. 2D characters appear for a few scenes, or particular parts of a character arc.

A 1D character has information to move the plot along, or reflection on the emotion of the story, or it's just an 'extra' -- put in the background for colour and verisimilitude.

Click to expand...

What Ruv said. Awesome breakdown.

A lot of people say that Tess in Tess of the D'ubervilles is a one dimensional character. She certainly isn't very well rounded, however this is intentional as it makes the whole book very impressionistic. It's not very detailed but focuses more on feelings and the sense of things. Sometimes even the main character can be one dimensional and still be a compelling character.

Yes, if you're making a social statement, that would be fine.

Kurtz said:

A lot of people say that Tess in Tess of the D'ubervilles is a one dimensional character. She certainly isn't very well rounded, however this is intentional as it makes the whole book very impressionistic.

Click to expand...

Tess is a 2D character under my taxonomy. She has passions, but Hardy hides any internal tensions from us. It's a deliberate effect because she's meant to represent pastoral England. But it does give us the feeling that she's pushed around from scene to scene, reacting but never choosing anything.

You need these characters so you have someone to kill off...like in Star Trek. Whenever the away team left the ship, whoever wasn't a main character was gonna die...well, until Tasha Yar in TNG...but I digress.

My point is that, as others have said but didn't have a cool example like mine, they help move the plot along or even initiate the plot. In most murder mysteries, you very rarely know the victim and though you may learn about them throughout the story, they never really become 3D even though the story is "about them."