A question about three dimensional characters.

A general question that can applied here is a simple one. Does the character move through the story or does the author move the character through the story? The difference is not subtle in most cases, but it can be. In other words, does the author tell the reader what the character is feeling, thinking, and doing or does the reader derive this information from the actions and reactions of the character (including dialogue, both external and internal)?

But in reality, this is a complex question that goes much deeper because some authors can shift the balance of show/tell a little more to the tell side than other authors and get away with it because of their use of a myriad of other character development tools. And, it depends on the kind of story, the genre, and a number of other variables. For example, blatantly stereotypical characteristics (without unique or innovative presentation) can make a character seem shallow and cardboard.

A frequently encountered problem with new and developing writers is to explain too much to the reader--to feel that if every detail isn't covered, the reader may not get it. Character depth frequently comes from emotional actions and reactions of the character that resonate with the reader as being real or reasonable, or even despicable and errant. And in the hands of a good writer, many of the details are left to be filled in by the reader, which can lend even more credibility and depth to the character since the reader has an increased investment in the character. Probably the worst thing an author can do is grab the reader by the ears and say, "Listen up, because this is what this character is feeling and thinking right now."

Other AWers will have important comments to add because this can be a complex issue. It's easy to see when it is done badly, but it isn't always easy to pinpoint a simple way to do it well. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

That's a strange looking flowchart. I can't even read what's in the little boxes.

Three dimensional is well rounded-those are the characters you generally don't forget.

Did you click it to make it bigger? It's hilarious, especially if you get the references.

I've seen plenty of stereotyped, cardboard, two-dimensional characters carry a story before. I can think of a couple of examples off the top of my head, which usually I can't do.

The trend I've noticed in a lot of those is either that the story is very formulaic, thus the stereotyped characters, or the story is so plot based that there is little regard for characterization and characters just do or say whatever the author wants them to because it fits the story the author is trying to tell.

I'm not saying either one is an example of good characterization, but just that it does happen fairly often, so carrying your own story isn't necessarily dependent on having a well developed character.

I would sincerely hope that none of mine fit into these categories, actually. I like to think that they don't, but I might be biased. I always try to see my characters as humans, which means they're complex.

I know something that's always worked for me is whenever a character acts a particular way, I like to ask myself why. What is it about her past that makes her the way she is today? That sort of thing helps me flesh them out a lot more.

Anyway, Kaitie's now wondering about her chicks and what she should do with them haha. Though I generally think I'm okay in this regard.

Katie,

Morning when I looked at it. Not too quick in the mornings.

However, I just clicked on it. That is just a chart to create carboard characters.

If you must, everyone fits into some kind of stereotype. Do I fit into some kind of stereotype? Of course I do, but it doesn't mean I'm not a 3-dimensional person. I have my good sides, and my bad sides. I am flawed. I'm a good guy. I'm also an ass... I think that's something we need to remember, people are not just one thing; we are many things to many people, under different circumstances.


ETA: I got "Strong Female Character." YAY!!!!

Azula is sexualized? I guess I agree with the "Girl Hitler" part...

Ugh, that chart is awful. Azula is a Girl Hitler? Ellen Ripley is a Final Girl? Usagi Tsukino can't carry her own story? Oh and they're perpetuating the "Yoko Ono is an awful person for breaking up the Beatles!!!!" meme, too. Puke.

The idea behind it is nice, but there are way better guides to writing three-dimensional characters.

Round (here 3D) characters and flat characters were popularized in the talks and subsequent book, Aspects of the Novel, by E.M. Forrester.

Dickens's novels are full of flat characters; and they carry their own story. If we go back to the genesis of round and flat, the meaning has less to do with stereotype and more to do with motivation. Flat characters have one goal, aren't dissuaded--thus the accusation they are 1D or flat. Round characters usually receive more characterization and respond to conflicts differently: they can change their minds or get stubborn or myriad other traits. In a nutshell.

Invincibility said:

Ugh, that chart is awful. Azula is a Girl Hitler? Ellen Ripley is a Final Girl? Usagi Tsukino can't carry her own story? Oh and they're perpetuating the "Yoko Ono is an awful person for breaking up the Beatles!!!!" meme, too. Puke.

The idea behind it is nice, but there are way better guides to writing three-dimensional characters.

Click to expand...

I didn't see it as a guide, but as a mocking way to show how common stereotypes are and how often female characters (male, too, but that's another flow chart) fall into these categories.

It's very easy for new writers to write a character thinking they've created someone deep and three dimensional because they have a flaw or something, but that anyone else will who pays attention to that sorta thing (granted, sometimes it seems like not many) will recognize is just another repetitive stereotype. It's very tongue-in-cheek.

Also, Azula as Girl Hitler cracked me up.

The easiest way to make a character three-dimensional is to have them dislike themselves. Seriously -- it opens all the doors for you. It's not always true but it's certainly the easiest way to do it if you've never explored such an avenue.

kaitie said:

Also, Azula as Girl Hitler cracked me up.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree with the characterization! There's only so many terms you can come up with for a young lady who thinks the proper response to an insurgency is "burn the entire continent to ash MUAHAHAHAHHAhaHAHA!"

The sexualization part...well, not so much

How about this as a test? Ask what the character thinks of herself. If there's no such self-reflective dimension, then maybe she merits a story that would prompt her to reflect.

I'm hesitant to bring it up, because this might not be the kind of answer for Basic Writing, but it also depends on the POV, plot, etc. There can be real reasons a character has more than a bit role yet is not fleshed out, depending on whether that's part of the point of the story.

Maybe the MC is a stalker. The girl being stalked shouldn't read as a well-rounded character from the POV of her stalker. That's a rarer story, granted

I've always believed a three dimensional character is one who actually has a life outside of whatever the current crisis is. Real people have many things happening in life, be it overdue bills, a bad relationship with a neighbor, a hobby, bunions, constipation, hopes, dreams, etc., all of which have nothing to do with the fact that they just got framed for murder, or have to fly off into outer space to save the universe.

Jamesaritchie said:

I've always believed a three dimensional character is one who actually has a life outside of whatever the current crisis is.

Click to expand...

This.

If you write a character just to fulfill a role in your story, then chances are they will come off as flat or one-dimensional. But if you present them as someone who actually has a life outside of the story (before, during and after), then they will appear to be more real, and thus more 3D.

Think about your favorite characters, and see if you can imagine their lives OUTSIDE the story. Take the three main guys in JAWS, for example. We know the story. We know what they went through in the story. But at the same time, we have no problem imagining the lives they lead outside the story. The fisherman. The marine biologist. The sheriff. And they come to life because they are not just pawns in a story. They are real people who just happen to be IN that story.

I thought the flowchart was funny, but as a previous discussion here pointed out (don't remember which one), most characters begin as a stereotype and move on from that.

For instance, my last MC was a mom, but she got pretty fleshed out in the course of the story. Having her be flawed, recognize her flaws, accept them, and try to overcome them added depth. Also adding in personal relationships aside from just typical mom relationships made her more believable.

What makes a character 3 dimensional is how they cope with the conflicts you put them in and how they ineter act with the other characters in your story. Do they act like a real person does, or do they just act like an automaton, doing the same thing again and again. If they are predictable and unchanging, they're probably pretty flat. If they never move on with their lives and have no outer concerns, like maestrowork pointed out, then they're also probably pretty flat.

If you dream about them and want to ask them to go shopping with you or go out for coffee, then you probably have a good character.

andrewhollinger said:

Round (here 3D) characters and flat characters were popularized in the talks and subsequent book, Aspects of the Novel, by E.M. Forrester.

Click to expand...

LOL, I was going to mention him. He's great. I think it's 'Forster', though.

I'm going to add that well-rounded characters are usually enmeshed in their surroundings. Like, you couldn't imagine them being plucked from the world of the story and imposed into your study or wherever. (Don't go all 'Moll Flanders' on me, please, andrewhollinger... .)

I'm also going to add that well-rounded characters should be rooted in their physicality/physical needs. E.g. they get tired after a five-minute fight unless they're hugely trained; they are grumpy/unfocused when they don't sleep; they become irritable if they're adventuring on a loaf of bread a day... etc etc.

This doesn't MAKE a character well-rounded, but it is part of it. It adds to believability - witness Tolkien's hobbits. Bilbo would be a nobody without his love for seed-cakes. (Well, he wouldn't be a nobody but he would not be Bilbo.)

If your character is all about the drama/action, you run the risk of having the audience view them as a hollow vehicle for the story. They give the appearance of being emotionally well-rounded but the reader will pick up that something is 'off' about them.

(I'm not advocating Meyer's style of having her characters prepare a different meal every chapter, though...)