When creating characters in your fiction, there are myriad considerations that you need to make sure you address so that the reader engages with your characters. One of those is understanding the difference between flat vs round characters.
Flat characters, or characters that have no depth, can and will be in your fiction, but they aren’t necessarily the ones your reader will either remember or care about. It is the characters with depth that pull your readers in, the “round” characters that are well-developed. They are the ones whose goals and troubles and careers, successes, and failures become interesting and compelling, and thus who your reader can root for throughout the characters’ journeys. Before we get into round characters, let’s first dive into what flat characters are and aren’t.
Flat Characters
Are often minimally described and lack emotional depth. Traits such as the character having a scar, or an accent, or some other distinct trait that differentiates them from other characters is how the reader knows who they are without having to get into too much detail. Examples could be the micromanaging boss, the meddling mother-in-law, or the high school football captain. This doesn’t mean they should be clichés, only that they aren’t fully developed
Are two-dimensional (meaning they are simple or mechanical and thus not three-dimensional)
Does not change or transform or grow in any material way
Are often used by writers to move the plot forward in some way without having to provide long, drawn out histories or backstories to the reader
Can be foils for other characters. A foil is a character who provides contrast to another character, likely our hero or protagonist. Foils help to distinguish or differentiate main characters by showing who they are in contrast to the foil character(s)
Round Characters
Are well-developed characters like the protagonist, who we, as readers, are intrigued by, and whose journeys we are likely to want to follow because we accept that they are real people and not caricatures. We know how they think, or we at least understand a good deal about them through their actions and the way they interact with other characters. We forget we’re reading fiction, and instead we “watch” the character proceed through his or her character arc
Usually have backstories and wants/desires
Are compelling, because they do what characters are meant to do—that is, to have conflict either with other characters or whatever they’re up against, be it nature or society or even themselves
Here is an example of a “flat” character – Joe Gargery, from Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations
“Mrs. Joe has been out a dozen times, looking for you, Pip. And she’s out now, making it a baker’s dozen.”
“Is she?”
“Yes, Pip,” said Joe; “and what’s worse, she’s got Tickler with her.”
At this dismal intelligence, I twisted the only button on my waistcoat round and round, and looked in great depression at the fire. Tickler was a wax—ended piece of cane, worn smooth by collision with my tickled frame.
“She sot down,” said Joe, “and she got up, and she made a grab at Tickler, and she Ram—paged out. That’s what she did,” said Joe, slowly clearing the fire between the lower bars with the poker, and looking at it: “she Ram—paged out, Pip.”
“Has she been gone long, Joe?” I always treated him as a larger species of child, and as no more than my equal.
“Well,” said Joe, glancing up at the Dutch clock, “she’s been on the Ram—page, this last spell, about five minutes, Pip. She’s a— coming! Get behind the door, old chap, and have the jack—towel betwixt you.”
I took the advice. My sister, Mrs. Joe, throwing the door wide open, and finding an obstruction behind it, immediately divined the cause, and applied Tickler to its further investigation. She concluded by throwing me — I often served as a connubial missile — at Joe, who, glad to get hold of me on any terms, passed me on into the chimney and quietly fenced me up there with his great leg.”
Joe, here, and throughout the novel, keeps Pip on the straight and narrow. He’s a blacksmith, and as we can see through his language, not very well-educated, which Pip points out when he says, “I always treated him as a larger species of child, and as no more than my equal.”
In the novel, he isn’t a fully-fleshed out character—his job is to serve the round character of pip by being the solid, consistent form of dignity that Pip reflects on. Even when Pip is embarrassed by him, Joe continues forward without causing problems for Pip. Joe knows who he is, and he doesn’t try to change that, even when he knows Pip’s disdain for who he is as a man. Later in the novel, Pip wants Joe to be “worthier of my society,” but in the end it’s Joe who is happily married with children, proving that his steadfast demeanor is and was the right way to go, even if it disagreed with what Pip hoped Joe to be.
Here is an example of a “round” character – Aaron, from my novel, The Losses
“The isolation sometimes devastates him. He grew up with it, sure; it’s always been there. Since the dawn of time it’s been there. Yet once he was able to label it, once he put a name on it, it grew worse, when he’d hoped it would have grown better. The world they lived in, him, his mother, his father? A privileged world, for certain.
But there was always a wizard behind the curtain, a Wicked Witch, and it seemed he was the only one who knew it. Or maybe he was the only one to admit it. Like his parents were either so stupid or ignorant, so good and pure in their thoughts, they were rendered blind. Though he wanted to, though there were times when he was so disgusted and distraught (a word he loved for its inherent drama, the bleakness it implied), he could never build the courage to even allude to anything, not to his mother, much less his father. Just couldn’t do it. Couldn’t wreck their world any more than their world was already wrecked—and it was certainly wrecked. They were wrecked in their way, even if the wreckage was below the surface and not flamboyantly out (as oh so many people would surely have loved) for everyone to gawk at. Just because they smiled; just because they played their tennis and had their toddies with their other obnoxiously wealthy friends; just because they laughed it up and went to premieres with the movie stars whose films they financed, donated shitloads of money to charity; just because all of it, it didn’t mean they weren’t secretly pained like him; because they were.”
In the excerpt we get to see how a “round” character, Aaron, thinks and feels and how he sees the world, at least with regards to his family. The excerpt tells us about Aaron’s background (“privileged”), that he lacks courage (“he could never build the courage to even allude to anything, not to his mother, much less his father”), that his family life has much to be desired ([he] couldn’t wreck their world any more than their world was already wrecked—and it was certainly wrecked. They were wrecked in their way, even if the wreckage was below the surface”), and that he, Aaron, is in pain (“just because they laughed it up and went to premieres with the movie stars whose films they financed, donated shitloads of money to charity; just because all of it, it didn’t mean they weren’t secretly pained like him, because they were.”).
We learn much about Aaron and his family, and just in a few sentences. We now have a pretty good picture of Aaron, and we have a pretty good picture of his mother and father. He (and they) are a family who do not talk about uncomfortable things; they live in a superficial world. They have money, but it doesn’t seem to matter to Aaron because he is in “pain.” We become interested in him as readers because of the amount of insight we get into his background, and how it affects who he is, in particular in contrast to his parents. We’re rooting for him, because we feel we know him.
Click on the link for a comprehensive look at The Quick, ULTIMATE Guide on how to Write Your Novel from Idea to Published Book.
Cully Perlman’s fiction and nonfiction has been published in Bull Men’s Fiction, The St. Petersburg Review, Real South Magazine, Avatar Review, Creative Loafing, Connotation Press, The Good Men Project, Pioneertown, El Portal, and more. He was a 2013 semifinalist for his novel-in- progress, LOS BEAUTIFUL, as well as on the short list of finalists for the 2012 William Faulkner – William Wisdom Competition for his novel, THE LOSSES. He has been a finalist in Glimmer Train’s Very Short Story Contest, won the Writer’s Digest Dear Lucky Agent contest for a novel, and received an honorable mention in Glimmer Train’s Fiction Open.
Need someone to edit your novel for clarity, plot, characters, setting, and so on? Email Cully at cully@novelmasterclass.com to talk about your project.
The Cost of Developmental Editing = .03/word
コメント