“You can never know enough about your characters.” —W. Somerset Maugham
* * *
In his work Aspects of the Novel, E.M. Forster introduced the concept of round and flat characters (i.e., three-dimensional and two-dimensional.)
Round Characters
Basically, round characters are defined by their complexity. They are likely to have complicated personalities and wrestle with life’s issues.
According to masterclass.com,
“A round character is deep and layered character in a story. Round characters are interesting to audiences because they feel like real people; audiences often feel invested in these characters’ goals, successes, failures, strengths, and weaknesses.”
Characters cited as examples of roundness are Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Jay Gatsby in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, and Huck Finn in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Forster says most Russian novels are filled with round characters. He believed all the principal characters in War and Peace and all of Dostoevsky’s characters are round. Russian authors are apparently fond of complexity.
When we discuss characterization on TKZ, we often talk about adding complexity to our characters, whether they’re major or minor. We want multi-dimensional characters that engage the reader. But according to Forster, the use of flat characters can be very effective as well.
Flat Characters
For example, here’s an excerpt about flat characters from Aspects of the Novel:
“In their purest form, they are constructed round a single idea or quality: when there is more than one factor in them, we get the beginning of the curve towards the round.”
Forster goes on to explain that flat characters are easily recognized and easily remembered by whatever one quality defines them.
Flat characters are often humorous, and readers have a certain comfort in knowing the flat character won’t change over the course of the story. Their singular quality will remain intact. The bumbling sidekick is one such character. He breaks the tension in the story, and you know he’ll trip and fall into a mud puddle or spill coffee in someone’s lap whenever he appears.
Flat characters can often be summed up in one sentence. For example, in his audio course “Writing Great Fiction: Storytelling Tips and Techniques,” James Hynes defined Huckleberry Finn’s father, Pap Finn, as flat. Pap could easily be described as “a mean drunk.”
Although we think of flatness mostly in terms of minor characters, major characters can also be flat. Forster cites the author Charles Dickens as a case in point.
“The case of Dickens is significant. Dickens’ people are nearly all flat…. Part of the genius of Dickens is that he does use types and caricatures, people whom we recognize the instant they re-enter, and yet achieves effects that are not mechanical and a vision of humanity that is not shallow.”
In his lecture, James Hynes also mentioned Sherlock Holmes as an example of a main character who is flat. Holmes rarely changes in Doyle’s novels. He’s always the perfect human automaton who solves crimes by his amazing powers of deduction. Yet Holmes was such a wildly popular main character that when Sir Arthur killed him off, the public outcry was so loud, he had to find a way to bring Holmes back for future books.
* * *
But whether your characters are round or flat,
“Remember: Plot is no more than footprints left in the snow after your characters have run by on their way to incredible destinations.”—Ray Bradbury
* * *
So TKZers: What fictional characters would you describe as round or flat? How about characters in your novels?
Private pilot Cassie Deakin struggles with her distrust of Deputy Frank White when she has to team up with him to solve a murder mystery.
Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Google Play, or Apple Books.
As a teenager I was a huge fan of the pulp classic Doc Savage written by Kenneth Robson (Lester Dent mostly) reprinted in the 1970’s by Bantam. In my college lit class I wrote my term paper on this concept over the series and argued that he was static (flat) when considered in individual stories and dynamic (round) when considered over the course of the series. My professor gave me an A and told me he might read a couple of the books over the summer. I have no idea if he ever did, but I took great pride in getting a lit professor to even consider it. 🙂
Good morning, Douglas.
What an insightful observation for a teenager to make. Flat in each story, but round over the series. I wonder if there are other examples.
High praise indeed from a professor. Apparently, you taught him something. 🙂
At a conference, someone said you could drop a piano on any of Dan Brown’s characters and it wouldn’t make a difference to the story.
Morning, Terry.
I love that comment. Wish I had said it.
This comment wins the internet today 🙂
Ayn Rand’s characters are paper dolls with one word written on them. Each is a hero, moocher, producer, and nothing more.
Good morning, Mike.
Good point about Ayn Rand’s characters. Flat and memorable.
Have a good week.
Reacher, flat. Bosch, round. Both sell. Hey, maybe it has something to do with the skill of the writer, ya think?
While a flat can have a satisfying ending, the ending of a round (e.g., Bosch) can add an emotional wallop. That’s what I prefer, and try to do myself.
Good morning, Jim. Great examples.
I see what you mean about “an emotional wallop.” That’s only possible with round characters.
Kay, thanks for an interesting Monday discussion. Characters are endlessly fascinating to me, more so than plot. Terry’s comment about Dan Brown’s characters cracked me up b/c they are as flat as if the piano already fell on them. I didn’t care for his books but millions of readers obviously did.
Forster says, “Part of the genius of Dickens is that he does use types and caricatures, people whom we recognize the instant they re-enter.” In today’s culture, many stereotypes Dickens used have become taboo.
IMHO, any character who’s named and performs any significant action in a story deserves to be round. Even minor characters deserve a distinctive quality. But that’s just me.
Good morning, Debbie.
I had never thought of Dickens’s characters being flat until I read that statement by Forster.
I suspect spending time with our characters makes them rounder.
Good morning, Kay. Great post.
Flat characters becoming round can be very satisfying when it happens. In faster paced novels flat characters are very valuable, since they provide great, consistent characterization. But it’s wonderful when an author decides to expand on their characterization and they begin to become round. This is something I try to do at times in my own fiction.
That said, a great flat character can be a scene stealer.
Hope you have a wonderful week.
Good morning, Dale.
Your comment makes me wonder if some genres lend themselves more to flat characters. For example, do flat characters work well in mysteries? I’m thinking of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot.
Have a great writing week.
Ha, Kay!
See below for great minds! 🙂
Great post, Kay! I’d never heard of round and flat characters, but I think the concept is revealing.
The first “round” character who comes to mind is Jonathan Grave in our own John Gilstrap’s novel series. Jonathan has new depths and quirks to be discovered in each of what, 16?? novels, plus the prequel!
A flat character, IMHO, would be Dame Agatha’s Hercule Poirot. Love her stories, mind you, because as in the case of Mr. Holmes, it works. You always know what you’re going to get with Poirot.
Have a great day!
Good morning, Deb! Great minds…
Like I mentioned to Dale, I think mystery novels may lend themselves to flat main characters since the reader is challenged to match wits with the sleuth to solve the mystery. Interesting.
Have a great week.
Main characters who are flat tend to be in action/adventure. Jack Reacher comes to mind. They are also what I call Teflon characters. Experience slides right off them, and they never change. Most characters in TV shows are flat and Teflon. From episode to episode, nothing changes them.
During the Forties and Fifties, the studio system used character actors who represented a type to minimize the need for characterization. Most of the secondary actors in THE MALTESE FALCON played the same roles with different names in many other films.
Good point about the character actors, Marilynn. The audience knew all about them as soon as they appeared on the screen.
There’s something comfortable about flat characters. And I like your phrase “Teflon characters. Experience slides right off them”