A common criticism of fiction — be it in film, television, or novels — is often laid against characters seen as “flat” or “two-dimensional.” Modern audiences know when a protagonist or supporting character isn’t interesting, based on their own lack of emotional investment in that character’s journey. Rightfully fearing this criticism, a lot of new authors are compelled to ensure that their protagonist is a dynamic character. However, as many editors will attest (and as some authors will admit), there is often confusion between “well-written characters” and “dynamic characters” — which are not always one and the same.
Reedsy recently published a great post on creating a dynamic character. I am sharing the respective infographic here and strongly urge you to check out the complete post on Reedsy, where they take a look at what dynamic characters are, how they differ from static characters, what forms their narratives can take, and how authors can write them into their books.
Thank you for this post.
Do you think dynamic character growth is something the general, non-writer, non-critic population doesn’t notice? Is it one of those powerful but subtle elements they just can’t put their fingers on–but can influence whether they like a movie or book or not?
Absolutely. I knew these things long before I knew them, if you get my point 🙂
What a superb way to explore the different characters! That is brilliant. Thanks for sharing, Nick, I’d never have seen it otherwise.
Thank you, Tara! I don’t know if you visited the original site; it was a great post, too 🙂
The infographic nicely captures the dynamic tension between strengths and weakness in character development. Very informative.
Thank you for the comment, John 🙂
Very clever graphic! Love the way the strengths and weaknesses are set in a different story. The flaws are more interesting in some cases – I have to work on flaws!
That was my takeaway as well 🙂
That’s a clever graphic, but it is forgetting ‘style’. Sometimes, especially on screen, style can outweigh all other considerations, turning a potential flop into a huge hit. I confess to often preferring ‘style over substance’ myself.
Best wishes, Pete.
Clever infographic, Nicholas. I think we see a lot of flat characters in film and can tolerate it for 90 minutes or so. Books are a lot tougher and flat or stereotypical characters don’t work at all. I generally read for character and the only books I don’t finish are those where the characters do nothing for me. And, of course, the flaws are more interesting than the strengths. 🙂
Couldn’t agree more 🙂
Good infograph Nicholas. 🙂 — Suzanne
Glad you like it, Suzanne!
Thanks, I thought so, too 🙂
The article on Reedsy is excellent. Thanks for sharing.
I agree; it was a fantastic article. Many thanks for reading 🙂
Thanks for the kind words! And thanks Nicholas for sharing it 🙂
A pleasure! I really loved the post as well. Very well-written and informative. You have a great team!
Interesting graphic and depiction. Although, I can’t entirely agree with modern audiences always knowing when they see dynamic or flat characters. Plenty of books, shows, and movies make it on simplicity combined with flair. That makes it even more of a gamble when you add flaws to certain characters.
Interesting point. It’s funny–many people complain about the lack of depth in modern characters, yet still go and watch the latest blockbuster. Speaking of, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 anyone?
Eh, I’m saving my money for Wonder Woman. Seems Guardians 2 is getting high stars, but the written reviews are admitting it’s more flash and humor than depth. They’re also calling it your standard Marvel movie, which I guess is a selling point. To be fair, I got fed up with Disney/Marvel last summer when I figured out the Civil War plot points without seeing the movie. I think people are a lot more susceptible to marketing and brand loyalty than they realize. Many companies know this, so they pit people against each other. It’s all a competition and you can see it in books too. By the way, I heard HBO might be doing 4 Game of Thrones spin-offs. What do you think about that as a fantasy author?
Hey, don’t knock it off: “flash and humor” is my middle name 🙂
GoT spin-offs sound scary–I remember how Babylon 5 ended up having a pretty dire single spin off season.
I enjoy doing some flash and humor too, but there has to be something beneath it. At least I think that’s how you get people to watch/read more than once.
I agree about the GoT thing. They’re milking it for all it’s worth. Weird that the next book still hasn’t come out, but they’re doing this. Something authors should probably be cautious of is having a TV show overshadow or even replace your books. More people will remember the show and accept its ending as canon than with the book, which is a shame.
True. That’s why I’ve only watched season 1 of GoT, preferring to read the books instead.
I tried to watch and couldn’t get into it. Then again, I didn’t get into the books either.
I actually loved the books. Indeed, they were the inspiration behind Pearseus. Wait, are you saying you didn’t like Pearseus??
I think it was more style than subject. Keep in mind that I had a bad introduction to it too. The friend who gave me the first book made the high death count a selling point. Claimed that every character I loved would die, which made it hard to get attached to anybody. So I was always feeling like I had to keep myself distant, which made reading a chore.
Urgh, and you’re still friends with this person??
We haven’t talked in a while after moving to different states.
Glad you enjoyed the graphic! I’d say that it isn’t so much that audiences can tell between dynamic and static characters — as much as they can tell when a protagonist doesn’t have much else going on beneath the surface. Most writers in popular culture have cottoned onto this and even the most commercial fiction will have at least some basic internal conflicts. We can use Guardians of the Galaxy as an example: in the first film, Star-Lord has been wounded by abandonment by the death of his mother, which has shaped him into a lone wolf. His reluctance to get close to other is put to the test by his need to work with a new team. In the end, he changes and become all about the team. Style and humor are great: but having a dynamic character is a basic requirement these days.
Nicely put. I’m hoping the sequel lives up to the original. As a series author, I’ve found that it gets tough to evolve characters as time goes on. At least, not at a decent speed. One thing that I’ve realized is that development doesn’t always have to be positive, which isn’t something readers normally realize. A character can end an adventure a few steps back from where they started, but that’s okay. Guess I’m trying to say that patience might be needed too, which is odd in a ‘want it now’ type of atmosphere that I see these days.
Nice example!