I'm going to try and boil this issue down to the bone.
I think being dimensional comes from many things: history, motivation, ways of thinking, personality, etc. These aren't mutually exclusive, however. They affect each other in convoluted ways.
Depth doesn't come from individual character elements, but rather from their interplay.
Actions are driven by needs and desires, but these needs and desires can often conflict with each other. What happens when a character wants two things, yet must choose between one or the other? How do they make their decision?
If a character can demonstrate a capacity for multiple ways of thinking, it allows them to tackle conflicts more meaningfully. They can consider viewpoints beyond their own and allow their viewpoints to be changed. People are malleable. We're shaped by our experiences - open to some, resistant to others.
Something that's usually a sign of one-dimensionality is that characters respond to conflict in predictable ways. A sarcastic character will snark sarcastically about everything. A depressed character will lament over the hopelessness of everything. It's true that people have certain personalities and often respond to similar situations in similar ways. But a real person might not be so rigid.
Say, for instance, that your character is a merchant. He's well versed in mercantile and knows his way around a market. Yet, from a personality standpoint, he's introverted and shy. When interacting with ordinary people, he demonstrates an awkward squeamishness, a reluctance to contribute to conversations. He frequently stutters or acts aloof in crowds.
However... put him into his element, behind a store desk or bargaining with a trader, and that shyness disappears. With confidence that comes from his knowledge, the character suddenly displays a bolder side of himself that we otherwise wouldn't see.
People are often goal driven, but these goals aren't always clear, even to the people who have them. And even if we do have obvious goals, we don't always fulfill them in obvious ways. We set goals based on our motivations, and a character's motivations should stem from multiple sources.
Don't create a character that always acts sarcastic because 'that's just who they are.' Why are they always sarcastic? Is it a coping mechanism? Do they just like to make people laugh? In what situations will they forgo their sarcasm?
We can only give our characters so much depth, because we use ourselves as bases. Every character carries with them a piece of the author. A seed of myself goes into every protagonist I create. And if someone wouldn't like me, they may not like my characters as a result.
But conflicting opinions on characters can be a good thing. It can actually show that there is some depth to them, that their actions can be looked upon in different ways, positive or negative. In fact, that just shows depth in us. So take heart in this, if nothing else.
I'm sure some of these thoughts are incomplete, but I'm a little tired of typing. I'll leave this as is.
I'm going to try and boil this issue down to the bone.
I think being dimensional comes from many things: history, motivation, ways of thinking, personality, etc. These aren't mutually exclusive, however. They affect each other in convoluted ways.
Depth doesn't come from individual character elements, but rather from their interplay.
Actions are driven by needs and desires, but these needs and desires can often conflict with each other. What happens when a character wants two things, yet must choose between one or the other? How do they make their decision?
If a character can demonstrate a capacity for multiple ways of thinking, it allows them to tackle conflicts more meaningfully. They can consider viewpoints beyond their own and allow their viewpoints to be changed. People are malleable. We're shaped by our experiences - open to some, resistant to others.
Something that's usually a sign of one-dimensionality is that characters respond to conflict in predictable ways. A sarcastic character will snark sarcastically about everything. A depressed character will lament over the hopelessness of everything. It's true that people have certain personalities and often respond to similar situations in similar ways. But a real person might not be so rigid.
Say, for instance, that your character is a merchant. He's well versed in mercantile and knows his way around a market. Yet, from a personality standpoint, he's introverted and shy. When interacting with ordinary people, he demonstrates an awkward squeamishness, a reluctance to contribute to conversations. He frequently stutters or acts aloof in crowds.
However... put him into his element, behind a store desk or bargaining with a trader, and that shyness disappears. With confidence that comes from his knowledge, the character suddenly displays a bolder side of himself that we otherwise wouldn't see.
People are often goal driven, but these goals aren't always clear, even to the people who have them. And even if we do have obvious goals, we don't always fulfill them in obvious ways. We set goals based on our motivations, and a character's motivations should stem from multiple sources.
Don't create a character that always acts sarcastic because 'that's just who they are.' Why are they always sarcastic? Is it a coping mechanism? Do they just like to make people laugh? In what situations will they forgo their sarcasm?
We can only give our characters so much depth, because we use ourselves as bases. Every character carries with them a piece of the author. A seed of myself goes into every protagonist I create. And if someone wouldn't like me, they may not like my characters as a result.
But conflicting opinions on characters can be a good thing. It can actually show that there is some depth to them, that their actions can be looked upon in different ways, positive or negative. In fact, that just shows depth in us. So take heart in this, if nothing else.
I'm sure some of these thoughts are incomplete, but I'm a little tired of typing. I'll leave this as is.
