Round Characters

This is a concept I came up with a while ago but never fully elaborated on until this sleepless night. I use this to discuss when I don’t enjoy how characters are written. It’s very intuitive when characters are not “round” but tonight I had a stream of consciousness to organize what does result in a “round” character.

I most often use this concept when referring to one-dimensional characters because they are the antithesis to round characters. If a villain is only ever, for example, focused on some end goal objective and any scene they are in has to revolve around that objective and they’re always bringing an intensity to whatever scene they’re in, this character is one-dimensional. Compare this to a “round” villain, someone who can appear in scenes with some levity (and even crack a joke or two), or who can celebrate a small triumph after a large scuffle, and in certain emotionally charged scenes will have outbursts of obsession with an objective due to some inflammation. Although the one-note characters can have their place in literature, a more sympathetic and engaging character is one written with a round philosophy.

Notice how I say “written” or “appears in a scene where”. This is because often the issue lies not in the character itself, but in the choices of environments the writer focuses on for the presence of those characters. If the only time the villain is in a scene is when being fought and overcome by the opposing good guys, that villain (however deep the character sheet may be) will feel one-note. This is why the circumstances and scene choice matter so much when writing, because if not carefully considered, story beats which yield development for characters are bound to be delayed or come out of left field.

So let’s define round. A round character is shown in all circumstances that imitate a normal human life — moments of strife, control, and levity — while not being perceived by the reader as forced, unearned, or illogical.

Focusing on the latter part, this is where the tried and true understanding of setup and payoff come into play. If a character waltzes into a critical situation while completely unfamiliar with the context around them, but then REACTS to the CIRCUMSTANCES to be one of CONTROL rather than of STRIFE, the audience will be subverted in their expectation. If this is a one-note character, or if there is an explanation coming later, this subversion can still be engaging… but more often than not, there needs to be some pre-established reason for the character to react to their surroundings in that way. If not, the character begins to be perceived by the reader as sharp (and grating) rather than round, one-dimensional rather than deep, and disingenuous rather than engaging. Character setup and payoff is just quintessential writing advice, and I don’t need to harp more on it than others already have.

But of course, let’s focus on the interesting aspect: the “circumstances of a normal human life”. The way I see it, us humans are usually reacting to three kinds of outside influence, based on the amount of influence we have on those outside stressors.

If we are in CONTROL of the stressor or obstacle, this is the situation where protagonists have the moments where we cheer for them, or the moments where the villain feels unstoppable. It’s not necessarily positive or negative, that depends on the lens of the character, but what matters is the perceived amount of knowledge, context clues, or intuition a character has gathered in order to respond to a situation with CLARITY and EASE to reach a desired outcome. This of course can be implemented in varying degrees of intensity of the stressor.

The opposite of this is STRIFE, a stressor or obstacle of which there is little to no control a character possesses to change the outcome. This can often cause a character to STRUGGLE or have a sense of UNCERTAINTY to whether they can achieve an outcome. Most often, this circumstance is where a character will undergo a change, and it is what characters within stories will most often operate within.

The last is a circumstance of LEVITY, the absence of stress. This can be a bit tricky, since it can be easy for an author to be of the mindset “my character would never have a moment of levity, there is no stopping this pain train” to which my reply is that children in Gaza were playing a game with a ball on a beach in Rafah after getting bombed and living in a tent. There will be moments where characters at the very least can have a choice to not focus on their stressors, and using that as a starting point is still a circumstance of levity. Characters here have opportunity for HUMOR or RELAXATION, but especially there is opportunity for a shift to vulnerability and emotional reflection, which is almost like a secret 4th option.

Now of course, these all occur through the lens of the personalities of each character. A badass will act cool and collected in a situation of control, but a shy character will be bashful and even lack confidence. These are all reasonable reactions (depending on SETUP), but they can result from the same circumstance. This is why stories are interesting, because characters will respond and impact others based on that response, which will change the circumstances for those characters. The cascading effects are incalculable, and it’s up to the writer to help the reader navigate them. This is why having round characters in the first place is so important to engaging stories: if a character is going to react the same way no matter the situation, there has to be a very good reason for the reader to keep reading otherwise.

Also, not every character will go through the full range of human emotions over the course of a story. But if a character doesn’t react to circumstances within expected boundaries, then the ILLUSION that a character COULD experience the full range of emotions dissipates. Just like how if we fill in just enough imagery, the human mind can fill in the gaps, so too can the reader fill in emotional gaps if given enough to go on. These characters are “well-rounded” because of the implication of situations that happen outside the realm of the story. How do you think Fanfiction started in the first place? Round characters are ones that readers can fall in love with in a wholly new way because of their potential, because of what the readers DON’T get to read.

So here’s where we can define when a character is not round. A FLAT character is smooth but holds no depth. These characters are mouthpieces for the author, either for the sake of thematic integration, plot necessity, or lazed author syndrome. A character that reacts with no discernible inflection changes or emotional distance within different circumstances of control (or if they’re only shown in certain controls) will read as unimportant or bland. A ROUGH (or SHARP) character contains depth but no smoothness. These are characters that don’t operate within expectation, or have very extreme jumps in personality and reaction when shifting between circumstances. I described them earlier as grating because, just like when rubbing your finger on sandpaper, a reader will receive mental friction when reading about a character that goes from total badass to shy kawaii as soon as their control is revoked. If they encounter too much friction without a chance for explanation (to readjust the reader expectation so as to round out the character) or other characters to soften the blow, the reader will remove themselves from the discomfort.

The biggest thing I see is that characters can so often get caught up within their archetypes or within the story theme or within the story pacing that there is no time for the characters to be down to earth for a second. There’s a lack of self-awareness that happens, and it causes the suspension of disbelief to be dependent upon hyperengagement of interesting plot points and sending a message rather than emotional impact and character connections. People don’t live their lives in a constant state of moving from one place to the next, there’s in-betweens that are necessary for characters to read as whole and complete.

So ultimately, making sure characters are round means giving them the opportunity to experience different circumstances within your story and show how they express a more broad range of emotions. Surprisingly, this helps characters feel more sympathetic, engaging, and valuable to a story.

Okay thanks for coming to my tedtalk.