I don't remember any bad flat characters actually MilesTro. It's quite perplexing. How could they just totally slip my mind? (In case sarcasm doesn't work, no one remembers such characters because they're flat and boring.)
Wow, nobody knows they exist? I guess that what makes them forgettable. How about complex characters who you hate, but you still remember them. One character I hate is Superman. Although god like, he is full of flaws, makes too much mistakes, and he is like a justice dictator although he helps people.
What superman are you referring to? Because the Superman-Superman's major flaw is that he is too perfect. He has less flaws than any other DC character. There are some alternate timelines where he appears more humanized (mostly the ones where Lois Lane is dead or dieing {good job Mark Waid}), but Superman is mostly portrayed as a symbol of hope, always doing the right thing and having less flaws than a math problem solved by an asian. I don't particularly like him either, if i was to make a list of DC characters he would be way under 10th place. But you must be reading the wrong stuff. Or watching pre-school aimed cartoons. I have many complex characters i dislike as characters, but never because they are complex. Disliking a character means that you came to care for him (or for his enemy for that matter). Top of my head are Romeo and Juliet from... well, "Romeo and Juliet", Delores Umbridge from "Harry Potter", Harry Potter from "Harry Potter", John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" (who was also quite flat and a little boring but not completely), Jack Ryan from Tom Clancy's novels, generally any and all whiny characters that are not 10 year old girls, and the list goes on. From what i have read so far i expect you will be making a comment the likes of: "if you remember complex characters you dislike and don't remember flat and cardboard characters you disliked, then flat and cardboard characters are the way to go yiiihaaaa". If not, i apologize. If so, better think again. PS. Some may inquire about leaving Twilight characters out of the list. Since i consider anything Stephanie Meyer has ever written or will write in the future (from her kindergarten essays to her last will and testament) something as far away from literary works as earth is from the center of the universe, i refuse to recognize those characters as literary characters.
I guess I hate the Superman from the classic and the live action movie. I don't know how well he is in the new comic books. I never read the superman comics.
Since Superman is a comic book character all his movies are live action movies except the animated ones. And neither was Superman like you describe him in the movies of the mid- and late 20th century.
You are turning this thread into a totally different conversation. Everyone hates aquaman, but hates his character because there is a character to hate. If there was no character development and no backstory, noone would care enough about him to even slightly dislike him. He would not even be remembered. You have yet to provide us with a flat, cardboard character you think is good.
Hey...I know...what about poisonous snakes! Do you hate poisonous snakes? How about eels...? Worms? Bacteria? ...Right, everybody hates bacteria...that was silly. Ewww...Maggots! Gotta hate them things eh...?
What about the Xenomorphs in Aliens? The Predators seem to be more human than their favorite prey. There is nothing human I can recognize about the killer Xenomorphs. They are just a bunch of bio weapons with the only purpose of killing all life. The Predators are your average space poachers who hunt anything that is dangerious. They have similar humanity because they are honorable, smart, and advance although a little primitive. None of them are bad unless you point a gun at them, and they will kill you whether you are good or bad. Yes this conversation is going on a different route now. It should still foucs on arguing about characterization and background information.
Xenomorphs are not characters. They are part of the setting. The setting is "an abandoned colony/spaceship/space station etc overrun by murderous alien creatures". The Predator is a villain and as a villain, it is a character. And the Predators are a race that hunts anything strong for sport. And they are given background and reasoning skills.
I guess the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are nothing but setting props too. What about the characters from James Patterson's books? One of the readers on a thread about him complain that his characters are flat with less dimesions. Had you read any of his books?
Of course they are part of the setting. I have read a couple of his Alex Cross novels, but they didn't really amaze me. Some of his characters are indeed below average but you can't say they are completely flat. I can't speak about his entire work, since i believe he has written around 80 novels or so, but the ones i read weren't particularly bad.
Speak for yourself! Pro-biotics. Snakes are like bears, they have big paws and a furry coat... No, much more afraid of us than we are of them... Well maybe not, coming from Australia snakes are pretty frightening.
It's very, very difficult to discuss that with you, because your position is not at all clear. Sometimes you seem to be opposed to characters with personalities; sometimes you seem to be arguing about how valuable they are. I suspect that the issue is your understanding of what character, background, and character personality are, but I'm not sure. I just can't begin to figure out what your position is.
I meant do background characters have to have more dimesion like the main characters with good characterization too to keep the story moving? Also what makes a flat character? If the character has enough of characterization and background information, why would some readers think the character is flat? Doesn't cardboard characters are the ones without characterization and background information?
Can't you answer that question yourself? The deeper dimensions of background characters should be revealed if it'll be important. If you have a nurse who hates cops for whatever reason, it'll only become important if our detective goes to her hospital. As for your second question, even characters which have background info and time for characterzation can be flat. If their background is one-dimensional, and their characterzation reveals this mono-character as having only one trait -- then you'll have a very clearly defined cardboard character. Thus, it's not just the existence of background and characterzation that creates interesting characters. Assume that all characters in your story are complex, but you're only revealing the complexity in a select few. The rest are a mystery.
So the readers have to learn everything about them. That sounds like a crap load of information for character development.
No, you're telling the story of these characters. You have plenty of room to do it. Is it hard to get to know someone? Do you even know everything about yourself? You need to start looking at this in a more complex manner.
