I think that the few people who prefer shallow characters, genuinely, do so because they want to relax when reading and not have to think about what's not written, or why a character would do this rather than that. That, or they can relate to the character's simple perspective. If you're unsure, it's best to have minor characters as simple and the rest as complex. They still need to have unique personalities, but not necessarily ones that are that realistic. For instance, a character in the story I'm writing is probably as complex as possible, open-minded and overthinking to the point of obsession, pragmatic with his dogma, who speaks various languages and has a deep interest in many different religions, whilst being a mercenary. He's one of the main characters. Another character is essential to the plot of the story's plot (as in, what happens in the story depends on her but the story itself doesn't - she's mentioned in a part of a treaty, fundamental to the plot, which is the only part that has not been completed), but she is very simple and disillusioned. The reasons for this are not explained in any real depth, although they are there. I suppose some people do like simplicity, as it is refreshing, but you must make them ask questions and keep guessing what's going to happen next, only to be surprised when something else happens and reading on to find out why.
See, I guess for me "simple" characters don't really..exist. Even your girl who is Simple and disillusioned, you said that the reasons aren't mentioned but still there. Therefore she has complexity to her. Though, i think that most characters who need to seem real need to have some sort of "complexity" to them. That is unless they are completely bland characters who say exactly what they are thinking or just aren't smart at all. But those are rare and I believe harder then complexed characters because you have to make them seem real but simple at the same time
I think partly it depends on what sort of book your writing. Orson Scott Card divides plots into four types: Milieu, Idea, Character and Event, and sets up a sliding scale of character development so that Character stories have the most complex and well developed characters while Milieu stories have the least (which is why some people say the characters in Lord of the Rings are flat). Similarly, I think if your main character isn't much more complex than your minor characters something's off in your focus.
All characters in a story (especially a novel) should be complex to some degree. The main character(s) should have the most complexity about them because they're the ones the story focuses on the most. However, minor characters shouldn't be flat in contrast because that tends to make the impact of the story much less than what it could've been. Minor characters shouldn't have the same amount of complexity as the MC, but they should still have some degree of complexity to them to make the story's messege or impact come through and not fall short.
Excuse my intrusion, I am new to the writing game, but you made a comment I don't quite understand. What is wrong with a character who just blurts out whatever she is thinking? What makes them bland? I am actually in the middle of writing something with a character that does that, I thought it added to the story - made it more interesting.
The Harry Potter series characters weren't flat. The characters learned and grew throughout the entirety of the story. Eragon on the other hand, was horrible all the way around. The only emotion that the characters displayed was anger, and the main character never learned from his mistakes. Harry Potter was a phenomenon, as others have stated , because of a brilliant marketing campaign and escapism. I enjoyed reading the story personally.But to each his own, I guess. The book Eragon, in my belief, was driven by the movie. The writer's of the screenplay did a pretty good job of taking the overall story and removing the original author's faults to make it digestible. But the book really didn't sell well, until the movie was announced. That was when it took off. The original question was if your characters should be flat or have depth. They should certainly have depth. I will stop reading a book in a heartbeat (Eragon for example) if there is a lack of character depth. I've read some stories where the author makes his character nearly perfect. The character is great-looking, highly intelligent, brave, and can do nearly anything better than average. The only "flaw" that this character has is usually pride. Pride in this case, is not so much a flaw as a consequence of perfection. Main characters need to be thought out by the author to make the story good for the reader. The author can skim most of the work for bit part characters, though. The most important thing to remember, though, is this is YOUR story. Unless you want to publish it for readers, you can make your character any way you want.
I'm afraid that is simply not true - the Eragon book had already sold a huge amount of copies before the movie. That was the only reason the movie was made, because it was already very popular (lets face it, its unlikely someone would choose to spend millions of dollars making a movie based on only the actual source material). Also from what I've read, the Eragon movie is almost universally regarded as even worse than the books, but everyone has their own opinion. Anyway, as has already been said, a lot of the characters arent really all that flat. Harry Potter especially strikes me as not really having two-dimensional characters. Some of them may fit into archetypal or stereotypical characters, and they may not all go through rollercoasters of internal conflict and soul searching, but even very minor characters are fleshed out just enough to seem real, which I think is all the complexity you need. Some stories may go further, and could focus a great deal on a characters internal conflicts or moral dilemmas, or feature a very twisted, different, insane or complicated character. But if you've got a solid plot like in Harry Potter, then that is not really necessary.
Flat character = predictable character -> predictable decisions -> predictable story. At what point in the process do you get bored?
I think there's also a difference between complex and realistic characters (though I think it's not exactly the right word, I'll just use it here for convenience). Complex characters have a bunch of things put in their personality, yes, but they may not be interesting. Why? Because they don't react in interesting ways. Realistic characters, on the other hand, react like real people. They have motives, desires, wants, unconscious things that drive them. I'll give an example. A flat character may, for example, simply be arrogant. A complex character, then, could be arrogant, insecure, and spiteful at the same time. However, this is just a bunch of personality traits bunched up with each other, and this is no better than having the flat character in the first place. A realistic character, however, is arrogant, but that arrogance is caused by their insecurity, and their hate for mankind which is perhaps caused by some childhood trauma. Basically, realistic characters act like real people. Of course, because this is all fiction, things may have to be compromised, but the important thing here is that it doesn't matter whether a character is stereotypical or as emotionally complicated or heck - what matters is whether they are interesting, and, frankly, even flat characters can be interesting (though probably more so in comedy, I think). Point is, I don't think we should be worrying whether a character has enough traits to make them unique, I think the important thing is to worry whether their traits work well enough together to create a unique personality that acts and reacts in their own, human manner.
I can give you a perfect example of flat characters (and a flat story): Ouran High School Host Club. Originally I stayed away from it because it was meant for girls, then I gave it the benefit of the doubt and tried a few chapters and now I avoid it because it's flat abnd a typical shoujo manga, despite its Wiki saying it's a "satirical shoujo". Also, I never thought of Eragon as boring. I personally don't know what my opinion on that trilogy/quartet is, but I'm reading the third book. Also, don't even think of bringing up the movie. The movie was absolutely horrible. I saw it with my friend's family and my friend, his two younger brothers and I all read the book, his mom didn't and dad hadn't. We thought the movie was absolutely horrible in comparison to the book, his parents thought the movie was awesome. Which is why if any of my books get published and someone gives me a movie offer, I'm not gonig to let them have it until they agree to let me be a part of its production so they don't royally screw it up.
For an example of why complex characters are entertaining, see Alan Moore's Watchmen. Take the typically flat, predictable stereotype of the masked avenger, the caped crusader, whatever you wanna call it, and turn them into real people with real psychologies and you have a recipe for one of the greatest pieces of fiction ever written.
I would say, rather than forcing the characters to be anything, let them be as they are supposed to be(as you feel they are supposed to be). When you start making large changes to the characters suddenly the purpose of the story makes no sense at all. I think that given the right fictional situation, the main character can very well be a "stereotype" and the book will still be interesting. And also, rather than finding inspiration from what different people have written, such as Asian literature, which of course is a viable concept, how about working on something entirely different? The real world is pretty chaotic, everything doesn't have to make sense right away IMO.
Well I think it doesn't matter how a character is complex or not, it's just a matter of how the character helps you in making your point (message), if talking about their importance in a plot. As to how a character is entertaining or not, basically it depends on how readers like them to be. You can't always expect one character to be entertaining for every reader. Every reader has their own favorites. Just focus on how the character helps you in plot development, and think about "how a character is entertaining" later.
I like this. Personally, I don't bother trying to make my characters complex. I try to make them realistic, to turn them into actual people. More often then not, this results in a lot of complexity all of its own. It's a mistake to assume these two are one and the same, though, and the complexity is required to make an entertaining character.
I wonder how the tutorials are defining complex characters. Some of my favorite books have really ordinary MCs, ones that I can totally relate to, but they are going through a tremendous struggle of some sort. The struggle is complex, and their reactions to it and eventual conquering of it is what I enjoy reading. But, again, they're very ordinary characters. The 2-dimensionality of Bella in Twilight is that she is so bland. She's bookish, sarcastic, and in love--end of story. No psychological/emotional development of her or anyone else whatsoever.
