Define your "Shallow Characterization" terms

[daveman247]

snip

Yes, the tea is true. *Sadly sips from mug*. ITs the best drink i tell you! No addiction here...

 

[Busdriver580]

Your post is a wee bit incomprehensible there mate.

If you're asking what makes a character "shallow", then I would say it is when they have no defining traits or aspects to their personality. Or, alternatively, when they have only one such trait to the exclusion of all else.

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

Character development is a term I often see get used incorrectly around her. It does not mean adding detail to a character, that's definition. It does not mean giving a character a backstory, that's, well... backstory. Rather, it refers to the change in the character over the course of their arc within the story. Common examples are the youth who comes of age and finds their place, the weary cynic who discovers a higher calling and the idealist who loses their innocent view of the world.

A character who possesses defining attributes (preferably more than one) and undergoes change over the course of the narrative will generally not be shallow.

I would essentially agree with this exactly, but I don't think a character necessarily needs to change, merely struggle with the the opportunity to for better or worse. For instance Bateman in American Psycho never really changed, but I'd consider him well developed because by he end he has struggled with and ultimately gains a deeper understanding of himself.

 

[DarkRyter]

It's hard to truly evaluate something as conceptual as "characterization."

And that's why I won't.

Laziness. It works. Oh wait, it doesn't.

 

[JayElleBee]

For me, how developed a character is depends entirely on how flawed they are. I love flaws. Soooo so so so much.

I'll use one of my own characters for example. He's a youthful, attractive young man with all the makings of a perfect house-husband. He's sweet and kind and loving, extremely affectionate, a great cook, keeps his house spotless and will do just about anything for any one of his friends.

He's also horribly jealous, insecure, controlling and manipulative. Probably a little sexist too, considering that most of his insecurity and jealousy is focused on women.


Anyway, my point is that in my eyes any character can be believable and deep if they are flawed enough to balance out all the good they have. Provided that those flaws are woven into their lives, their backstory and their personality, at least.

You can't pull a Stephenie Meyer and say that your character is clumsy and doesn't realise how wonderful she is and expect people to see her as real.

 

[TehCookie]

The characters needs motivation. Why are they doing what they are doing or making those choices? Is their anything in their past that causes them to act a certain way? Granted it doesn't make a character good or bad, they could be a really in depth realistic character but extremely boring. On the other hand it could just be some shallow generic badass which can be entertaining.

 

[DioWallachia]

Snip

Snip

Both of you seem to agree that as long there is flaws that shape the character and motivations for doing what he/she/it did in the story.

However, my main concern is that most people see shallow characters even with all the things both of you described. We will not jump into conclusion like calling everyone an idiot for not seeing development, instead we should see what is the pattern to this conclusion. Most people say that when the character doesn't change at the end of the arc/story, so my question is:
Does it need to?
Cant there be a situation where nothing is learned because the change is not aimed at the main character but for someone else (maybe even the audience itself)?
I mean, most of us don't learn anything at all at the end of the day because maybe there ISN'T something that could change us but that doesnt make us less human, right?
How can you have character development for something like God, who knows every answer, every time, everywhere?? Isn't it contrived to make a godlike creature to act human with flaws just to have development??

 

[skywolfblue]

In fact, scratch that, here is my parameter for shallow characterization - anyone who isn't Pinkie Pie.

I find this to be an astute and learned answer, and I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[DementedSheep]

Hmm this is hard one to actually pin down. Generally I?d say when they are a cliché, too "perfect" or centred around one particular trait with not much else. A good, fleshed out character shouldn?t just be one thing.

 

[Richardplex]

Edit: I missed the point of the question, so I've completely rewritten this. See post further down

 

[TehCookie]

Snip

Snip

Both of you seem to agree that as long there is flaws that shape the character and motivations for doing what he/she/it did in the story.

However, my main concern is that most people see shallow characters even with all the things both of you described. We will not jump into conclusion like calling everyone an idiot for not seeing development, instead we should see what is the pattern to this conclusion. Most people say that when the character doesn't change at the end of the arc/story, so my question is:
Does it need to?
Cant there be a situation where nothing is learned because the change is not aimed at the main character but for someone else (maybe even the audience itself)?
I mean, most of us don't learn anything at all at the end of the day because maybe there ISN'T something that could change us but that doesnt make us less human, right?
How can you have character development for something like God, who knows every answer, every time, everywhere?? Isn't it contrived to make a godlike creature to act human with flaws just to have development??

First thing that springs to mind is cliches. The first character may be deep but if people see the same outline with nothing to mix it up they will grow use to it and call it shallow. If the 1st is deep why isn't the 25434th copy deep? It can also depend on how much you like the character or not. If you read/watch whatever halfheartedly you won't think about the character or notice subtle things about them. Not to mention if you hate them you may just dismiss their motivation for some silly reason.

On the second you seem to only be talking to the other guy. Development and flaws are for humans, not characters since characters could be anything even fictional perfect humans. You don't need to learn something at the end of the day, but you should have a reason you did those activities in your day.

 

[JayElleBee]

Both of you seem to agree that as long there is flaws that shape the character and motivations for doing what he/she/it did in the story.

However, my main concern is that most people see shallow characters even with all the things both of you described. We will not jump into conclusion like calling everyone an idiot for not seeing development, instead we should see what is the pattern to this conclusion. Most people say that when the character doesn't change at the end of the arc/story, so my question is:
Does it need to?
Cant there be a situation where nothing is learned because the change is not aimed at the main character but for someone else (maybe even the audience itself)?
I mean, most of us don't learn anything at all at the end of the day because maybe there ISN'T something that could change us but that doesnt make us less human, right?
How can you have character development for something like God, who knows every answer, every time, everywhere?? Isn't it contrived to make a godlike creature to act human with flaws just to have development??

Personally I like character growth but I don't feel that it's necessary for a good character. Similarly, I don't think a character needs to change in order to be interesting. You could have an incredibly fascinating character who fails to change at all during the course of the story, and that might very well be the point.

Take Jack from ME2 for example. She does change over the course of the story, depending on Shepard's actions, but I wouldn't have found her any less fulfilling if she hadn't. Her back story and personality was pretty awesome (not as deep as I would have liked, but definitely interesting). She becomes more stable if her loyalty is gained and I find that fulfilling in a warm, happy way. However, if she'd stayed chaotic and fearful and trapped in her past I would have found that fulfilling too - just in a significantly more tragic manner.

I guess my point is that I think character growth is good, but it's definitely not the be all and end all of character depth.

 

[putowtin]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

add "tomboy" with "lowest cut top ever" to that list too!

 

[Zydrate]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

add "tomboy" with "lowest cut top ever" to that list too!

Yea, those two don't always go good together.

Unless the woman is trying to, in fact, impress another woman.

:3

 

[Richardplex]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

Well, Zhukov did explain it. I suppose what you're saying is "Prepare to repeat it over and over again".

OT: Well, pretty much what Zhukov said - the character lacks any defining traits (or very little that are exclusive). Look at Duke Nukem - wisecracking pile of muscles. That is the entire description of him. Also Mario (from Super Mario Bros) it's a dude that jumps on things. And so on and so forth. no depth and no actual characterisation. Now, if we look at a character that has more than a single sentence of traits, has weaknesses and struggles, actual story that defined them, and grows and changes during the story - that is depth.

That and many character's may have deep back stories, but that doesn't mean they have character development. Also, confusion that character development doesn't include when a character is totally different in a flashback - the change has to be in the present, the journey being important et cetera.

But what if the journey/setting doesn't allow any character development? Like if the main character exist in a world where the Gods are assholes and are pulling a Groundhog Day (Eternal Loop) prank for milenias on the main character. If we begin the story in medias res, we have the MC as an stoic that no longer has any emotion after all this time, he could finally get to change during the time we are playing/seeing him but the gods will make sure that whatever Aesop or whatever thing he has learned disappears because it wont be as fun as before or because this Eternal Loop is like a epiphany prison that will free him if he manages to change its hearth. Does that mean that the shallow characterization is justified in this case? What other cases you think it will justify the character to not change at all?

One of the best characters I've seen in an anime, if not the best, is from Puella Magi Madoka Magica.

Spoiler: Some serious Puella Magi Madoka Magica spoilers here - if you have any interest in anime, go watch it first, it's a masterpiece

Akemi Homura repeats the same month an uncountable amount of times, in attempt to save her best friend Madoka from dying, which would then lead to her turning into a witch, making Madoka kill her own family and everyone else until killed herself. She starts out as a shy typical Moe character - and she has to watch herself fail and Madoka dying again and again. If she ever thought that she couldn't save Madoka, the grief would instantly turn Homura into a witch (makes sense in context). Thus Homura must fight, never stopping and never succeeding, sometimes even having to kill Madoka herself so in that Madoka doesn't become a witch. She loses her emotions, and has to distance herself from Madoka and everyone else, cutting off the very friendship that started the crusade.

But then you have The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, where nearly no-one remembers, and thus we got the same episode 6 times.

There are 2 scenarios: The character remembers everything, or the character forgets at the end of each cycle.

If characters forgot at the end of each loop, then 9 times out of 10 that story is going to boring. Especially if more than one loop is shown. Someone needs to notice for Groundhog Day to have any meaning, and if someone remembers, then even if the story isn't from their prespective, it doesn't fit into this scenario. Unless that character just doesn't give a crap and lets it happen (say, if they were a robot) - exactly what happened in The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya.

If they remember, you get the first scenario - and the development is done in the cycles. I think (after bloody ages contemplating after my original post, hence this mass overhall) that it's to do with what's the focus of the story. If a story is told through tons of flashbacks, let's say Lost for example (it also has real character development, but let's focus purely on flashback storytelling.) This adds depth to the character, but it isn't development. The flashbacks don't actively develop the character. The characters of Lost were developed in the present. How different Sawyer was in the past wasn't his character development, it was how he developed during the present story of Lost.

For groundhog day, the situation is different. The main difference is that the present day time isn't that significant to the character. They've already lived it however many times. Their past cycles of GHD holds more weight. Rather than the story mainly being in the present, and the past merely defining the characters, the past is the most important aspect, and the present isn't the story being told, merely showing an outcome. In a way, the present becomes what the flashback was, and the flashbacks become the focus of the story. If the person changes, or changes the course of action, then that cycle is added to the collective story of cycles instead of being its own story.

If the present turns out to be a flashback in a non GHD story, then any character development occurring in that part of the story no longer counts as story development, it counts as a flashback adding depth. The character has become more developed, but not undergoing character development.

Okay, this has gone on too long and I'm fairly sure I've been losing coherency. This is a really interesting point, I'm a bit sad that it's just a sub point in a vague topic that's about to be forgotten. I'll continue thinking on it; it has the potential to span out to other things, such as the affects of time leaps for character development.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

One of the most interesting uses of shallow characterization I saw was in Republic Commando. Here, it worked, however, because of an important piece of information: They're all clones. Alone, they are rather one dimensional, but that's the point. Fixer is responsibility, Sev is violence, Scorch is the heart, and Boss (you) is the conscience.

Each of the Delta Squad members manifested as a different part of Jango Fett's personality. Together, their banter sounds like someone's thought process as each part of the mind tries to calculate the situation differently.

Rather brilliant if you ask me.