Four-Dimensional Characters

[JakeNubbin]

A common criticism I've seen being tossed around the internet concerning works of fiction, for the most part, is the existence of one-dimensional characters. I've always been confused by this accusation, as dimensions are hard to measure. But I've seen the criticism everywhere from tv show characters, book characters and especially anything in a video game (I hope this counts as an off-topic discussion). What are some possible examples of, perhaps, three or four dimensional characters? We don't have to get into why, just examples you all go to when seething over any character with a not-so robust personality.

Examples: Batman? Maybe.

 

[Queen Michael]

I guess a four-dimensional character would have an entire well-developed personality and more besides, and considering how many different ways Batman's been written over the years, I'd say he fits the bill.

 

[FalloutJack]

Four dimensional characters would have to be the Tralfamadorians, whose existence is such that they perceive time as not a stream, but as a lake that they are swimming around in and living the events through in whatever manner they desire.

The whole one dimensional character thing is just a derogatory term, otherwise known as a flat or boring character. Pretty sure there isn't a true logical progression of the second or third dimension on this, as though to say characters that have a little growth but not enough or just the right amount.

Not every expression you hear is all that good. In fact, alot of them can sound asinine and condescending without actually trying to be such. Sometimes, you gotta say what you mean and live with the results.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

One dimensional, as well as two dimensional characters, refer to characters who lack any depth, whatsoever. In other words, flat. Three dimensional characters are ones that do have depth to them, are well-rounded, and well-written.

A four dimensional character, I guess, would probably be a real person, or at least a character that feels real.

 

[Thomas Barnsley]

Ok you have made me realise just how much I don't understand what people mean by character dimensions.

So I asked Google. Found this:

Spoiler

Dimension 1: Personality. What a character looks like, their quirks, how they present themselves to the world. This is all surface material, without any assigned meaning. For minor characters, this may be all we ever see, and it?s left to the reader to assign any deeper meaning, if they choose. For important characters, we cannot stop here without getting the dreaded ?your characters are flat? reviews.

Dimension 2: Back story and inner demons. This is where things get interesting. This is the why of a character?s choices. This is where meaning is assigned, where they face their inner struggles, hide their deepest fears. It?s the world view that motivates their actions, and it may or may not coincide with the face they choose to show the world.

Dimension 2 is where characters gain depth, it?s where the reader gains a glimpse into the why, and gives us a chance to build empathy with the character, which is absolutely crucial for our story success.

However, we?re not finished with Dimension 2. Dimensions 1 and 2 are still what the character wants us to see, to understand.

Dimension 3 is where we get to the true heart of a character, their moral substance, or lack thereof.

Dimension 3 is what a character does in critical moments, moments of extreme stakes, moments that count. This is where everything is stripped away and their true, inner core is revealed.

It may surprise us. It may surprise them. This is where a character really becomes a hero, or a villain. It?s where they shine, or where they run away screaming. This is where inner demons are excised, when a character arc is complete. Only then is the hero ready to overcome the external antagonistic forces.

Source: http://www.fictorians.com/2013/02/18/3-dimensions-of-character-a-review-of-larry-brooks-character-development-technique/

It doesn't have a fourth one, but if it did I would imagine it being even deeper than their deepest moments. Maybe their genome? Maybe their fetish? Yeah it's probably their fetish...

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I guess a good example of a four-dimensional character would be Rorschach from Watchmen. I?d have to write an entire essay to explain why, though.

 

[Shymer]

I think a good example of a well-rounded character in video games is Garrett from the Thief series. The key for me is that Garrett has many different values which sometimes compete leading to inner dilemmas and external conflict with other characters. He prides himself on the quality of his work. Has no moral qualms with stealing, but he does with killing. He is greedy. But under all of that, he is noble and, to a degree, cares for his friends.

You learn about this - not because we are told, but because we see how he is, how he speaks, what he does during the game.

I don't think of Batman as well-rounded as his pallet of values is rather limited. However it probably depends on how deeply one knows the material and I simply haven't read enough good batman material to be able to judge. Also there are plenty of example of bad batman material which avoids dealing with nuances of character.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, for starters, the comment about a character being "one dimensional" is often just a derogatory term and a quick, easy, and lazy way of saying, "I don't like the character." In other words, the person hasn't even bothered to look into what one, two, and three dimensional characters actually are. They are just saying it to sound smart when they're clearly ignorant.

Anyways, the definitions of these terms does change a little depending on who you read. One writer may reduce all character to one and three dimensional characters, while others will claim that we should have three dimensions to characters. I forget where I read it, but I think the best explanation is this:

One Dimensional: Comes in, comes out. There's little, if any, meaningful interaction with the world, and obviously no character development. This would be equivalent to a character who gets a few lines in during a conversation but never returns, or they make only brief appearances later.

Two Dimensional: Has some interaction with the world, but not to a significant degree. They may have some character development, but they fail to have any serious internal or external struggles that seriously changes them and the world around them. Most people are referring to this category when mentioning one dimensional characters, provided they even understand what they are talking about. This may be a character who gets a little more attention, and they likely have a distinct personality. However, we know very little about their personal ideals, and if we do, they are often never confronted with dilemmas regarding their ideals or given a chance to seriously change as the story progresses.

Three Dimensional: Has meaningful interaction and development throughout the story. We know a lot more about this characters' personality and morals, and sometimes even go into why they are like that. They are often confronted with physical, mental, and emotional challenges relating to their limitations in those areas, and they are forced to confront potential flaws in their personality, beliefs, etc. This confrontation comes in a much more meaningful way than the other two dimensions, and we are often wondering if they will conquer or be conquered by the struggles that exist beyond physical ones. Often, these struggles aren't mutually exclusive and a physical struggle may be an attempt to show an internal struggle. Obviously, these are the most well-developed and often most remembered characters, not to mention the ones that offer the most discussion value.

Now, here's the thing: None of these character types are actually bad. Some characters are only important enough to the story to be one dimensional, and a lack of them may make the world feel slightly artificial. The same goes with two dimensional characters. Also, a three dimensional character isn't necessarily a good character. Their struggles may seem artificial, formulaic, paced poorly, and just there because they had to develop some way over the course of their time in the work. Ultimately, the only way a dimensions should be used as a criticism is if that character receives more time than their dimension indicates. For instance, a character that is present throughout most of the work but never develops beyond a two dimensional character, making them flat and forgettable. Otherwise, these are just descriptors, used to determine exactly what type of character the person is.

As far as four dimensional goes, I've never really looked into it, and this might even be the first time I've ever heard of the term. I don't see how you can go beyond a three dimensional character. I guess that if you want to further divide the characters you could get a fourth dimension, but I think that is rather pointless.

 

[DanDanikov]

I would have expected the 'fourth' dimension to come from multiple portrayals by different writers and actors that give the character a depth that cannot be achieved normally. Batman is a great example as this, as not only does he have a rich core character, but he has added depth with the variety of differing portrayals.

 

[CelestDaer]

Well, for starters, the comment about a character being "one dimensional" is often just a derogatory term and a quick, easy, and lazy way of saying, "I don't like the character." In other words, the person hasn't even bothered to look into what one, two, and three dimensional characters actually are. They are just saying it to sound smart when they're clearly ignorant.

Every single main character in Final Fantasy 9 starts out as one dimensional. The whole: "I don't need a reason to help people," line that each character has is their one guiding trait. They become two and three dimensional by interacting with each other. By expanding upon their trait.
From what I remember of Twilight (the book, not the movie) every character in that is one dimensional. We get no insight as to why the characters behave the way they do, it's just, 'She wants to be a vampire', 'He wants her because she's different'... And that's it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm guessing you've never encountered one of these..

(Note: the actual object, not the characters. I have no idea who these characters are.)

The idea of a character having "dimensions" is a metaphor for the level of development, depth and believability. Describing a character as "one dimensional" (or "two dimensional") means exactly the same thing as describing that character as "one note" ("two note" doesn't work so well), it means they are unrealistically defined by a single attribute, whether it's their physical appearance, a personality trait which they follow relentlessly, a role in the story which they simply exist to fulfil or in some of the most offensive cases by some kind of ethnic, national or sexual stereotype slapped on in lieu of an actual personality. This leads to characters who seem flat and lifeless, who seem to an audience less like people than cardboard cutouts. They resemble people superficially, but the artifice is so painfully obvious that it breaks suspension of disbelief.

That doesn't mean there are "two dimensional" or "three dimensional" characters, there are just characters who have more time to be fleshed out, or who use narrative economy better, or who behave and act in a more believable or engaging way. We don't need a rigid classification system to describe that process that, it's a simple win-lose.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Severus Snape from the Harry Potter universe is a pretty complicated character; he has allegiances to himself, Voldemort, Dumbledore, Lily Potter and through her Harry Potter as well. I liked him as a character but despised him as a person.

 

[Silvanus]

If we take the fourth dimension to be time, we could judge a character to be a 'four-dimensional character' if they develop significantly over time, and change in many meaningful ways. They would need the well-developed and complex personalities we associate with three-dimensional characters too.

Tralfamadorians

They would be a fantastic literal example, as would Doctor Manhattan.

 

[Reaper195]

People tend to lump 1 and 2D characters together, which pretty much means characters that have no real character to them. They simply say their lines and have no real motivations, personality (A single set of traits is not a personality. These traits have to change)...any kind of dpeth. 3D characters are characters which have all this depth to the point that they are indistinguishable from a real person (Who has all said motivations, personality, etc). Four dimensional characters.....isn't a thing. Short of characters which come out of the game and interact with the player. We'd pretty much need a character to reach out of the screen and hit us to be considered four dimensional....

 

[thiosk]

Would have to be doctor who. He is a three dimensional character who can travel at will through the fourth dimension.

 

[Ron Alphafight]

When someone says a character is one dimensional, all they are saying is the character doesn't have the depth of an actual person. The writer hasn't put much thought into their history and motivations. They have traits such as "likes coffee" and "scared of spiders". You don't know why the character hates spiders. They just do.

This is fine for minor characters, but main characters need to fleshed out. You learn things like the character has an older brother that was bitten by a brown recluse spider when they were kids, saw the physical damage it caused and it really freaked him out. That's why he's scared of spiders. Terrible example, but you get the idea. With three dimensional characters you get the why behind what they do and who they are. That way, it makes sense when they change.

In regards to the criticism you're referencing, there are no four dimensional characters.

 

[[REDACTED]]

I guess a good example of a four-dimensional character would be Rorschach from Watchmen. I?d have to write an entire essay to explain why, though.

Please, do write one. I don't think posts here have real character limits, so knock yourself out.

Also, @FalloutJack: sci-fi fan high-fives!

 

[TheRiddler]

Would have to be doctor who. He is a three dimensional character who can travel at will through the fourth dimension.

It's just the Doctor. Not Doctor Who, which is the name of the show. Sorry. Just thought you might want to know. But... yeah. He probably counts, although it's difficult to really get consistent deep characterization when his personality itself changes every few seasons.

 

[BrotherRool]

At one point I got so used to people talking about 1D characters that I began to describe characters I like as 2D

But to be nerdy and try-hard/overly serious this is the way I imagine it

One Dimensional - Character can be entirely summed up in one word/line. 'Angry' 'Sexy' 'Silent Warrior'. Etc, no justification for who they are, no complexity in their interactions.

Two Dimensional - Characters can't be described in one axis, but they don't feel like real people either. Either very bland or basically only has two character traits 'Angry, but likes kittens'. 'Wimpy but with a beserk button'. Cardboard cutouts of people

Three Dimensional - Human, has an understandable personality that guides them in different ways in various situations. Is complex and believable

and then for
Four Dimensional - People with an inner personality that the fiction lets us see through too as well as their outer personality. As an example in The World's End, Simon Pegg was this well rounded three-dimensional man-child. A leader and wild and reckless and insistent on dragging everyone else into his mistakes. But behind all that you were also constantly aware of a desperation, behind his out personality he was trapped and the walls were closing in on him and it was driving him to wilder and more insane antics as he tried to shut out the truth and hide reality from himself.