Agent and Character
distinction is sometimes made between two notions- agent and character. An agent is a simplified character, whereas the term character is reserved for more complex personages in a narrative. However, it s worthy to question the extent of the validity of the distinction.is one narratologist who believes that agent must be distinguished from character (1978). In making the distinction, he has undoubtedly been influenced by the French narratologists., The term character is also used in relation to narrative agents, without a clear indication that the two should be distinguished. According to Margolin for instance, the ascription of individual properties to [a narrative agent] may be called characterization (1983; also Margolin, 1986). The danger in ascribing to the view of Chatman and others on this matter, is that too rigid a distinction between character and agent may be made, and there will thus be no characterisation as such in many contemporary works of fiction.
Chapter II.Different approaches to classify the characters
and Genre
reference to genre, the presence of real characters my be limited to certain genres.
Its notable here that the term realistic fiction is actually a generic classification. It has also been argued by (1962) that real characters are seldom accomplished outside of comedy.division of characters into realistic and fantastic should also be regarded as generic. Another generic division is that between mimetic and didactic characters, although a mixture between the two may be involved. Phelan, for example, has noted that authors may employ mimetic means to didactic ends.
Generic division of charactersrealisticvsfantasticmimeticvsdidactic
Another classification of characters which may have an effect on generic classification divides them into imitative, illustrative and independent (or aesthetic).
Classification of characters that may affect generic classificationCharacter typeExplanation ImitativeCharacters exist in relation to actual human beings, of which they are supposed to resemble.Illustrative Characters are didactic, and are supposed to represent moral ideas.Independent Characters exist in their own right, and are not directly or closely related to mimetic or didactic considerations.
Static and developing characters
classification of characters involves those who are static and those who are developing.
A changes, and for change in such a character to be convincing, it must be, in traditional literary criticism: in the character; impelled by circumstances; time must be given for the change to be believable.the same time, change requires selection: an entire lifetime can not be presented within the span of a narrative.reference to change, we may look again at Lawrences allotropic states. In this conception, characters change all the time, and so, the criteria on how to make change convincing mentioned above, may not apply.possibilities of change and development in cinematic characters are usually more restricted than in characters of a novel. If a character in a film changes or develops, certain large and significant segments of the characters life are presented. If the character develops from childhood (or even babyhood) to adulthood, more than one actor is needed, and this may have an effect on our perception of the characters development: we may ask, for example, whether some of the changes we see are due more to the peculiarities of the actor and are not really necessary to the characters development.
the flat and round characters
categorization of characters involves their division into flat and round. This categorization has been attributed to EM Forster, who wrote about it in his Aspects of the Novel. characteristics of a flat character can be summed up in a sentence. Flat characters are simple: they have only one or two traits. They are also stable, stereotypical, and undeveloping. Flat characters are mainly found in fairy tales, detective fiction, pulp fiction, and such works; in this regard, flatness and roundness may thus be linked to the genre of the narrativearacters are complex and have manifold characteristics. They are closer to actual persons than flat characters. They change in the course of the story; they develop and are capable of surprising the reader. According to Chatman, it is easier to identify with round characters, even though they may not add up, and may not always be uniform or logically consistent. Round characters are open-ended: we can at best only speculate about their future actions; they are thus less determinate than flat characters.
