gn="justify"> Distinction between round and flat charactersFlat characters Round charactersSimple and uniform: Complex and manifold: Only one or two traitsnumerous traitsCharacteristics can be summed up in a sentencecharacteristics need elaborate descriptionStable: Changeable: undevelopingdevelopingclosedopen-endedMore distant from actual human beings: Closer to actual human beings: stereotypicalnot easily analysable according to rigid formulation or preconceived notionsharder to sympathize with easier to sympathise withTheir actions are: Their actions are: determinatedifficult to determine in advancelogically consistent with what was given earliernot always logically consistent with what was given earliernot surprising to readers most of the timesurprising to readers some of the time distinction between flat and round characters may also apply to the analysis of cinematic narratives. A director may want to have flat characters in his film, and chooses non-actors to play their parts, so that there will be less concentration on the actor s acting skills, and more scope will be given to other aspects of the film.
Rimmon-Kenan has criticised the division into flat and round characters in written narratives. According to her, the belief that round characters are developing and complex may not always be correct. She gives the example of s here, who according to her, is complex but undeveloping. To Rimmon-Kenan, instead of the division of characters into flat and round, we should have 3 continua (1983; based on Ewen):
) the extent to which there is a penetration into the inner life of the character,
) the degree of the characters complexity, and
) the extent of the characters development.
characters
characters are different from flat characters, a character who is closely associated although they may share some characteristics: indeed, with a given narrative genre many of the characteristics associated with flat characters, are also found in stock characters. Stock characters are those who are likely to appear in relation to a given narrative genre: eg cowboys and Indians or the murderer and detective fictionaracterscharacters do not form themselves into a category like flat or stock, but are dependent on the readers evaluative judgment of a character as such. However, it is highly probable that stock characters have a tendency to be superficial when compared to those who can not be described as such, and flat characters are likely to be more superficial than those who are round. The evaluation of a character as superficial is usually based, amongst other considerations, on whether there is too much concentration on external details in the depiction of the character.
Tellable characters
characters are characters who can be easily or conveniently told in a story, and rare usually:
readily understood by the listener, not complex (as full -fledged human beings) consistent changes, consistency may not always be a feature of literary characters, as noted earlier, thus making many literary characters less tellable.
We can relate tellable characters to readable characters (distinction) .Its noteworthy to say that in complex works of literature, which are usually writerly texts, the characters are usually less tellable or readerly, thus making them, in a sense, difficult (which of course, does not mean that they are not interesting).
and Antagonist
protagonist is chief character in a narrative. In popular narratives, it is traditionally believed that the protagonist is usually attractive, honest and good-hearted (although there are variations on this in recent years). In serious fiction however, the protagonist may sometimes be portrayed unsympathetically.antagonist may be the villain, or (more neutrally), a counter - character to the protagonist.
Hero
to, but not necessarily identical to the protagonist, is the hero. The hero is less easy to define than the protagonist. Attempts to define the conception of the hero have not resulted in anything definite, as the criteria for what the hero should be are different from reader to reader. There is also a difference between nineteenth and twentieth century conceptions of the hero. However, there is some agreement that the hero should embody positive qualities, although what these positive qualities exactly are, and how they could be measured or balanced against less positive qualities, are not definite.definition which we can easily reject, is that given by Coste for written fiction: that the hero is the anthropomorphic bearer of the largest number of words (1979) .It is not easy to resort to mechanical means to define the hero, as features of heroes and heroines are of human relevance, and may not be dependent on external details such as the number of words...
