The writing advice is nearly universal: “Make your characters three-dimensional! Give them depth! Show their complexity!”

And then you look at some of the most beloved stories ever told—fairy tales, myths, adventure films, genre fiction—and realize: many of their characters are flat as paper. And it works perfectly.

James Bond doesn’t have a meaningful character arc across most films. Indiana Jones is the same person at the end as at the beginning. Sherlock Holmes remains fundamentally unchanged across decades of stories.

These aren’t failures of characterization. They’re strategic choices about what kind of story is being told.

What Are Flat and Round Characters?

E.M. Forster coined these terms in Aspects of the Novel (1927):

FLAT CHARACTERS

  • Constructed around a single quality or idea
  • Predictable and consistent
  • Don’t undergo significant internal change
  • Can be summed up in a sentence
  • Often archetypal or symbolic

ROUND CHARACTERS

  • Complex and multidimensional
  • Capable of surprise while remaining believable
  • Undergo development and change
  • Resist simple summary
  • Psychologically realistic

The key insight Forster made: Both types are valid. The question is which serves your story better.

Why Flat Characters Get a Bad Rap

Modern literary culture heavily privileges psychological realism and character growth.

The bias comes from:

  • Literary fiction’s dominance in “serious” criticism (where internal complexity is valued)
  • The influence of method acting (which emphasizes psychological depth)
  • The therapeutic culture that frames growth as inherently good
  • Dismissal of genre fiction as “lesser” (where flat characters are more common)

The result: “Flat character” sounds like an insult. But it shouldn’t be.

Flat is not the same as bad. It’s a tool—and like any tool, it’s perfect for some jobs and wrong for others.

When Flat Characters Excel

1. Plot-Driven Stories

When the focus is on what happens rather than who it happens to, flat characters are often ideal.

Examples:

  • Heist films: Ocean’s crew members don’t need deep character arcs—they need to be competent and distinct enough to track
  • Disaster movies: The asteroid/volcano/tsunami is the story; characters mostly need to be relatable enough to root for
  • Whodunits: Agatha Christie’s Poirot remains consistent—the mystery is the protagonist, not the detective

Why this works: Psychological complexity can actually slow down plot-driven narratives. We want momentum, not introspection.

The skill: Make them vivid and memorable despite being simple. One or two strong traits, consistently portrayed, create clarity without depth.

2. Symbolic or Allegorical Stories

When characters represent ideas, making them psychologically complex can muddy the message.

Examples:

  • Pilgrim’s Progress: Christian represents the faithful soul; his encounters represent spiritual challenges
  • Animal Farm: The pigs represent corrupted revolutionary leaders—they’re meant to be readable types, not complex individuals
  • Fairy tales: The wicked stepmother is wicked; the virtuous princess is virtuous—the story is the lesson, not the psychology

Why this works: Symbolic stories gain power from clarity. We’re meant to understand what characters mean, not who they are.

3. Supporting Characters in Character-Driven Stories

Even in stories with deep, round protagonists, supporting characters are often flat—and should be.

Examples:

  • The Mentor: Wise, helpful, often dies (Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Mufasa)
  • The Loyal Friend: Consistently supportive, doesn’t have their own arc (Samwise Gamgee, Ron Weasley in early books)
  • The Threshold Guardian: Tests the hero, represents the challenge (bouncers, gatekeepers, bureaucrats)

Why this works:

  • Focus: The protagonist needs narrative spotlight; too many deep characters dilute attention
  • Clarity: Archetypal supporting characters are immediately legible—audiences know how to relate to them
  • Efficiency: You can establish them quickly and move on

When to round them out: When they’re important enough to the protagonist’s journey that their complexity adds meaning, not distraction.

4. Series Characters in Episodic Formats

Characters who return week after week often work best as consistent, flat archetypes.

Examples:

  • Sherlock Holmes: Same brilliant detective in every story
  • James Bond: Suave, competent, womanizing spy—consistent across decades
  • Sitcom characters: Often defined by 2-3 traits that remain constant for comedic reliability

Why this works:

  • Brand consistency: Audiences return because they know what to expect
  • Reboot-friendly: Flat characters can be recast and reimagined without violating their “essence”
  • Low barrier to entry: New audience members can jump in anywhere

Modern complication: Serialized TV has made audiences expect more depth. Contemporary shows often “round out” traditionally flat characters (see: MCU’s character development, modern Sherlock’s emotional arcs).

5. Comedy

Comedic characters are often deliberately flat—and funnier for it.

Examples:

  • Basil Fawlty: Always pompous, always overreacting—his consistency is the joke
  • Ron Swanson: Libertarian man’s man with contempt for government—his unchanging nature creates reliable humor
  • The Dude: Aggressively unchanging in The Big Lebowski—everyone else has arcs around him

Why this works: Comedy often depends on predictability. We laugh because we know how the character will react. Surprise comes from situations, not character growth.

The skill: Make the flat trait specific and vivid enough to generate endless variations.

When Round Characters Are Essential

1. Internal Conflict Is the Story

When the narrative is about psychological struggle, complexity is non-negotiable.

Examples:

  • Crime and Punishment: Raskolnikov’s internal torment IS the story
  • Fleabag: Her journey toward vulnerability and honesty requires psychological depth
  • The Sopranos: Tony’s therapy sessions exist because his internal contradictions are central

Why flat fails here: If the character doesn’t change or struggle internally, there’s no story. The arc is the point.

2. Realistic, Literary, or Character-Driven Fiction

When the goal is psychological verisimilitude or exploring human nature, round characters are the medium.

Examples:

  • Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels: Deep, contradictory characters whose relationships evolve over decades
  • The Wire: Characters who defy simple categorization—cops who are corrupt, criminals who are honorable
  • Transparent: Characters who constantly surprise while remaining believable

Why flat fails here: The genre promise is realism and depth. Archetypal characters feel like a betrayal of that contract.

3. When the Theme Requires Complexity

Some themes can only be explored through contradictory, changing characters.

Examples:

  • Breaking Bad (moral corruption): Requires showing Walter White’s transformation step by step
  • Atonement (guilt and self-deception): Needs Briony’s complex, unreliable perspective
  • The Remains of the Day (repression and regret): Stevens’ internal contradictions ARE the theme

Why flat fails here: Simple characters can’t embody complex ideas. The theme demands dimensionality.

The Spectrum: It’s Not Binary

Most characters exist somewhere between perfectly flat and perfectly round.

The Flat-to-Round Spectrum:

1. Pure Archetype (Flattest)

  • Single trait, symbolic function
  • Example: Death figure in allegory, fairy godmother

2. Distinct Archetype

  • Recognizable type with distinctive flavor
  • Example: Gandalf (wise mentor, but with personality quirks)

3. Archetypal with Depth

  • Fills archetypal role but has backstory and motivation
  • Example: Alfred in The Dark Knight trilogy (mentor, but with history and emotional stakes)

4. Consistent but Complex

  • Doesn’t change much, but has multiple dimensions
  • Example: Atticus Finch (morally consistent, but we see his wisdom, his parenting, his legal skill, his limits)

5. Evolving

  • Changes in response to events while remaining recognizable
  • Example: Luke Skywalker (farmboy to Jedi, but maintains core decency)

6. Deeply Transforming (Roundest)

  • Fundamental identity and worldview shift
  • Example: Walter White (chemistry teacher to Heisenberg)

Where your character should fall depends on:

  • How central they are to the narrative
  • Whether the story is plot- or character-driven
  • What thematic work they’re doing
  • Genre expectations

Common Mistakes

Mistake 1: Flattening Characters That Need Depth

The error: In a character-driven story, making the protagonist one-dimensional.

Example: A literary novel about grief where the grieving character is just “sad” without complexity, contradiction, or development.

The fix: If internal journey is central, invest in psychological realism and change.

Mistake 2: Over-Complicating Characters That Should Be Flat

The error: Giving every supporting character a detailed backstory and arc in a plot-driven thriller.

Example: An action movie that stops the momentum to explore the villain’s childhood trauma in depth when we just need them to be a threat.

The fix: Keep supporting characters as complex as they need to be for their function, no more.

Mistake 3: Confusing Flat with Boring

The error: Thinking “flat = simple” means “flat = uninteresting.”

Example: A sidekick who is “loyal” but has no personality, humor, or memorable traits.

The fix: Flat characters should be vivid and distinctive even if they’re not deep. Give them:

  • A memorable way of speaking
  • A distinctive physical presence or mannerism
  • A clear motivation (even if it doesn’t change)
  • Consistent but interesting behavior

Great flat characters are BOLD, not bland.

Mistake 4: Betraying the Character Type

The error: Suddenly giving a flat character a transformational arc that violates the story’s logic.

Example: James Bond suddenly becoming introspective and rejecting his lifestyle (this has been tried; it’s jarring because it violates the character contract).

The fix: If your character is flat by design, honor that design. Growth isn’t always better.

How to Write Effective Flat Characters

1. Make Them Archetypally Clear

We should immediately understand what they represent or what role they play.

Tools:

  • Strong introduction that establishes their essence
  • Consistent behavior that reinforces their archetype
  • Visual/verbal signifiers (costume, catchphrase, mannerism)

2. Give Them Vivid Specificity

The details make them memorable even if they don’t have depth.

Examples:

  • Gandalf’s pipe and fireworks (not just “wise wizard”)
  • James Bond’s martini preference and car (not just “spy”)
  • Mary Poppins’ “practically perfect in every way” (not just “magical nanny”)

3. Use Them Strategically

Know why they’re flat and lean into it.

Questions to ask:

  • What is this character’s function in the story?
  • Would depth serve that function or distract from it?
  • Are they a foil, catalyst, obstacle, mentor, symbol?

4. Consistency Is Key

Flat characters gain power through reliable behavior.

If the Loyal Friend suddenly betrays the hero for no reason, it’s not “depth”—it’s incoherence. Depth requires setup. Consistency requires commitment.

How to Write Effective Round Characters

1. Give Them Contradictions

Real people contain multitudes. Round characters should surprise us while remaining believable.

Examples:

  • A tough cop who secretly writes poetry
  • A cynic who’s a secret romantic
  • A confident leader with private insecurities

2. Show Change Over Time

Round characters evolve in response to events.

The key: Change should be gradual and earned, not sudden personality replacement.

3. Let Them Make Mistakes

Perfect consistency suggests flatness. Round characters act out of character sometimes—because real people do.

4. Give Them Internal Conflict

Round characters struggle with decisions, doubt themselves, have competing desires.

This is what flat characters don’t have: internal tension.

Matching Character Type to Genre

Genres that favor flat characters:

  • Action/adventure (plot is king)
  • Farce/comedy (consistency = humor)
  • Fairy tales and myths (symbolic meaning)
  • Mystery (detective can remain consistent)

Genres that favor round characters:

  • Literary fiction (internal realism)
  • Character-driven drama (psychological depth)
  • Coming-of-age (transformation is the point)
  • Tragedy (internal flaws lead to downfall)

Genres that use both:

  • Fantasy epics (flat archetypes + a few deep protagonists)
  • Crime dramas (complex detective, archetypal criminals)
  • Ensemble stories (varying depths based on importance)

The Cultural Moment

Contemporary audiences increasingly expect depth—even in traditionally flat character genres.

Examples of “rounding out” flat archetypes:

  • Superhero movies with therapy and trauma (MCU)
  • Fairy tale retellings that psychologize villains (Maleficent, Wicked)
  • Sitcoms with emotional continuity (The Good Place, Schitt’s Creek)

This trend reflects:

  • Therapeutic culture (everyone has a backstory that explains them)
  • Serialization (audiences invest long-term, want payoff)
  • Demand for representation (flat characters risk stereotype)

The risk: Sometimes depth is added where it doesn’t serve the story, slowing pacing or muddying archetypes that worked through clarity.

The opportunity: Depth can elevate genre fiction, making it resonate emotionally without sacrificing plot momentum.

The Litmus Test

Should your character be flat or round?

Ask:

  1. Is internal change central to the story?

    • Yes → Round
    • No → Probably flat

  2. How much screen time do they get?

    • A lot → Round (or at least rounded)
    • Limited → Flat is fine

  3. What is their function?

    • Drive the plot → Can be flat
    • Embody the theme → Needs depth
    • Provide contrast/comic relief → Can be flat

  4. What’s your genre?

    • Literary/character-driven → Round
    • Plot-driven/symbolic → Flat is acceptable

  5. Would depth enhance or distract?

    • Enhance → Round them out
    • Distract → Keep them clear and simple

Why This Distinction Matters

For Writers: Frees you from false rules

  • Not every character needs an arc
  • Supporting characters can serve their function without complexity
  • Genre conventions exist for good reasons

For Readers: Adjusts expectations appropriately

  • Don’t demand psychological realism from myth
  • Don’t dismiss depth as pretentious in literary fiction
  • Appreciate craft in both approaches

For Critics: Prevents unfair judgments

  • Flat ≠ poorly written (can be masterfully executed)
  • Round ≠ automatically superior (can be overwritten or self-indulgent)
  • Evaluate whether the choice serves the story

The Deeper Truth

The flat vs round debate is really asking: What is your story about?

  • If it’s about events, revelations, or ideas → Flat characters create clarity
  • If it’s about psychology, growth, or human nature → Round characters create resonance

Neither is superior.

They’re answers to different questions.

The James Bond films aren’t “worse” than Breaking Bad because Bond doesn’t change—they’re doing something different. Fairy tales aren’t “worse” than The Remains of the Day because the characters are archetypal—they’re serving different purposes.

The only failure is mismatching character complexity to story needs.

Practical Application

When planning your character, ask:

  1. What is this story about? (plot, ideas, or internal journey?)
  2. What function does this character serve?
  3. How central are they to the narrative?
  4. What does my genre typically do?
  5. Would complexity enhance or muddy this character’s role?

Then commit to your choice and execute it well.

A vivid, purposeful flat character beats a muddled attempt at depth.

And a genuinely complex round character beats a flat one given fake depth through info-dumping.

Further Reading in This Series

Next in the series: Subtext: What Characters Really Mean - the conversation beneath the conversation, where meaning lives between the lines.