Infiction, acharacter is aperson or being in anarrative (such as anovel,play,radio ortelevision series,music,film, orvideo game).[1][2][3] The character may be entirely fictional or based on a real-life person, in which case the distinction of a "fictional" versus "real" character may be made.[2] Derived from theAncient Greek word χαρακτήρ, the English word dates from theRestoration,[4] although it became widely used after its appearance inTom Jones by Henry Fielding in 1749.[5][6] From this, the sense of "a part played by anactor" developed.[6] (Before this development, the termdramatis personae, naturalized in English from Latin and meaning "masks of the drama", encapsulated the notion of characters from the literal aspect ofmasks.) A character, particularly when enacted by an actor in thetheater or cinema, involves "the illusion of being a human person".[7] In literature, characters guide readers through their stories, helping them to understand plots and ponder themes.[8] Since the end of the 18th century, the phrase "in character" has been used to describe an effectiveimpersonation by an actor.[6] Since the 19th century, theart of creating characters, as practiced by actors orwriters, has been calledcharacterization.[6]
The study of a character requires an analysis of its relations with all of the other characters in the work.[11] The individual status of a character is defined through the network of oppositions (proairetic,pragmatic,linguistic,proxemic) that it forms with the other characters.[12] The relation between characters and the action of the story shifts historically, oftenmiming shifts in society and its ideas about human individuality,self-determination, and thesocial order.[13]
Infiction writing, authors create dynamic characters using various methods. Sometimes characters are conjured up from imagination; in other instances, they are created by amplifying the character trait of a real person into a new fictional creation.[1][2]
An author or creator basing a character on a real person can use a person they know, a historical figure, a current figure whom they have not met, or themselves, with the latter being either an author-surrogate or an example ofself-insertion. The use of a famous person easily identifiable with certain character traits as the base for a principal character is a feature ofallegorical works, such asAnimal Farm by George Orwell, which portrays Soviet revolutionaries as pigs. Other authors, especially forhistorical fiction, make use of real people and create fictional stories revolving around their lives, as withThe Paris Wife which revolves aroundErnest Hemingway.
Literary scholar Patrick Grant matches characters fromThe Lord of the Rings with Jungian archetypes.[14]
An author can create a character using the basic characterarchetypes which are common to many cultural traditions: thefather figure, mother figure,hero, and so on. Some writers make use ofarchetypes as presented byCarl Jung as the basis for character traits.[15] Generally, when an archetype from some system (such as Jung's) is used, elements of the story also follow the system's expectations in terms ofstoryline.
An author can also create a fictional character using genericstock characters, which are generally flat. They tend to be used forsupporting or minor characters. However, some authors have used stock characters as the starting point for building richly detailed characters, such asWilliam Shakespeare's use of the boastful soldier character as the basis forJohn Falstaff.
Some authors createcharactonyms for their characters. A charactonym is a name that implies the psychological makeup of the person, makes an allegorical allusion, or makes reference to their appearance. For example, Shakespeare has an emotional young male character namedMercutio, John Steinbeck has a kind, sweet character named Candy inOf Mice and Men, and Mervyn Peake has a Machiavellian, manipulative, and murderous villain inGormenghast namedSteerpike. The charactonym can also indicate appearance. For example, François Rabelais gave the nameGargantua to a giant, and the huge whale inPinocchio (1940) is namedMonstro.
In his bookAspects of the Novel,E. M. Forster defined two basic types of characters, their qualities, functions, and importance for the development of the novel:flat characters andround characters.[16] Flat characters are two-dimensional, in that they are relatively uncomplicated. By contrast, round characters are complex figures with many different characteristics, that undergo development, sometimes sufficiently to surprise the reader.[17]
In psychological terms, round or complex characters may be considered to have five personality dimensions under theBig Five model of personality.[18] The five factors are:
extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational)
Stock characters are usually one-dimensional and thin.Mary Sues are characters that usually appear infan fiction which are virtually devoid of flaws,[20] and are therefore considered flat characters.
Another type of flat character is a "walk-on", a term used bySeymour Chatman for characters that are not fully delineated and individualized; rather they are part of the background or the setting of the narrative.[21]
Dynamic characters are those that change over the course of the story, whilestatic characters remain the same throughout. An example of a popular dynamic character in literature isEbenezer Scrooge, the protagonist ofA Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. At the start of the story, he is a bitter miser, but by the end of the tale, he transforms into a kindhearted, generous man.
In television, a regular, main or ongoing character is a character who appears in all or a majority of episodes, or in a significant chain of episodes of the series.[22] Regular characters may be both core and secondary ones.
Arecurring character or supporting character often and frequently appears from time to time during the series' run.[23] Recurring characters often play major roles in more than one episode, sometimes being the main focus.
A guest or minor character is one who acts only in a few episodes or scenes. Unlike regular characters, the guest ones do not need to be carefully incorporated into the storyline with all its ramifications: they create a piece of drama and then disappear without consequences to the narrative structure, unlike core characters, for which any significant conflict must be traced during a considerable time, which is often seen as an unjustified waste of resources.[24]: 147 There may also be a continuing or recurring guest character.[24]: 151 Sometimes a guest or minor character may gain unanticipated popularity and turn into a regular or main one;[25] this is known as abreakout character.[26][27]
In the earliest surviving work ofdramatic theory,Poetics (c. 335 BCE), theClassical Greek philosopherAristotle states that character (ethos) is one of six qualitative parts ofAthenian tragedy and one of the three objects that itrepresents (1450a12).[28] He understands character not to denote a fictional person, but the quality of the person acting in the story and reacting to its situations (1450a5).[29] He defines character as "that which revealsdecision, of whatever sort" (1450b8).[29] It is possible, therefore, to have stories that do not contain "characters" in Aristotle's sense of the word, since character necessarily involves making theethical dispositions of those performing the action clear.[30] If, in speeches, the speaker "decides or avoids nothing at all", then those speeches "do not have character" (1450b9—11).[31] Aristotle argues for the primacy ofplot (mythos) over character (ethos).[32] He writes:
But the most important of these is the structure of the incidents. For (i)tragedy is a representation not of human beings but of action and life. Happiness and unhappiness lie in action, and the end [of life] is a sort of action, not a quality; people are of a certain sort according to their characters, but happy or the opposite according to their actions. So [the actors] do not act in order to represent the characters, but they include the characters for the sake of their actions" (1450a15–23).[33]
Aristotle suggests that works were distinguished in the first instance according to the nature of the person who created them: "the grander people represented fine actions, i.e. those of fine persons" by producing "hymns and praise-poems", while "ordinary people represented those of inferior ones" by "composing invectives" (1448b20–1449a5).[34] On this basis, a distinction between the individuals represented in tragedy and in comedy arose: tragedy, along withepic poetry, is "a representation of serious people" (1449b9–10), whilecomedy is "a representation of people who are rather inferior" (1449a32—33).[35]
By the time theRoman comic playwrightPlautus wrote his plays two centuries later, the use of characters to define dramaticgenres was well established.[38] HisAmphitryon begins with aprologue in whichMercury claims that since the play contains kings and gods, it cannot be a comedy and must be atragicomedy.[39]
^Baldick (2001, 37) and Childs and Fowler (2006, 23). See also "character, 10b" in Trumble and Stevenson (2003, 381): "A person portrayed in a novel, a drama, etc; a part played by an actor".
^OED "character" sense 17.a citing,inter alia,Dryden's 1679 preface toTroilus and Cressida: "The chief character or Hero in a Tragedy ... ought in prudence to be such a man, who has so much more in him of Virtue than of Vice... If Creon had been the chief character inŒdipus..."
Its use as 'the sum of the qualities which constitute an individual' is a mC17 development. The modern literary and theatrical sense of 'an individual created in a fictitious work' is not attested in OED until mC18: 'Whatever characters any... have for the jestsake personated... are now thrown off' (1749, Fielding,Tom Jones).
^Weschler, Raymond (2000)."Man on the Moon".English Learner Movie Guides.
^Miller, Ron (2005)."They really were a great bunch of happy people". TheColumnists.com. Archived fromthe original on July 16, 2011.Originally, the Arthur 'Fonzie' Fonzarelli character was to be a comic relief dropout type, put there for comic contrast to the whitebread Richie and his pals. He was a tall, lanky guy, but when Henry Winkler blew everybody away at his reading, they decided to cut Fonzie down to Henry's size. Ultimately, Winkler molded the character around himself and everybody, including Ron Howard, realized this would be the show's 'breakout' character.
^Janko (1987, 8). Aristotle defines the six qualitative elements of tragedy as "plot, character, diction, reasoning, spectacle and song" (1450a10); the three objects are plot (mythos), character (ethos), and reasoning (dianoia).
^Aristotle writes: "Again, without action, a tragedy cannot exist, but without characters, it may. For the tragedies of most recent [poets] lack character, and in general, there are many such poets" (1450a24–25); see Janko (1987, 9, 86).
^Janko (1987, 5). This distinction, Aristotle argues, arises from two causes that are natural and common to all humans—the delight taken in experiencing representations and the way in which we learn through imitation (1448b4–19); see Janko (1987, 4–5).
^Janko (1987, 6–7). Aristotle specifies that comedy does not represent all kinds of ugliness and vice, but only that which is laughable (1449a32–1449a37).
Burke, Kenneth. 1945.A Grammar of Motives. California edition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.ISBN0-520-01544-4.
Carlson, Marvin. 1993.Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present. Expanded ed. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.ISBN978-0-8014-8154-3.
Childs, Peter, and Roger Fowler. 2006.The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-34017-9.
Elam, Keir. 2002.The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 2nd edition. New Accents Ser. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-28018-4. Originally published in 1980.
Goring, Rosemary, ed. 1994.Larousse Dictionary of Literary Characters. Edinburgh and New York: Larousse.ISBN0-7523-0001-6.
Harrison, Martin. 1998.The Language of Theatre. London: Routledge.ISBN0-87830-087-2.
Hodgson, Terry. 1988.The Batsford Dictionary of Drama. London: Batsford.ISBN0-7134-4694-3.
Janko, Richard, trans. 1987.Poetics with Tractatus Coislinianus, Reconstruction of Poetics II and the Fragments of the On Poets. ByAristotle. Cambridge: Hackett.ISBN0-87220-033-7.
McGovern, Una, ed. 2004.Dictionary of Literary Characters. Edinburgh: Chambers.ISBN0-550-10127-6.
Pavis, Patrice. 1998.Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Trans. Christine Shantz. Toronto and Buffalo: U of Toronto P.ISBN0-8020-8163-0.
Pringle, David. 1987.Imaginary People: A Who's Who of Modern Fictional Characters. London: Grafton.ISBN0-246-12968-9.
Rayner, Alice. 1994.To Act, To Do, To Perform: Drama and the Phenomenology of Action. Theater: Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.ISBN0-472-10537-X.
Trumble, William R, and Angus Stevenson, ed. 2002.Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP.ISBN0-19-860575-7..
