What makes a character deep?

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I feel to be deep implies multiple dimensions to a character (because its depth as well as length and width, you see). Barbossa's motivation is basically just "well this sucks". Is he going to be less of a ruthless bastard when he breaks the curse? Will he have learned anything? Do his actions give him any pause for thought? No, because his character doesn't have that depth. Sure you could say lot of things about the message behind how he was written, the difference between living and just being alive, but Barbossa himself is kind of shallow.
Voldemort would be in the same category. The story around him can evoke a lot of discussion about pride and hubris, about the blinding nature of prejudice and such, but Voldy himself is really kind of one note "hahaha! I am teh evulz!"

You want a character thats deep, I'd suggest Zuko from Avatar. He is constantly challenged and finds his situation changing around him..and reacts, grows and changes in turn in response. The Zuko of the first season is very different to the Zuko of the last season

 

[CaitSeith]

If the captain wanted to break the curse so he could perish, and join a loved one in some afterlife he believe in, that would still be somewhat deeper than the primal desire to escape an eternity without pleasure.

It would be deeper, but it would be also more trite. I think Barbossa's motivation isn't deep, it's just appropriate for a conventional pirate trapped in an unconventional situation (and that was a good choice for that movie).

 

[Agema]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.

Uh-oh...

People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.

Actually, yes people are complicated - although perhaps some more complicated than others. But if people aren't complicated or deep, necssarily they are easily understood. And yet the level of miscommunication, misunderstanding and the vast research of zillions of psychologists for over a century is nothing if not extremely powerful evidence that humans are not simple at all.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.

Uh-oh...

People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.

Actually, yes people are complicated - although perhaps some more complicated than others. But if people aren't complicated or deep, necssarily they are easily understood. And yet the level of miscommunication, misunderstanding and the vast research of zillions of psychologists for over a century is nothing if not extremely powerful evidence that humans are not simple at all.

It really depends on what you mean by simple, or even deep. I think alot of what people think of as deep are simple character traits or personal preferences, that in and of themselves are very easily understood. Even the ones that seem contradicting are simple to understand.

Someone has arachnophobia? Check, fear of spiders. They have a pet Tarantula. Check. Its not some great theory on the complexity of the human condition and what does this mean for me!! Its just two facts, both simple.
Miscommunications and misunderstandings aren't deep or complex, they're simple.
'Did you say you hate cheeseburgers?!'
'No, I said I love them.'
'Oh, okay.'

See? Simple. People are not that complex.

 

[SupahEwok]

I think the popular conception of "deep" characters is just a quick measure of whether some thought is required from the consumer to understand those characters. More thought = more deep.

Barbarossa's motivation may be compelling, but it's pretty simple to understand, and there's not much else to his character (in the first movie).

This is seperate from the conversation of "how much thought is required to make a character deep", which is where much of the debate on whether a character is or is not "deep" takes place.

 

[Trunkage]

My trouble with a lot of "deep" motivations and characters is they just revolve around someone blaming someone/thing else and that's now why they act like an asshat. Bad parenting, bad government/rules, bullies, bad treatment by corporation, etc. It all seems the same.

The obvious problem being that this is what causes most people to do stupid things so I don't usually see things as deep. Complex may be a better term for me.

The other problem I have is the 'One Bad Day' syndrome of blaming everything on one event. Usually that's just the last straw.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think this is a good example of a simple measures of depth. It's certainly not the only one.

* Can you have an actual discussion of the thematic or narrative meaning of a character beyond their role in the plot.

* Is it possible for two people having this discussion to disagree based on their own personal perspective outside the piece of media in question, while both being equally knowledgeable and well informed.

Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.

That's the thing though, he's really not an idiot.

Spoiler

For one, he does save the world. In the cold utilitarian calculus of lives saves versus lives lost, he comes out massively ahead. There's nothing stupid or idiotic about that, and any of us placed in the same position would at least give serious thought to the possibility of sacrificing a few million people to save billions.

The "depth" of Ozymandias isn't really to do with his character, it's to do with the themes he represents, and in particular the critique (which is ultimately the real point of Watchmen) of superheroes as a concept. Like most superheroes, Ozymandias is extremely powerful, he has intelligence and ability beyond ordinary human beings, and like most superheroes, he feels this power makes him responsible to others, that he has to use his superior abilities to help them.

The story of watchmen is about how that combination of power and responsibility, which many, many superhero narratives indulge, is ultimately authoritarian and leads to impossible moral dilemmas. Superman takes responsibility for stopping crime and disasters, but he doesn't take responsibility for solving economic inequality even though he could. Does this mean that every person who dies of poverty or preventable disease in superman's world is his fault? He could, after all, have saved them, only his own moral compunctions held him back. But if he did step in and solve economic inequality, would he be any different to Ozymandias, a tyrant interfering with people's lives because he has power and they don't?

But there's even more to it, because Watchmen is also a general critique of the idea of "benevolent" power. the idea that someone can decide for you what's in your best interests just because they have power and you don't. Real world governments often do behave like Ozymandias. In this sense, there's also a political dimension to the story (Moore, incidentally, is an anarchist) that you should never completely trust authority, even if it seems benevolent, even if it appears to you like superman or batman or any other superhero who only beats up the bad guys and would never do anything evil. And again, it's handled in a subtle and complex way, Ozymandias isn't "wrong", the question isn't whether he saved the world, it's whether he had the right to make that decision. Even then, it's not a sewn up question. A person could genuinely come away believing that he did, but that person would also have to face up to and encounter their inner authoritarianism in a way they wouldn't in most superhero stories.

 

[Squilookle]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

So just to be absolutely clear, you see no difference in character depth between a saver of lives breaking his moral code by making the decision to murder millions in order to bring an end to the threat of annihilation for billions and the immense self doubt that decision instills...

...and a hunter that wants to kill the wabbit?

Yes or No answer, please.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Then I probably worded that phrase incorrectly. In that same post however I stated that it needs to be that setting's equivalent, and in subsequent posts its clear what I meant by that.

Oh, fair enough. Hrmn ... honestly given how batshit insane the mythology of the world I don't buy Gandalf as is to the world with half of the Gandalf to the trilogy. You know, except all that time where he's basically talking himself up. I forget the exact quote.... Something-something most badass thing before the eye of Suaron something-something.

Or how kind of funny and weird it is that Aragorn basically flashes his sword at everyone and is all; "You can look, no touchy..."

Paraphrasing and hyperbolizing. Why is it people take these books so seriously, again? With the right extras and with only a moderate embellishment of story direction, tone and script, I reckon you could transform LotR into a semi-faithful series of comedic musicals about a bunch of people suffering a crippling case of overinflated egos and initially being sent away on a suicide mission just so people could finally be rid of them.

The funny thing is it's not too dissimilar from another instance in the actual canon of the distant past.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why is it people take these books so seriously, again?

Historical reasons, I think, the first successful fantasy books of that kind, and (unfortunately) the template for fantasy forever after.

Miscommunications and misunderstandings aren't deep or complex, they're simple.
'Did you say you hate cheeseburgers?!'
'No, I said I love them.'
'Oh, okay.'

See? Simple. People are not that complex.

That miscommunication/misunderstanding was not deep, no.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

So just to be absolutely clear, you see no difference in character depth between a saver of lives breaking his moral code by making the decision to murder millions in order to bring an end to the threat of annihilation for billions and the immense self doubt that decision instills...

...and a hunter that wants to kill the wabbit?

Yes or No answer, please.

I see a difference in that one is a "a saver of lives breaking his moral code by making the decision to murder millions in order to bring an end to the threat of annihilation for billions and the immense self doubt that decision instills" and the other is "a hunter that wants to kill the wabbit"
Those are, in fact, different words meaning different things. And I'll grant one is more complex than the other. But no, they're not deep in any way.

I think this is a good example of a simple measures of depth. It's certainly not the only one.

* Can you have an actual discussion of the thematic or narrative meaning of a character beyond their role in the plot.

* Is it possible for two people having this discussion to disagree based on their own personal perspective outside the piece of media in question, while both being equally knowledgeable and well informed.

Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.

That's the thing though, he's really not an idiot.

Spoiler

For one, he does save the world. In the cold utilitarian calculus of lives saves versus lives lost, he comes out massively ahead. There's nothing stupid or idiotic about that, and any of us placed in the same position would at least give serious thought to the possibility of sacrificing a few million people to save billions.

The "depth" of Ozymandias isn't really to do with his character, it's to do with the themes he represents, and in particular the critique (which is ultimately the real point of Watchmen) of superheroes as a concept. Like most superheroes, Ozymandias is extremely powerful, he has intelligence and ability beyond ordinary human beings, and like most superheroes, he feels this power makes him responsible to others, that he has to use his superior abilities to help them.

The story of watchmen is about how that combination of power and responsibility, which many, many superhero narratives indulge, is ultimately authoritarian and leads to impossible moral dilemmas. Superman takes responsibility for stopping crime and disasters, but he doesn't take responsibility for solving economic inequality even though he could. Does this mean that every person who dies of poverty or preventable disease in superman's world is his fault? He could, after all, have saved them, only his own moral compunctions held him back. But if he did step in and solve economic inequality, would he be any different to Ozymandias, a tyrant interfering with people's lives because he has power and they don't?

But there's even more to it, because Watchmen is also a general critique of the idea of "benevolent" power. the idea that someone can decide for you what's in your best interests just because they have power and you don't. Real world governments often do behave like Ozymandias. In this sense, there's also a political dimension to the story (Moore, incidentally, is an anarchist) that you should never completely trust authority, even if it seems benevolent, even if it appears to you like superman or batman or any other superhero who only beats up the bad guys and would never do anything evil. And again, it's handled in a subtle and complex way, Ozymandias isn't "wrong", the question isn't whether he saved the world, it's whether he had the right to make that decision. Even then, it's not a sewn up question. A person could genuinely come away believing that he did, but that person would also have to face up to and encounter their inner authoritarianism in a way they wouldn't in most superhero stories.

Ozy fails. That's the thing. He's a genius in that he managed to concoct a plan to out-think a literal God character who can travel through time and be everywhere in the Universe at the same time, and gets that same God to kill to protect that plan. Genius!
But failed to think one of his fellow crime-fighters would keep a journal, and would give that journal to the press. Remember Watchmen ends with the implication that tomorrow everything gets undone, the Cold War is back on, Ozy is exposed and Dr. Manhattan is free. All of it undone by a single journal that the smartest man in the world never saw coming.
That's not a complex character. That's bad writing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

But failed to think one of his fellow crime-fighters would keep a journal, and would give that journal to the press. Remember Watchmen ends with the implication that tomorrow everything gets undone, the Cold War is back on, Ozy is exposed and Dr. Manhattan is free.

When is that implied?

Again, the implication here is rather barefacedly addressed through the conversation between Ozymandias and Manhattan. Adrian, in his only moment of weakness or doubt, asks John whether he did the right thing in the end, to which John replies that nothing ever ends, before teleporting away and leaving Adrian alone and unsettled. It's a great character moment because it reveals Adrian's flaw, that he was so fixated on that moment and preventing that disaster that he never looked ahead of it. He never fully understood the weight he was taking on, or the full implications for what he might also be responsible for in the future, by virtue of taking responsibility now.

But this isn't just a character flaw, it's also a metanarrative critique. Stories are written to have an ending, which means normally in order to make that ending satisfying everything is tied up and resolved, with no loose elements. The only reason to leave anything outstanding is to bait or tease a sequel. Watchmen's resolution is left intentionally open in accordance with the themes of the previous conversation, the story ends but it isn't resolved, the consequences are unknown and unforeseen.

We have no idea what the implications of Rorschach's journal will be. Heck, we don't know when it will even be discovered because we don't actually see anyone reading it. Rorschach never had all the information when he was writing his journal and true to form he sent it to an extreme right wing tabloid with little integrity. I mean, if you were to speculate on everything we know, the chances are Rorschach's journal would be declared a hoax, but perhaps enough people would believe to sow doubt. The journal is an intentional unresolved loose end intended to illustrate the explicit theme of doubt and unpredictability which has already come up several times in the story.

It's not bad writing. Bad writing would be writing a story with no themes, no ideas and nothing to say. Having characters who are perfectly consistent and "realistic" is often the opposite of good writing. Part of fiction is that characters can be "heightened" versions of real people.

Besides, Ozymandias being unable to predict Rorschach's actions. Gee, I wonder if that was foreshadowed in any way. Perhaps if one of them was literally named after and wore a mask based on a projection test in which a person ascribes meaning based on one's own personality characteristics onto an otherwise meaningless image, that would be an explicit enough hint..

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

He still manages to finish his plan, while explaining it to the heroes, so that alone puts him above most comic book villains.

And the extreme measures are kinda justified(from Ozymandias' POV), because he didn't have other, less violent means, like, let's say a magical glove that makes anything possible with a snap of a finger.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Historical reasons, I think, the first successful fantasy books of that kind, and (unfortunately) the template for fantasy forever after.

'Of that kind', yeah ... but generic high fantasy is kind of... Ehhh? Personally I preferred Fair Folk mythology and folklore. Fairies are great. My dad used to tell me stories of Aos Si, and living fortresses of orchards and fruit.

High fantasy is like ... see there's a problem with pure narration and zero allegory. Lovecraft has more in common with ancient stories of the 'Good People' and 'Fair Folk' than anything Tolkienesque.

And honestly, nothing in LotR is anywhere as mysterious, or amazing, or alienesque as some of the stories and pre-Christian/post-Christian adoption tales of the old mythological figures and various things that haunt the nightmares of Man and seek to spread misfortune and beautiful madness.

LotR and high fantasy in general has kind of damaged that storytelling relationship to the mythological past of Western civilization.

The old tales of the 'Fair Folk' were simply better because they dealt with crippling notions of suffering, injustices they couldn't understand (like birth defects), or simply the terror of sapience. And fanciful stories of beautiful madness, of wrenching the spirits of people, of frighteningly beautiful vistas beyond the horizon that will tear the soul asunder with its own insignificance...

That's better than Ringwraiths.

With pure narration, fine ... you can build up the world and construct it, and paint asuper detailed picture. But the whole point of fairytales was to inspire dread, disbelief, fear, and a terror of the unknown and the safety of shuttering the windows at night and bolting them ... otherwise the fates you might visit on your baby sibling (or yourself) if you fail to do so.

Which, you know ... is horrible to tell a child, but the thing is at the same time those types of fairy tales are better. And everybody can do with more of those types of 'Elves' than whatever garbage of pure narration.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

What makes a character deep to me is when they have a clearly enough defined character that you can imagine them in any situation, and then plausibly derive how they would act in such a situation. Hell, isn't this the very basis of all fan fiction? CasualShinji already said pretty much this, but let's see a couple examples:

Let's take Rorschach from Watchmen, for instance. Now let's say he's taken to Hobbiton. Out of his world, out of his element. He'd probably be uneasy, and still be constantly on the watch for "evil". He wouldn't be comfortable in the joviality and happiness of such a place, and would probably think there's something wrong with it.

Let's make the reverse and drop Gandalf in New York City. Depending on where he'd be in the plot of LOTR, first he'd likely try to communicate with anyone he knows. He'd try to figure out where he is and how to return to Middle-Earth. But he probably wouldn't be too much in a hurry to turn down an evening at a jazz bar, or seeing the sights.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Let's make the reverse and drop Gandalf in New York City. Depending on where he'd be in the plot of LOTR, first he'd likely try to communicate with anyone he knows. He'd try to figure out where he is and how to return to Middle-Earth. But he probably wouldn't be too much in a hurry to turn down an evening at a jazz bar, or seeing the sights.

How does that even work? Surely that's the sign of a shallow character. People may like to assume that they could legitimately survive in, say, 2nd Century Rome. But you know, we wouldn't. We'd die. And that's Earth, our own history. Beyond maybe the most hardcore of historical re-enactment types, no ... we'd be utterly lost, we would barely be able to communicate, we'd insult the wrong people, and we'd probably starve pr get the shit kicked out of us by approaching a reasonably dressed person and their bodyguards smacking you in the face with their torch... and then starve.

So unless you want to write a story about Gandalf getting hit by a bus and ending up in the morgue instead of going te to toe with a balrog (there were multiples, not 'the', a) ... I literally can't imagine Gandalf in NYC.

To make that even more plain to see ... how many homeless schizophrenia sufferers do you end up seeing on the street? And they at least have the benefit of experiencing our world in full. Gandalf is that and with no other contextual knowledge.

He's a roadside pancake waiting to happen. Either that or he'll end up with 5 holes in him as soon as he unsheathes his blade after the police accost him. You get people being shot in the U.S. because they won't cross their legs, while lying on their belly, while being ordered to crawl 20 feet across the ground (seriously, how does anybody expect to be able to do that if you're even partly disabled?), all while some fucking arsehole with a rifle is threatening to gun them down... and getting off without any charge.

They'll fucking shoot a crazy man flashing a sword at them.

Because that's our world. That's what happens in it.

I give Gandalf about 20 minutes... precisely because we know for a fact none ofthat happens in his world.

Environment is everything ... if a character is so shallow you can see them just doing stuff outside everything that has instructed them to be as they are, then they're not a very well thought out character.

The fact that applies to us in this world should inform that. People with traumatic childhoods carry that for the rest of their lives even when their socioeconomic situations change. I could grow up in the same suburb as another persn living in today's world, and not truly be able to put myself in their shoes.

This is why writers have to research people before writing characters that might reflect them. The whole basis of 'positive representation' is when someone goes out of their way to perhaps channel the living experiences of minority groups that have very specific, and alien events that happen to them due to that social perception of being a said minority.

I cannot just transport those characters elsewhere, or imagine them, outside the context of their environment ... because their environment is everything to shaping their experiences. That is the definition of deep characters. That you literally cannot imagine them being and feeling as they do in any other environment than the one they experience.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

He still manages to finish his plan, while explaining it to the heroes, so that alone puts him above most comic book villains.

And the extreme measures are kinda justified(from Ozymandias' POV), because he didn't have other, less violent means, like, let's say a magical glove that makes anything possible with a snap of a finger.

But his plan was undone even before he explained. Rorschach already gave his journal to the press before the confrontation, because he knew he would die, and he knew Ozy's plan needed to be told. Everything Ozy does is undone. He looses.

 

[Squilookle]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

He still manages to finish his plan, while explaining it to the heroes, so that alone puts him above most comic book villains.

And the extreme measures are kinda justified(from Ozymandias' POV), because he didn't have other, less violent means, like, let's say a magical glove that makes anything possible with a snap of a finger.

But his plan was undone even before he explained. Rorschach already gave his journal to the press before the confrontation, because he knew he would die, and he knew Ozy's plan needed to be told. Everything Ozy does is undone. He looses.

Oh no you don't- you can't just blindly keep saying the same thing while utterly ignoring a well articulated counterpoint just because it didn't suit you. Here, I'll repost it here to save you the trouble of finding it:

But failed to think one of his fellow crime-fighters would keep a journal, and would give that journal to the press. Remember Watchmen ends with the implication that tomorrow everything gets undone, the Cold War is back on, Ozy is exposed and Dr. Manhattan is free.

When is that implied?

Again, the implication here is rather barefacedly addressed through the conversation between Ozymandias and Manhattan. Adrian, in his only moment of weakness or doubt, asks John whether he did the right thing in the end, to which John replies that nothing ever ends, before teleporting away and leaving Adrian alone and unsettled. It's a great character moment because it reveals Adrian's flaw, that he was so fixated on that moment and preventing that disaster that he never looked ahead of it. He never fully understood the weight he was taking on, or the full implications for what he might also be responsible for in the future, by virtue of taking responsibility now.

But this isn't just a character flaw, it's also a metanarrative critique. Stories are written to have an ending, which means normally in order to make that ending satisfying everything is tied up and resolved, with no loose elements. The only reason to leave anything outstanding is to bait or tease a sequel. Watchmen's resolution is left intentionally open in accordance with the themes of the previous conversation, the story ends but it isn't resolved, the consequences are unknown and unforeseen.

We have no idea what the implications of Rorschach's journal will be. Heck, we don't know when it will even be discovered because we don't actually see anyone reading it. Rorschach never had all the information when he was writing his journal and true to form he sent it to an extreme right wing tabloid with little integrity. I mean, if you were to speculate on everything we know, the chances are Rorschach's journal would be declared a hoax, but perhaps enough people would believe to sow doubt. The journal is an intentional unresolved loose end intended to illustrate the explicit theme of doubt and unpredictability which has already come up several times in the story.

It's not bad writing. Bad writing would be writing a story with no themes, no ideas and nothing to say. Having characters who are perfectly consistent and "realistic" is often the opposite of good writing. Part of fiction is that characters can be "heightened" versions of real people.

Besides, Ozymandias being unable to predict Rorschach's actions. Gee, I wonder if that was foreshadowed in any way. Perhaps if one of them was literally named after and wore a mask based on a projection test in which a person ascribes meaning based on one's own personality characteristics onto an otherwise meaningless image, that would be an explicit enough hint..

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I've never seen any character as deep. But then again I dont see people as deep either.
People aren't that complicated, and it seems that a lot of what people think of as "deep" is just non sequitur personality traits clashing with others.
Ozy from watchmen. Hes a complete genius, and a complete idiot. Wow, how deep.
No, that's just bad writing.

He still manages to finish his plan, while explaining it to the heroes, so that alone puts him above most comic book villains.

And the extreme measures are kinda justified(from Ozymandias' POV), because he didn't have other, less violent means, like, let's say a magical glove that makes anything possible with a snap of a finger.

But his plan was undone even before he explained. Rorschach already gave his journal to the press before the confrontation, because he knew he would die, and he knew Ozy's plan needed to be told. Everything Ozy does is undone. He looses.

Okay, three things here:

Ozymandias' plan was to kill few million people, and frame Manhattan for it, so both sides of the Iron Curtain would blame the doc. Both of these things happened. Now whether that'll bring lasting peace is what he hoped for, and time will tell.

Was there a sequel to Alan Moore's Watchmen, where we see Ozzy's plan failing? Because all we've seen in the original is Rorschach's journal landing in the loony bin, of some local rag gazette. If the contents somehow land in an article, there's the problem of credibility, since the alleged author(widely known as a violent, crazy hobo) is dead.

And finally, i never claimed Ozymandias' plan is without faults, just that it still succeeds, as opposed to most elaborate comic book villain conspiracies.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Before I say anything, Is the Sniper from the movie Phone Booth a deep character?