I have six flat-characters and two-rounded, the protaganist and his love interest. Eight characters is pushing the boundaries, when five or six is considered to be the norm. But they are all vital to the plot and storyline.
A brief explanation of what I mean to novice writers: A flat character is a minor character in a work of fiction who does not undergo substantial change or growth in the course of a story. Also referred to as "two-dimensional characters" or "static characters," flat characters play a supporting role to the main character..
A round character is a major character in a work of fiction who encounters conflict and is changed by it. Round characters are more fully developed and better described than flat, or static, characters.
Who is this "Shakespeare" you refer to? Has he got anything made into film?
Apart from that...
I do see the main point here - but...
I think that the principle of "only one dominant character" would, at the least, need to be taken gently.
Okay, making a specific POV dominant may be beneficial but many texts switch between what one character is seeing/thinking/doing and at least one other fairly frequently. This isn't always with reference to a single dominant POV.
I accept that it might be argued that one will always be dominant - but is this really the case?
In addition I do not think that (as it seems to be implied) a story is necessarily carried forward by any one character - dominant or not. Surely a story can be focused around an event or carried on a stream of events?
Working on two stories alternately for some months I am very aware that in the one the use of only a single perspective can become heavy and require some considerable engineering so that there are reasonable grounds for that person to be at least aware of certain developments. (This in fact concerns me). In the other story I switch regularly between two main people. This is much easier both to write and to read. Perhaps it could be said that there are two stories intertwined?
One thing that I definitely feel is that "creativity" shouldn't be confined by setting out imperatives. My view is that "if it works, let it work".
I also think that it is important to trust the reader to use their brain to figure things out and/or take on board the need to follow complexities. Although it hasn't so obviously crept into literature I think that the dumbing down that we see in TV and film is a very negative, retrograde progression. (On the ohter hand I don't think that any text should flip scene and/or characters anywhere near as often as those media increasingly do).
Just rmembered! That Shakespeare guy... He was someone (a struggling playright IIRC) in that film with Gwyneth Paltrow... Now there's someone to be remembered...
David
I have.
It was crap editing, IMO. The piece was all single MC POV apart from that one, relatively unimportant paragraph. If it had been a story of mine I'd have kicked myself.
I am splitting hairs, though, just as an example, because the rest of the book was fine :)
Jonathon. 'In one of Tom Connery's 'Markham of the Marines' novels he gave two Spanish infantrymen thoughts and the characters only appeared in a single paragraph, which really grated on me. So MCs have a POV, secondary characters may or may not, depending on their importance to the story, and tertiary characters none at all.'
I do not know what the Spanish infantrymans' thoughts were, or how important their thoughts were to moving the story along. Flat characters frequently have vital information to relay to the reader. But they are not fleshed-out, and do not go through a period of growth like the main character.
Shakespeare, and famous authors, have used bit part players with a few lines, or thoughts, intelligently.
It can be useful to have a throwaway character say, think or describe something that helps the storyline and plot to evolve. Especially, if it would be out of character for any of the other characters to do so.
If the book you are explaining was a best seller, or by an acclaimed author, then ask yourself why that paragraph was not cut.