What exactly is a 3 dimensional character? And what are they?
Try thinking about it this way. It may be oversimplified but it's a good starting point.The first dimension, being the first way a character is appraised, is appearance. Looks, skin color, height, scars, clothing, etc. Easy enough.The second dimension is the persona that the character chooses to display to the world. Does he or she appear to be kind or selfish, peaceful or combative, formal or casual, etc? All writers can handle this one.But here's where it gets tough. The third dimension is the part of their persona the character is trying to conceal but is dragged to the surface by the story. It is almost always an inner contradiction to at least one of the other dimensions.An example: In the film A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise is a handsome and supremely confident Navy lawyer. He appears to take enormous pride in his plea bargaining skills but inside, he fears going to trial because he believes he can never measure up to the legendary courtroom skills of his father. The life and death stakes of the story force his third dimension into the open.In Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart has convinced everyone he's a cold hearted man who only operates in his own self interest. But little kindnesses, revealed only to the audience, suggest something else. Eventually, the hole in his heart is exposed and healed, allowing him to openly act selflessly when it counts the most.So it comes down to inner contradictions, but not contradictions for their own sake. The story must make it so they can no longer co-exist.Even secondary characters can be three dimensional as long as what they are trying to achieve in your story brings out that third dimension
What makes someone one-dimensional and how does someone avoid being like that?
To be one dimensional you would dismiss any and all beliefs that do not fit into your tiny box. Human beings are beginning to realize that their reality isn’t all that it appears to be and more studies are being done that support this. Example one may not believe in reencarnation but why are prestigious universities all dedicating millions of dollars to the development of research behind this question? Why is their research indicating that we do reencarnate from past lives? How else would you explain these findings? A one dimensional person would believe there is nothing after death and Dismiss all relevant evidence to the contrary. Another example would be astral projection. Again studies have proven that it’s a real phenomenon and that there is actually a vast world inside of all of us. Reaching this world and exploring its limits is what propels ordinary citizens to become influential people. A one dimensional person would say it’s all a figment of overactive imaginations. I personally pity people who have one dimensional views of the world. Arguing your beliefs with these people are downright pointless as they will never reach their potential in this lifetime. When one does figure out their potential it becomes very apparent that entertainment is a tool being used to reach out to humankind to plant a seed. The entertainment industry is one of the biggest things propelling humankind forward along with the technology that has gone along with it. Virtual reality in and of itself is a glimpse inside a 4d dimension. It’s far from a 4d dimension but it plants the seed of what is possible in all of our minds. Movies and shows such as Men in black, fringe, West world, and the matrix are all created to plant that seed. A one dimensional person looks at this and thinks fantasy not reality, however more and more humans are waking up because all of the seeds that were planted and beginning to sprout and we are finding correlation between these ideas and our own realities! Mass awakening is beginning to happen and it’s exciting to see what else we are capable of once we begin to master the 4th dimension.
Can anybody explain dimensional analysis?
dimensional analysis means using the dimensions in an equation to ensure that the correct operations are being performed. for instance, the units of each are: s = position, IE distance (m) a = acceleration (m/s^2) t = time (s) k = (no dimension, negligible) so substituting (using dimensional analysis) gives: m = (m/s^2)^M * (s)^N m = (m/s^2)^1 * s^2 m = m/s^28s^2 m = m This shows that M=1 and N=2 is correct. You can gain no information about k. Note that k was assumed to be dimensionless. If this assumption were wrong, then the information about M and N would possibly be wrong as well.
Is it even possible for us to make a one dimensional object?
First, what is a “one-dimensional object” anyway? Well, it’s something that has length but lacks width or height (note that length, width, and height are defined arbitrarily to refer to the number of dimensions the object takes up). That is, a mathematical line (note, though, that it’s thus far impossible for us to graphically represent a true line as even computer pixels and ink possess more than one dimension).When it comes to known matter, everything takes up the three dimensions (length, width, and height). Not even elementary particles are truly “point particles” in the literal sense of occupying zero space. For example, an electron has a radius of something less than [math]10^−18[/math] m, which means that they already occupy three dimensions.The closest model to a one-dimensional object would be the strings of string theory - though even then there’s the issue of whether they actually would occupy only a single dimension or if they’re just too small for our tools to make a measurement.
What is the meaning of a "two-dimensional" character?
Objects in real life have three dimensions: height, width, and depth. Images in a photo or on a screen have two dimensions; they lack depth.A “two-dimensional” character is said to lack depth; that is, one who has few identifying features and not much of a personality. The audience or reader is given no background information and no explanation for why the character acts or thinks the way he/she does. They are said to be “flat” and often unengaging and uninteresting; one stereotype is the “cardboard villain” or “cut-out hero.” They are the same person at the beginning and end of the story, having gone through the motions of the plot, but not changing or learning anything. It would be impossible to say that any action is “out of character” because what is typical or normal for that person is not clear.It's pretty much impossible to tell a story without characters. If two-dimensional characters serve a minor or utilitarian purpose, it’s not important to know much about them. Even a 2-D character at the story’s center is not necessarily bad; character “depth” should be in proportion to the role’s importance to the story. Or how much stuff gets blown up.One, Two, and Three Dimensional Characters and How to Use Them2D and 3D charactersThe Cure For Cardboard Villain SyndromeCharacter Depth - TV TropesDynamic Character - TV TropesFlat Character - TV TropesCharacter Development - TV Tropes
Lord of the Rings - One Dimensional Characters?
I think you're oversimplifying things. While it's true that there's a lot of black and white going on in Middle Earth, there's more to character development than being good or evil, or even struggling with one or the other. For example, what about the bravery required to allow Frodo to take the ring to Mordor? Or to allow Sam to go with him? What about Eowyn's struggle with feeling confined by her society's restrictive gender roles? Boromir's struggle to overcome the temptation of the Ring? All four are characters who clearly fall into the "good" side of the equation, and yet they have a lot more going on than just being good.