Character Development:  

Characters are either major or minor and tend to be either static (unchanging) or dynamic (changing). Characters can either be flat or round: a flat character is one who is rather undeveloped, two-dimensional, fairly superficial, and has qualities, characteristics, and traits that could be summed up in a few short sentences or phrases. The character that dominates the story is the major character or protagonist. But a character doesn't have to be a human being. 

A character (even the main character) can be a thing (an alien or a machine) or even a place (like a country or a geographical location). In the recent blockbuster film, March of the Penguins , for example, the main characters are Penguins (the protagonists) struggling against the fierce Antarctic storms. And sometimes, you might not ever even see the story's major character. 

Sometimes the main character is someone who is only talked about and never seen or heard, but you know everything about them – you get a full character sketch! Or perhaps you learn about a character in hindsight (as a memory or after death), someone who is make-believe, or some alter-ego. For example, the wife and later ex-wife of Niles Crane, on Frasier, Maris Crane, is someone whose unusual characteristics became so well-known that despite the producer's original plan to reveal her (or even one plan to murder her), she remained a major character, despite being kept out of sight and off-screen. You can learn about your character/s in a number of ways, including: 

• Descriptions about their physical traits: Are they young? old? Are their physical movements stiff and reserved? Or are they fluid and free? Do they frown a lot? Or smile a lot? Etc. 

• What they wear or how they are dressed: Are they impeccably dressed all the time? Wear rags? Sporty clothes? Does attire reflect occupation/class/or economic status? Or mental state of mind? Etc. 

• Through dialogue: To whom do they most often speak? Or not speak? How do they speak? With an accent? Does that reflect geographical background? Do they speak rarely? Often? What do they say? Do they tend to be more philosophical? Analytical? Comedic? Tone? Etc. 

• Their actions – most often particularly as they relate to their opinions and/or points of view: Do their actions reflect their opinions? Or go counter to them? Are they helpful to others when they see others in distress? Or do they tend to ignore others in need? In crises, do they act quickly and with confidence, or do they freeze up? When they say they'll do something, do they do it? Are they violent? Gentle? Do they have any particular hobbies or do anything in particular that reveal anything about their personalities? Etc. 

• Emotions: Do they emit any particular emotions on any regular or irregular basis? Are they generally sad, happy, angry? 

• How they perceive themselves and/or how others perceive them: Do the characters see themselves as worthless? Or do they appear too self-confident? Do they sit in a corner and not talk (shy?) or seem to dominate the conversations? How do others seem to perceive them? (the same as they seem to perceive themselves or the opposite?) 

Once you've identified character characteristics, you can then begin asking WHY. Why do your characters dress, act, seem to think, talk and feel the way they do? And what significance does it have to the overall story? 

When writing a paper, this is one of the most important elements in delving into the significance of any story, or the analysis of any paper, the WHY . . . followed by the HOW . . . followed by the EXAMPLE, but not necessarily in this order. How you present this information is up to you, as long as it make sense, is cohesive, and works well with the overall flow of your paper. 

Imagine yourself meeting a new person or a small group of new people at a conference or a day event. For whatever reason, you are put into this new situation and have close contact with these people for an entire day (or perhaps a weekend), learning much about them by the end of the day. By the time you get back home that evening and your friend, partner, or spouse asks you how your day was, you will probably begin by giving an overall impression of the day, how it went, what it was like (which would more or less be the equivalent of the “plot” of your day's “story”), followed by a description of some particular person (or character) or group of people that struck you. Just as with your description of your day, you would more than likely begin describing that person (or group of people) in a similar way – with your overall first impressions (which is very similar to the above listings of character characteristics). 

Most descriptions are often then followed by examples: If you begin to tell someone how “strange” a person was . . . or how a particular person was so “annoying,” you then often follow up with examples of HOW that person was strange (and the equivalent to this in a text would be passages or quotes that exemplifies your impression, or what we call “textual evidence”). For example: You say Jane Doe was really “strange,” but how was she strange? (and what exactly does “strange” mean – you need to explain . . .). So then you continue . . . “Well, she was wearing this business suit and was extremely articulate, as if she'd had an excellent education, but then she giggled frequently at inappropriate times, was blowing big bubbles with her chewing gum, and hopped and skipped in and out of conference rooms like a five-year old.” At first impression (as the hearer of this story, this does seem “strange,” but you need to not assume that we make this connection; you need to tell us WHY this is what you are calling “strange”). In a paper, this is called “backing up your argument.” 

Your argument in this case is that Jane Doe was really strange. You've given an example, now continue to back up your argument by explaining, EVEN IF it seems obvious. So WHY does your example seem strange (what's strange about wearing professional clothing and popping bubble gum)? You might respond that what she's wearing seems incongruous with how she's acting – that she dresses as if she is an adult, responsible, professional woman, and yet she ACTS as if she were a child, and that in this particular society, that presents a conflict and would naturally draw attention. At the very least, it is something worth noting and exploring further. From here, you can go on to ask and answer all sorts of other questions that will help further your understanding of your character/s and ultimately, your story. How did this person's behavior and/or appearance affect the rest of the group? How did people respond to her? Did she play a major role in the day (or story?). Etc., etc.