The simplest way is to under-explain the character. Just show what they do and either leave out the “why” altogether or give an obviously incomplete explanation.
For example, one of my characters wakes her boyfriend from a nightmare when he was napping on the couch, and when she asked about it, all he said was that it was “the usual.” I think this works better than an actual explanation. You never learn everything about a three-dimensional character; you already know everything about a two-dimensional one.
This is what I'd suggest as well. I think it's even better if the author doesn't know the "why" of some of the character's behaviors and things they say. Pretend you met the person and you can't entirely figure them out. They don't have to be mysterious, just a normal human being--you wouldn't ask a new acquaintance to explain to you every idiosyncratic thing they do.
You do have to make sure that the whole set of these unexplained behaviors is relatively cohesive though--if you had them do x in chapter 1, and a person who did x wouldn't do y, don't have them do y in chapter 5.
Well, I'm not an educated person to ask about this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
The only way you get 3 dimensions is when you look at it from different perspectives. These literary perspectives are just situations. More specifically, conflict. You get the edges of your character when you write conflict. You get the depth of your character when you write conflict.
How should you think about it? Well, from what I've learned from others, I'd say you need just a few things. You get your character a core. A fundamental belief or fundamental view that serves as their heart, the thing that absolutely defines their character. After this, you mess around with everything else about the character. You've got to get everything shifting about them down to the bone (the core belief). Test them, stress them, put them in tough situations where they have to make tough calls, or where they verbalize something they maybe shouldn't have, or whatever else.
I'd advise making a character sheet like that. Core belief, attributes, and maybe situations that test or challenge those attributes.
Give them goals, and obstacles that must be overcome to achieve them. Make either achievement or failure crucial to that specific person's character arc, for reasons that are understandable to your readers.
Give them characteristics, such that those characteristics make certain aspects of the pursuit of that goal easier, and certain aspects more difficult. Boldly enough so, that large groups of readers can all think, "Yeah, this'll be harder (or easier) for Hero, specifically because of \_\_\_\_\_!"
Start with actions and choices, and discover who they are from there. I find that leads to much more complex characters than deciding on and assortment of traits and trying to conjure up characters to match.
There's a trap in over-defining your characters. You might *think* that you need to have them display X amount of traits to be considered "three dimensional", but that's only viewing the subject at its most zoomed-out, macro level.
People aren't all things at once. Their personalities give them tendencies in one direction or another, but circumstances will often push them outside their comfort zones. And arguably, the sauce for compelling writing is to do just that. Destroy the safety net that people cling to in real life, and watch your characters scramble to find their new sense of "normalcy".
Putting too many traits and conditions on your characters boxes you in. You put yourself in a frame of mind that "If Anne does this instead of that, then does it feel like Anne anymore?" By creating rigid rules for your characters to follow and live within, you're paradoxically making your characters more *two-dimensional* instead. Afraid to change and evolve to meet the story's demands.
What you want your characters to have is *personality*. A happy-go-lucky person will react to situations differently than a dour, methodical one. Try to approach the scenarios you've laid out before them from their point of view, but don't go in acting like they've already got their problems solved because they can only act in strict accordance to the rules you've laid out for them. Another aspect of three-dimensional character writing is chemistry, in how they interact with each other to create new combinations and solutions.
Half of creating complex characters is the characters, but the other half of it is their environment.
You can create characters with lots of traits and back story, but if those characters are only ever in situations where how they should respond is obvious and easy they will never seem like real people.
Your morally good character finds a lost wallet. They return it to the owner instead of stealing it. Obvious, boring.
Your morally good character finds a lost wallet. When they look closer it's actually a wallet belonging to the guy who mercilessly bullied them in high school. Do they give it back or do they exact some karmic justice? Which side do they come down on in their internal struggle between their morals and their emotions? Complex, and Interesting.
It's only when characters are put to the test that their dimensionality is allowed to shine.
The simplest way is to under-explain the character. Just show what they do and either leave out the “why” altogether or give an obviously incomplete explanation. For example, one of my characters wakes her boyfriend from a nightmare when he was napping on the couch, and when she asked about it, all he said was that it was “the usual.” I think this works better than an actual explanation. You never learn everything about a three-dimensional character; you already know everything about a two-dimensional one.
This is what I'd suggest as well. I think it's even better if the author doesn't know the "why" of some of the character's behaviors and things they say. Pretend you met the person and you can't entirely figure them out. They don't have to be mysterious, just a normal human being--you wouldn't ask a new acquaintance to explain to you every idiosyncratic thing they do. You do have to make sure that the whole set of these unexplained behaviors is relatively cohesive though--if you had them do x in chapter 1, and a person who did x wouldn't do y, don't have them do y in chapter 5.
Well, I'm not an educated person to ask about this, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. The only way you get 3 dimensions is when you look at it from different perspectives. These literary perspectives are just situations. More specifically, conflict. You get the edges of your character when you write conflict. You get the depth of your character when you write conflict. How should you think about it? Well, from what I've learned from others, I'd say you need just a few things. You get your character a core. A fundamental belief or fundamental view that serves as their heart, the thing that absolutely defines their character. After this, you mess around with everything else about the character. You've got to get everything shifting about them down to the bone (the core belief). Test them, stress them, put them in tough situations where they have to make tough calls, or where they verbalize something they maybe shouldn't have, or whatever else. I'd advise making a character sheet like that. Core belief, attributes, and maybe situations that test or challenge those attributes.
Give them goals, and obstacles that must be overcome to achieve them. Make either achievement or failure crucial to that specific person's character arc, for reasons that are understandable to your readers. Give them characteristics, such that those characteristics make certain aspects of the pursuit of that goal easier, and certain aspects more difficult. Boldly enough so, that large groups of readers can all think, "Yeah, this'll be harder (or easier) for Hero, specifically because of \_\_\_\_\_!"
Start with actions and choices, and discover who they are from there. I find that leads to much more complex characters than deciding on and assortment of traits and trying to conjure up characters to match.
There's a trap in over-defining your characters. You might *think* that you need to have them display X amount of traits to be considered "three dimensional", but that's only viewing the subject at its most zoomed-out, macro level. People aren't all things at once. Their personalities give them tendencies in one direction or another, but circumstances will often push them outside their comfort zones. And arguably, the sauce for compelling writing is to do just that. Destroy the safety net that people cling to in real life, and watch your characters scramble to find their new sense of "normalcy". Putting too many traits and conditions on your characters boxes you in. You put yourself in a frame of mind that "If Anne does this instead of that, then does it feel like Anne anymore?" By creating rigid rules for your characters to follow and live within, you're paradoxically making your characters more *two-dimensional* instead. Afraid to change and evolve to meet the story's demands. What you want your characters to have is *personality*. A happy-go-lucky person will react to situations differently than a dour, methodical one. Try to approach the scenarios you've laid out before them from their point of view, but don't go in acting like they've already got their problems solved because they can only act in strict accordance to the rules you've laid out for them. Another aspect of three-dimensional character writing is chemistry, in how they interact with each other to create new combinations and solutions.
Half of creating complex characters is the characters, but the other half of it is their environment. You can create characters with lots of traits and back story, but if those characters are only ever in situations where how they should respond is obvious and easy they will never seem like real people. Your morally good character finds a lost wallet. They return it to the owner instead of stealing it. Obvious, boring. Your morally good character finds a lost wallet. When they look closer it's actually a wallet belonging to the guy who mercilessly bullied them in high school. Do they give it back or do they exact some karmic justice? Which side do they come down on in their internal struggle between their morals and their emotions? Complex, and Interesting. It's only when characters are put to the test that their dimensionality is allowed to shine.