John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> Instead of adding a third dimension to the visual experience of _the 
> Phantom Menace_, you instead should have done one or more of these instead:

> * Added a second dimension to the characters;
> * Added a second dimension to the plot;
> * Subtracted a Jar-Jar from the entire work.

  Why has "one-dimensional" become what was previously referred to as
"two-dimensional" when talking about characterization and personality?
In fact, the former has replaced the latter so much that the latter is
not used *at all* anymore.

  The figure of speech (ie. "two-dimensional" vs. "three-dimensional"
character) has to do with the figurative depth of a character's personality.
A well-developed character has depth to it, while a very straightforward
and superficial characters is "flat" (iow. "two-dimensional").

  Where did the "one-dimensional" come from? It does not describe a "flat"
character.

  Why is this rant relevant? Because your suggestion to "add a second
dimension to the characters" is ironic. If you make them "two-dimensional"
they are still flat, without any depth to them. In other words, it wouldn't
help at all.

  It should have been "add a third dimension to the characters" for it
to make sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message