I’m glad it was brought up again. I have been relevantly silent do to the fact that I didn’t really know how articulate my understand of the use of “flat characters”. What jkc10001 says in “The Brutality of Man, The Art of Animals” was a new perspective that I haven’t thought of just yet. I don’t think it’s wrong, in fact it helped me to a conclusion that we see flat characters as a result of our point of view. I feel that we see ourselves as having interesting and exciting lives but I can’t help to feel that to others our lives are lived through cliche melodrama. While the verbiage I use seems as if this is negative I don’t think this is so. I think it helps me understand further why characters react the way they do. Every time I ask why a character makes a decision I feel is irresponsible or doesn’t make sense I look to real world application and realize many real decisions are not always clear in their moment. I feel that’s the most brilliant part of the book. The earthy development of characters. The best connection I feel to these characters is the anarchist views. Consider the idea that connotation behind anarchism as a fallacy and the reality that anarchism is the anti-top-bottom society structure. Anarchist ideals are typically bred from the disenfranchised and their long term goal is the interdependent man. If I were to tie this ideal of anarchism back to trauma I’d argue anyone’s life because a form of anarchist agenda when they recognize their worth is substantially increased when they can self actualize. And I feel a lot of those views are being portrayed through Morgan’s characterization. I had to dig deeper just as you’d have to with anyone stranger. I also don’t feel this is flat but a pretty complicated process and character development.