Characterization is the set of techniques authors use to construct fictional persons. Direct characterization states qualities explicitly ('she was cruel'); indirect characterization reveals character through speech, thought, effect on others, actions, and looks (the STEAL acronym). Literary analysis attends to how indirect methods create richer, more complex characterizations because they invite inference and sometimes irony. The gap between what a character says and does is itself analytically significant.
Pick a character and list only what the text directly tells you, then list what you infer from indirect evidence. Analyzing the gap between stated identity and revealed behavior often yields the strongest analytical insights.
When you learned close reading, you practiced attending to the texture of individual words and sentences — noticing what a text does, not just what it says. Characterization analysis applies that same close attention specifically to fictional persons. The first distinction to master is between direct and indirect characterization. Direct characterization tells you what a character is like in plain terms: "He was a ruthless man." Indirect characterization shows you, through evidence that requires interpretation: the character fires an employee on Christmas Eve without flinching.
The STEAL acronym organizes the five channels of indirect characterization: Speech (what the character says and how), Thought (what the character thinks when we have access to their inner life), Effect on others (how other characters react to them), Actions (what the character does, especially under pressure), and Looks (physical description, if handled interpretively). Each channel gives different information. Speech can be self-serving and unreliable; actions under pressure tend to be the most revealing because they are harder to control.
The most analytically powerful move in characterization analysis is to examine the gap between channels — especially between what a character says and what they do. A character who claims to be generous but never gives anything away is not ambiguous; the contradiction is a characterization in itself. Authors create these gaps deliberately to signal unreliable self-knowledge, self-deception, dramatic irony, or complexity. Spotting the gap and explaining its function is the signature move of strong characterization essays.
One misconception to shed: description is not characterization. Noting that a character has pale skin and nervous hands is description — raw material. Characterization requires an interpretive claim: these details suggest anxiety, illness, a life lived indoors, or some other quality relevant to the character's role in the narrative. A good analytical sentence connects the evidence to the inference explicitly.
Finally, the distinction between flat and round characters is analytic, not evaluative. Flat characters have one or two dominant traits and don't change; round characters are complex and capable of development. Flat characters are not failures of craft — a comic villain, a stock foil, a symbolic figure may be perfectly well-served by flatness. The question for analysis is not "is this character well-drawn?" but "what does this characterization choice accomplish in the text?"
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.