2 added 195 characters in body
source | link

I think the risk you run is that the characters will not be memorable, and the reader will have trouble telling them apart, or caring. Chameleon characters are usually most effective when there is only one of them. (Even in Salman Rushdie's The Moor's Last Sigh, where there are several, only one is ever "on stage" at a time.)

Consider Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. All the characters are lying about something, or misrepresenting themselves in some way. But they are essentially pieces in a chess match, or a jigsaw puzzle. They have interesting backstories, but ultimately they are just stock characters placed there to advance the murder-mystery plot. It works for this story, and this type of story, where the characters are disposable and interchangeable. But it's not as good for a more modern, more psychological story, where we need to actually care about the characters and have them come alive for us.

Also, even Christie's work has at least one stable, non-chameleon character --the detective, the firm foundation around which the rest of the plot can revolve.

I think the risk you run is that the characters will not be memorable, and the reader will have trouble telling them apart, or caring.

Consider Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. All the characters are lying about something, or misrepresenting themselves in some way. But they are essentially pieces in a chess match, or a jigsaw puzzle. They have interesting backstories, but ultimately they are just stock characters placed there to advance the murder-mystery plot. It works for this story, and this type of story, where the characters are disposable and interchangeable. But it's not as good for a more modern, more psychological story, where we need to actually care about the characters and have them come alive for us.

Also, even Christie's work has at least one stable, non-chameleon character --the detective, the firm foundation around which the rest of the plot can revolve.

I think the risk you run is that the characters will not be memorable, and the reader will have trouble telling them apart, or caring. Chameleon characters are usually most effective when there is only one of them. (Even in Salman Rushdie's The Moor's Last Sigh, where there are several, only one is ever "on stage" at a time.)

Consider Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. All the characters are lying about something, or misrepresenting themselves in some way. But they are essentially pieces in a chess match, or a jigsaw puzzle. They have interesting backstories, but ultimately they are just stock characters placed there to advance the murder-mystery plot. It works for this story, and this type of story, where the characters are disposable and interchangeable. But it's not as good for a more modern, more psychological story, where we need to actually care about the characters and have them come alive for us.

Also, even Christie's work has at least one stable, non-chameleon character --the detective, the firm foundation around which the rest of the plot can revolve.

1
source | link

I think the risk you run is that the characters will not be memorable, and the reader will have trouble telling them apart, or caring.

Consider Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. All the characters are lying about something, or misrepresenting themselves in some way. But they are essentially pieces in a chess match, or a jigsaw puzzle. They have interesting backstories, but ultimately they are just stock characters placed there to advance the murder-mystery plot. It works for this story, and this type of story, where the characters are disposable and interchangeable. But it's not as good for a more modern, more psychological story, where we need to actually care about the characters and have them come alive for us.

Also, even Christie's work has at least one stable, non-chameleon character --the detective, the firm foundation around which the rest of the plot can revolve.