[Prestidigitweeze]

Since I've posted inoffensive definitions of the terms to which you objected and argued against your other inferences, merely pointing to your original post doesn't quite work. That post doesn't contain any answers (let alone new ones) to my arguments and explanation, nor does it nullify the harmlessness of Forster's ideas about flat and round characters. In the context of this exchange, "as I said" seems strangely meaningless.

Since Dickens used unchanging characters deliberately, there's no point in asserting that such characters aren't flat. If you construed the point to suggest that Dickens' main characters were flat, then you've attributed a statement to me that I didn't and wouldn't make.

Whatever else one thinks about Dickens, it would be foolish to assert that his main characters didn't change over time. David Copperfield is an example of why that argument won't stand.