# To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.



## Jack of all trades (Apr 6, 2018)

To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.

Recently a member posted a remark about how no character should be free of flaws, or perhaps it was that all characters should have flaws. Either way, the point is the same -- perfect characters are not good.

Yet when I look at characters that were well loved, they were pretty nearly perfect.

Sherlock Holmes could tell as he was being introduced, and without apparently looking at the person from head to toes, what occupation that person held, where he or she had been that day, and so forth. All accurately.

When Holmes was killed off, there was a public outcry. His death had to be reversed to appease the masses. 

Hercules Poirot was equally perfect, solving crimes that the police believed were accidents, and stopping international crime rings. Occasional utterings of "I am an imbecile!" aside, he was apparently a genius who tolerated the less clever. Did he have a choice? It seemed even Superintendent Battle, chief of Scotland Yard, couldn't hold a candle to Poirot.

When Poirot died, it made it in the newspapers. Since Agatha Christie had died, he couldn't be resurrected. At least not easily. But it was not for lack of want that Poirot remained in the grave.

Now I realize these are both detectives. So maybe readers just like perfect detectives. 

Harry Potter was hugely successful. There's no denying that! It could be because it was so fanciful without being a totally new world, sort of bridging fantasy and reality. Or it could be Harry, himself.

Harry was very talented and intelligent, yet compassionate. He was bullied, without becoming (too much) of a bully. He showed more marurity than most his age. Practically perfect? Sort of. At least in the early books. And well loved. 

So. This leads to two questions. 

Do *readers* like perfect characters? 

And why do writers prefer flawed ones?


----------



## Pete_C (Apr 7, 2018)

I can't speak about the others but Holmes was very flawed. His narcotics abuse, his arrogance and the fact that Watson was the real sleuth were all character flaws that were typical of Conan Doyle's humour. In Brigadier Gerard he amplified such flaws, but Sherlock Holmes has underlying humour based on similar personality flaws.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 7, 2018)

Good topic, Jack.

On the subject of Holmes, I think you are assessing it wrong and making some leaps in the premise of your question. While it is true that Holmes was very loved, being loved does not make you perfect. Stephen Hawking was loved, he was also an adulterer. And Holmes absolutely had his demons to.

Anyway, there's a term widely used for a fictional character who displays unrealistic levels of perfection, a Mary Sue.



> Mary Sue stories—the adventures of the youngest and smartest ever person to graduate from the academy and ever get a commission at such a tender age. Usually characterized by unprecedented skill in everything from art to zoology, including karate and arm-wrestling. This character can also be found burrowing her way into the good graces/heart/mind of one of the Big Three [Kirk, Spock, and McCoy], if not all three at once. She saves the day by her wit and ability, and, if we are lucky, has the good grace to die at the end, being grieved by the entire ship.



I think whether or not one can still get away with this kind of perfection in 2018 largely comes down to the audience. Children, I think, will always favor a sense of unattainable perfection in protagonists. I write stories to tell my four year old sometimes and learned very quickly he associates even the most minor flaw with 'badness' and expects any 'good' character to be basically Christlike. As children develop I am certain they mostly become more tolerant and adventurous with their tastes, but not this four year old. He wants a Mary Sue, and nothing else.

I think this thinking is partly behind the popularity Harry Potter. Potter, in my opinion, is absolutely a Mary Sue. One who bears no resemblance to any real child ever (even in caricature form, like Ron Weasley does) and whose talents are given little explanation other than 'because he's Harry' (Are we really to believe that in an entire school he is the best on a broomstick?) and yet he is clearly supposed to be a kid in a rags-to-riches tale. I don't buy that, and its one of my few problems with reading the series as an adult. Rowling does, much to her credit, attempt to put some chicanes in Harry's character arc, beginning with the sorting hat being unsure whether to place him in Slytherin (evil) or Gryffindor (good) and ultimately yeah there are arguments and conflict and a few bad decisions. The trouble is it always feels like tokenism for me. I never find myself questioning Harry's goodness, much like I never find myself questioning Voldemort's evil. It's straight up kids fantasy fiction, and its fine to that degree.

I prefer flawed characters because I am flawed and so is everybody I know, it's as simple as that. I don't want characters who are entirely erratic, but when I read or write about a character without any issues or capacity for nastiness whatsoever I am inclined to find them disingenuous, evasive even. I certainly don't find them of interest.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 7, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Good topic, Jack.


Thanks. 



Blackstone said:


> On the subject of Holmes, I think you are assessing it wrong and making some leaps in the premise of your question. While it is true that Holmes was very loved, being loved does not make you perfect. Stephen Hawking was loved, he was also an adulterer. And Holmes absolutely had his demons to.


You are the one making leaps. I never said being loved makes you (or a character) perfect. I am asking if readers like, or love, perfect characters. 



Blackstone said:


> Anyway, there's a term widely used for a fictional character who displays unrealistic levels of perfection, a Mary Sue.


I am familiar with Star Trek, but not Mary Sue. Which episode?



Blackstone said:


> I think whether or not one can still get away with this kind of perfection in 2018 largely comes down to the audience. Children, I think, will always favor a sense of unattainable perfection in protagonists. I write stories to tell my four year old sometimes and learned very quickly he associates even the most minor flaw with 'badness' and expects any 'good' character to be basically Christlike. As children develop I am certain they mostly become more tolerant and adventurous with their tastes, but not this four year old. He wants a Mary Sue, and nothing else.
> 
> I think this thinking is partly behind the popularity Harry Potter. Potter, in my opinion, is absolutely a Mary Sue. One who bears no resemblance to any real child ever (even in caricature form, like Ron Weasley does) and whose talents are given little explanation other than 'because he's Harry' (Are we really to believe that in an entire school he is the best on a broomstick?) and yet he is clearly supposed to be a kid in a rags-to-riches tale. I don't buy that, and its one of my few problems with reading the series as an adult. Rowling does, much to her credit, attempt to put some chicanes in Harry's character arc, beginning with the sorting hat being unsure whether to place him in Slytherin (evil) or Gryffindor (good) and ultimately yeah there are arguments and conflict and a few bad decisions. The trouble is it always feels like tokenism for me. I never find myself questioning Harry's goodness, much like I never find myself questioning Voldemort's evil. It's straight up kids fantasy fiction, and its fine to that degree.


Harry Potter was loved by children AND adults. So there's a flaw in your logic. 



Blackstone said:


> I prefer flawed characters because I am flawed and so is everybody I know, it's as simple as that. I don't want characters who are entirely erratic, but when I read or write about a character without any issues or capacity for nastiness whatsoever I am inclined to find them disingenuous, evasive even. I certainly don't find them of interest.


To each his own.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 7, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> I can't speak about the others but Holmes was very flawed. His narcotics abuse, his arrogance and the fact that Watson was the real sleuth were all character flaws that were typical of Conan Doyle's humour. In Brigadier Gerard he amplified such flaws, but Sherlock Holmes has underlying humour based on similar personality flaws.



I have never read Doyle's Holmes. I am most familiar with the recreations of the character. The 
addiction was not there or glossed over.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 7, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> You are the one making leaps. I never said being loved makes you (or a character) perfect. I am asking if readers like, or love, perfect characters.



The reason I came to this conclusion is you gave examples of perfect characters but offered no reasons for why you think they are perfect, other than because people love them. If you are saying the affection people have for these characters is not supposed to prove how perfect they are, I can of course agree, but then I wonder what you are basing your criteria on.

Drug use aside, he is frequently described as cold and calculating, often citing his inability to love and a tendency to be heartless. Some modern adaptions twist this further and into something much darker than the source material suggests, but it's regularly hinted at in ACD's books. Personally, I always read the character as being a little pitiful; an example of the trop of lonely genius. Either way, Sherlock Holmes was not without flaws and you will find few who say so.



> Harry Potter was loved by children AND adults. So there's a flaw in your logic.



Lots of adults like Disneyland, it's still designed for children. We can enjoy things and not take them seriously. 

I do absolutely concede HP generally enjoys a far more passionate and 'serious' adult following than Barney The Dinosaur or whatnot, but I tend to think that as being more affection for the quality of the writing (which is decent) and, to an extent, a regression to childhood wonder than it is any genuine admiration for the character's perfection. Sort of like how Disney movies from the Golden Age are most widely watched by folks in their twenties to thirties. A lot of these adults were kids when the books came out, and there's the whimsical settings and imaginative story and some good writing. Doesn't mean Harry Potter, the man, isn't as dull as dribble.

If you would like to say that I am wrong and that Harry Potter, the character, is idolized by the adult fanbase en masse for the sheer intrigue of his on-page personality then I shall have to shrug and borrow your phrase: 'each to their own' because that's not anybody I have come across.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 7, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> The reason I came to this conclusion is you gave examples of perfect characters but offered no reasons for why you think they are perfect, other than because people love them. If you are saying the affection people have for these characters is not supposed to prove how perfect they are, I can of course agree, but then I wonder what you are basing your criteria on.
> 
> Drug use aside, he is frequently described as cold and calculating, often citing his inability to love and a tendency to be heartless. Some modern adaptions twist this further and into something much darker than the source material suggests, but it's regularly hinted at in ACD's books. Personally, I always read the character as being a little pitiful; an example of the trop of lonely genius. Either way, Sherlock Holmes was not without flaws and you will find few who say so.
> 
> ...



As I said to Pete, I've not read the original Holmes stories. Nor have I watched the darker stuff you mention. So let's drop Holmes. There's still Poirot.

As for love and serious, do those have to go together? I don't think so. How "serious" do adults take HP? Not sure. Does it matter? Not to me.

You don't love, or like?, perfect characters. Fine. What about readers in general?

See, many go on about how writers write for themselves, and I'm all for enjoying what you write, but I think it's also good to keep what readers are looking for in mind. It translates, hopefully, to more sales. Which I like very much!


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 7, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> As I said to Pete, I've not read the original Holmes stories. Nor have I watched the darker stuff you mention. So let's drop Holmes. There's still Poirot.
> 
> As for love and serious, do those have to go together? I don't think so. How "serious" do adults take HP? Not sure. Does it matter? Not to me.
> 
> ...



Hey Jack,

Sorry I assumed you had read the source material before using Holmes as an example & did not see your response to Pete. I've only read a couple of the original Holmes books myself, but they are a good read - you should check them out for sure!

I addressed the readers issue in my first post - the effectiveness of a perfect (I'd prefer the word two-dimensional but we can say perfect too in this instance) character in modern writing is, for me, entirely dependent on the audience. Harry Potter works for kids (and kids-at-heart I suppose) but whether that sort of unfathomable goodness and talent works in adult fiction probably depends on whether the kind of story it is requires the reader to identify with, aspire to, or merely objectify the character.

Poirot is an interesting example of perfection in play because his backstory changes with almost every book (I think that's right; I have not read all by any stretch and it has been awhile) and the uncertainty surrounding his background is part of his intrigue. It is therefore difficult to pin down his personality in general. In the mystery genre there's often a kind of non-human quality attached to the detective (this is true of Holmes as well) that while perhaps meeting the definition of 'a perfect character' the word doesn't seem quite right. It's not a million miles away from a character like James Bond, actually. In Bond's case the traits are obviously incredibly different from that of Poirot, however the perception for the reader I _think _is probably rather the same. 

The reader, in my opinion, is NOT supposed to identify with Bond or Poirot or with Harry Potter. Perhaps one might argue they could identify with their situation in a couple of instances - say when Harry is being abused by his Uncle - but not throughout the book(s). Rather they are supposed to be _subservient_ to the character in some way; in thrall to the superhuman charisma, expertise, toughness, luck and talent (could be any of these, or all of them) of Bond or Reacher or Poirot or Potter. This is type of story that is as old as time itself. It's the story of Beowulf, King Arthur, numerous Greek myths and even much of the Bible. Most traditional fiction is the fiction of "gods among men" in some form.

The issue is whether that popularity holds true now, of course, and I say for the most part it does not _except _for in books written for kids like my son, who lacks the ability to compute complex characterization across the board, or for adults in cases where the main character is supposed to be outside normal human behavior in some way. There are several examples of the latter now that i think of it, so perhaps I should correct any implication I may have made to the contrary. All that said, I still don't think its suited to most modern storytelling and hate to see it employed without purpose. A romance where one or both characters are perfect is invariably dreadful, for instance. 

Also an argument to be made, I think, that absolute perfection is a flaw in itself...but I'm not smart enough to go there.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.
> 
> Do *readers* like perfect characters?
> 
> And why do writers prefer flawed ones?



Great topic  But I would say (and I have not read the other comments - _EDIT - I see Holmes has been mentioned_) that the characters you mention are far from perfect. Sherlock is an habitual cocaine user who exhibits bouts of poor mental health. He also plays the violin and is a genius. Who wouldn't love that? Harry Potter is an orphan pursused by the most feared villain of the time, and gets progressively more psychically troubled as the series goes on. I'm old enough to be his dad and I want to be him, living in a massive castle and having all these adventures and doing cool shit on my broom, despite those things.

I'm reading Robin Hobb's _Tawny Man_ series now. Fitz is an ex-assassin who has more power than he can sensibly handle; his ally the Fool is a foppish dandy who is close to the monarch and adopts airs and graces as it suits him. He is frequently frivolous and seems to barely have a personality of his own yet he is very much beloved of readers.

So I think readers _do _like flawed characters, because they are people, and people are flawed themselves so we want to see something that reflects that, someone who, despite adversity, can do the business come the hour. Writers are the same and want to create such characters.

To me, perfection is bad. My primary antagonist in my stories is ostensibly perfect - tall, blond hair, and throws the coolest parties. He's quite the Randall Flagg. I've had readers say they want to slap him, that he's awful. All true, of course.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 7, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.
> 
> Do *readers* like perfect characters?



You notice all the examples you gave are male. 

So sure, readers like perfect characters...if they're dudes.

Otherwise "Mary Sue".


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> You notice all the examples you gave are male.
> 
> So sure, readers like perfect characters...if they're dudes.



His Dark Materials. Numerous characters in Ken Follett novels. All those Twilight books. Even my very own super super incredibly amazing WIPs boast numerous flawed female characters, from the mc right the way down the spectrum, plus a couple of irksomely perfect ones. So lets set aside the spectre of supposed mysogyny lurking in the (blessedly androgynomonoecious) bushes.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 7, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> His Dark Materials. Numerous characters in Ken Follett novels. All those Twilight books. Even my very own super super incredibly amazing WIP has numerous flawed female characters, from the mc right the way down the spectrum, plus a couple of irksomely perfect ones. So lets set aside the spectre of mysogyny lurking in the (blessedly androgynomonoecious) bushes.



Bella Swan has attracted massive criticism as a Mary Sue. And she isn't what people like about Twilight. She's hated at least as much as she's loved. 
Rey from Star Wars, criticised as a Mary Sue in a way that no male character in the series has been.
Kale and Caulifla from Dragonball Super, despite written the same way as male characters, criticised as Mary Sues, violently criticised:

From Kanzenshuu, about Dragonball Super, a childrens show: 


> It would be nice if Frieza could cut off Caulifla's head to make Kale angry and then, kill Kale as well by ripping her heart off. That would be a cool scene.






> If Freeza does get to romp about tearing the U6 Saiyans limb from proverbially bloody limb then it will have been facilitated in-part by Jiren's lack of attentiveness.





> Freeza being sadistic is where Nakao's performance shines the most. So seeing him torture and curb stomp the U6 Saiyans would be the ultimate form of fan service for me



Three quotes from three different posters. 
​. Android 17 gets far more asspulls and everyone's like : Cool!

Here's a quote someone made about my own story's main character: Or more accurately her breasts:



> From Writing Forums.org:Well unless her clothing is invincible, you could show that there is some realism.
> It can be used against them as it is a grab-able thing that they can be tossed around
> by, so pull all the stops out and make it as gritty and nasty as you seem to want to
> portray it. Hell you even show how much they don't care by using her breasts against
> ...



Often the more accomplished the female character, the more disrespectful the response. Explicitly violent against the character's femininity. It's violence as an attempt to control something people find threatening.
As for Lara Croft, quote from the Hollywood Reporter, showing the kind of disrespect they have toward such characters: 



> The problem, though, is that _Tomb Raider_[FONT=&Verdana] is very much the kind of big-budget action film that falls apart as soon as you think about it. True, there’s nothing quite so outrageous here as there was in the Angelina Jolie-starring efforts, but that only makes it easier to pick apart this film. Vikander’s talent shines through, to the point where it’s painfully obvious that she’s much, much better than a Lara Croft movie ever could deserve.
> 
> [/FONT]



So yeah. People like flawless characters - if they're male.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 7, 2018)

I would dispute that any of the male characters in the examples are flawless Gary Stus (or whatever the male equiv is). Bella and Rey may be MS but then that’s not a like for like compare.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 7, 2018)

I'm not sure the word "perfect" really applies when it comes to humans (or to fictional representations of humans). I mean, what the hell does "perfect" mean for a human?

The examples in the first post seemed to equate perfection with genius, but obviously that's only one facet of a character - we've had follow-up posts showing how Sherlock has many deep flaws despite his intellect, and I couldn't call Poirot perfect in any way other than intellect... as I recall him he's short and unattractive, he's arrogant, etc.

Are there _any_ characters we could all agree are "perfect"? Not characters who are great at something... lots of those. But characters who have reached the pinnacle of every aspect of physical, intellectual, and moral standings? I can't think of any...


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Apr 7, 2018)

I like William Johnstone's approach to character building:

The protagonist's job is to defuse the conflict through swift action and formulated plans built on expertise.

I like it even more when a strong protagonist has a strong opposition; that's why Mark Beamon is my favorite protagonist in a book.

Hell, even Bob Lee Swagger had to handle some shit before he could rain hell upon his enemies.

A good book isn't necessarily demanding of a superhero protagonist, but I tend to find it difficult to identify with pussies. 

A good character flaw builds personality though.

I guess if you balance it, it works out in favor of the story.

I'unno.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Apr 7, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Are there _any_ characters we could all agree are "perfect"? Not characters who are great at something... lots of those. But characters who have reached the pinnacle of every aspect of physical, intellectual, and moral standings? I can't think of any...



Read Jacknife by William Johnstone.

Jack is literally the quintessential hero-figure.

Even though I'm not a fan of Jack Reacher, he's pretty much an immortal superman.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2018)

I can't speak for other readers, but for myself, I prefer flawed characters because they have room to grow and change. Flaws also present a natural stepping stone toward conflict, which further deepens the reading experience for me.

For example: our protagonist might have been sexually abused in the past, now is violently avoidant of any sort of physical intimacy. You can see how this kind of flaw would be ripe for conflict (both external, and internal) whenever the character finds herself in an intimate situation. This might even lead to her pushing away a character who she feels very strongly for—much to his, and her own, dismay.

A theoretically "perfect" character, on the other hand, would have little to no room to grow or change (unless the growth is in a negative direction). To me, that can get boring real quick, and removes the possibility of one of my favorite aspects of fiction: seeing the character evolve throughout the story. :encouragement:


----------



## JustRob (Apr 7, 2018)

Is this discussion about how a character appears _within the context of a particular story_ or within the wider context of a succession? Even if the writer has conceived every aspect of a character those aspects may not all be evident in a specific story. For example, I don't recollect how frequently Doyle referred to Holmes's use of drugs, which itself seemed episodic rather than persistent, across all the stories. One aspect of my unfinished trilogy was that the reader discovered new facets of each character in successive stories, so might well have changed their perception of them for better or worse as they read. That's akin to how we get to know people in reality and they may well appear to be flawless until we know them better, so why should a reader assume that a character is as flawless as they seem to be from reading one story? 

I suppose I cast my vote in this context in the opening chapter of my novel HERE, where a girl had just dumped her boyfriend because he was too perfect and she saw that as a threat to their relationship. She wanted to fit a niche within someone's life but he didn't seem to have any vacant niches. She then encountered my flawed MC and saw more potential in him. That was certainly laying my cards on the table from the very outset, at least in respect of the current subject. 

So, as usual I serve up as a response something pertinent that I wrote years ago during my remarkably farsighted writing period. Well, my novel was all about turning back the clock ... or is that forwards? Even I am finding this habit tiresome though.

P.S.
I forgot to consider my usual stance on characters, that they aren't just the people in a story but all the "actors", as all interactive entities are sometimes called in computer games development. For example, in the old TV series _Blake's Seven_ the central group had a spaceship name _Liberator_ that was of unknown alien construction and superior to anything else around. Its main computer, named Zen, had a voice and was originally considered to be one of the seven characters referred to in the title. An evident problem in the earlier episodes was that _Liberator_ was just too flawless, so much so that it was an ever-present _deus ex machina_ (or maybe _machina ex deo_). Eventually it was destroyed, in order to permit more interesting story lines I suspect.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 7, 2018)

RhythmOvPain said:


> Read Jacknife by William Johnstone.
> 
> Jack is literally the quintessential hero-figure.
> 
> Even though I'm not a fan of Jack Reacher, he's pretty much an immortal superman.



Never heard of either the author or character, but I looked it up and... I'm a pacifist. I'm not extreme about it - sounds like the action of the actual book is mostly in self-defense or direct defense of others, so I wouldn't object to those actions. But he's ex-Special Forces? So at some point in his life he voluntarily devoted a HELL of a lot of effort to getting better at killing whomever his government told him to kill. That seems like a pretty big weakness, _from my perspective_.

I'm not saying this is a flaw for everyone. I imagine the target audience for books like this would think being ex-Special Forces is really cool (or at least, was really cool the first hundred times they read it...). But it does feel more like one of those super-specialized skill sets rather than being an all-round perfect person? Holmes and Poirot are super-charged thinking-machines, this guy's a super-charged killing-machine... but their flaws come from the other aspects of their personalities.


----------



## CrimsonAngel223 (Apr 7, 2018)

I can't really add to this perfect or flawed character business so I will say this, flawed characters are more realistic and identifiable than a perfect one, most people would be less intrigued if the character could already have good looks and can handle himself or her in any situation, etc,


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 7, 2018)

Perfect characters are boring.  Alistar Mclean used to have perfect heroes, and I stopped reading them past the age of 14.  Real people are flawed...deeply.  People that are not defective in any way are too boring to write about.
But I try to avoid being formulaic when I create these flaws.  I want their flaws and foibles to be something that contributes to their character.  I don't just come up with a random flaw, I look for the kinds of things that would play well for their character, the kinds of things that would accent their personality, the kind of things that would explain this person.

Look at Game of Thrones. That show is a wealth of great characters, and every single one of them is flawed in some way.  Every one of them is either evil, or carrying so much emotional baggage they need porters. John Snow killed his last girlfriend. Talk about domestic violence.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 7, 2018)

It seems there is criticism of essentially all-good characters, though that might include James Bond or Superman; perfectly bad characters (but that might include Darth Vadar in the first star wars movie); and in general one-dimensional characters (The scarecrow, the lion).

And there is a claim for the value of complicated, realistic characters, such as what's-his-face in Jurrassic Park, or that guy in Jaws.

To channel Terry, you should write the character you need for your story. Adding a flaw (Holmes' drug use) doesn't automatically make your character interesting or better for your story. If that flaw is important to the story, that's totally different.

And part of building a character is constantly using the character's traits in the story. For that purpose, simple is good.

Lassie. The wicked witch of the west, ET, the shark, and on and on and on. Really, my last book had essentially one-dimensional characters, and I was astounded at how well that worked.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 7, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Perfect characters are boring.  Alistar Mclean used to have perfect heroes, and I stopped reading them past the age of 14.  Real people are flawed...deeply.  People that are not defective in any way are too boring to write about.
> But I try to avoid being formulaic when I create these flaws.  I want their flaws and foibles to be something that contributes to their character.  I don't just come up with a random flaw, I look for the kinds of things that would play well for their character, the kinds of things that would accent their personality, the kind of things that would explain this person.
> 
> Look at Game of Thrones. That show is a wealth of great characters, and every single one of them is flawed in some way.  Every one of them is either evil, or carrying so much emotional baggage they need porters. John Snow killed his last girlfriend. Talk about domestic violence.



I don’t disagree if we are speaking of the literature of our time, but there’s a little more to it I think. For one thing, for something to be “boring” it has to almost by definition been done before, doesn’t it? Which begs the question, was it boring the first time?

Is the Biblical Jesus a boring character?

If one would rather not critique Jesus, could substitute one of his (many) substitutes: Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia for instance. Aslan did not strike me as a boring character but he’s unquestionably messianic. It worked in that story. Which was also a children’s story, of course, and written for those who may not be old enough to have read or understood the Bible, so the blatant borrowing from Christian mythos would not have been old hat.

Your Game Of Thrones point is decent, though there are still a couple of quite major/POV characters who strike me as being reasonably close to perfect in the Aslan sense - I certainly can’t think of anything they do wrong. Bran Stark? Sam Tarly? Hodor?

Edit: Interestingly, the three examples of perfect characters I just gave are all male and all suffer a disability of some kind (overweight/mentally handicapped/crippled) Was GRRM trying to offset the moral strength of these characters with physical/mental handicaps lest they become Mary Sues?


----------



## Bayview (Apr 7, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I don’t disagree if we are speaking of the literature of our time, but there’s a little more to it I think. For one thing, for something to be “boring” it has to almost by definition been done before, doesn’t it? Which begs the question, was it boring the first time?
> 
> Is the Biblical Jesus a boring character?
> 
> ...



I don't think something has to have been done before in order to be boring... that's certainly ONE way for something to be boring, but I think there are others. I'd say that "boring" is the default state, really... it's what characters are until authors give the readers something to care about.

And I think most of the characters you mention are morally/spiritually perfect, but as you mention, they have other flaws. Jesus wasn't morally pure AND super-strong physically AND super-intelligent, etc.

I guess Aslan was super-strong, physically; I can't remember how smart he was. Was he super-smart?


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 7, 2018)

Perfection is a flaw. It is lack of moral compromise. It's not a good thing. It's when it's always portrayed as good, where the character is portrayed as a benevolent moral absolute, this is where the characterization becomes fascist. Because other characters must then be forced into passivity. Echo chambers are inherently empty and hollow. To have true perfection, the character must be always right, but for them to be always right you must tell the reader they are. Telling, not showing. There are few things more frustrating than a reader completely disagreeing with a character's choices, while the writer makes other characters go on and on about how right and amazing they are. It doesn't just damage the lead, or the character in question, the rot spreads to the characters who dumbly agree and praise. Now the reader thinks the lead is dumb, the supporting chars are dumb, and so the whole thing is spoilt.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 7, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't think something has to have been done before in order to be boring... that's certainly ONE way for something to be boring, but I think there are others. I'd say that "boring" is the default state, really... it's what characters are until authors give the readers something to care about.
> 
> And I think most of the characters you mention are morally/spiritually perfect, but as you mention, they have other flaws. Jesus wasn't morally pure AND super-strong physically AND super-intelligent, etc.
> 
> I guess Aslan was super-strong, physically; I can't remember how smart he was. Was he super-smart?



I assumed the question of perfection in this case was solely concerning moral perfection because of the examples given by Jack. Poirot for instance is few people’s idea of physical perfection and neither is Harry Potter but both are their respective franchise’s moral compass. Once you get out of morality it seems to me the concept of a flaw at least  in a human becomes very subjective and rather meaningless: What is a perfect height, perfect walk, perfect laugh, etc. 

(Of course one could argue morality is also subjective, but I think most agree there is some consensus on good and evil.)

Must admit, the suggestion that Jesus wasn’t super intelligent brings out my inner Catholic indignation/guilt. He is God, so I’d assume superiority in everything... Aslan was portrayed as physically and mentally superhuman yes.

I still maintain there is a place for a character of unnaturally high moral standing, it’s just quite limited and the recycle rate of stock Mary Sues remains over what is justifiable. Honestly I think a lot of it is just lack of effort by the writer. Ultimately writing people who think and act like real humans always seems more difficult than the cardboard cutouts. Not sure why, it just does. I think some writers are actually afraid to play against the tropes. 

This is a big part of why I always recommend people look to their own lives and experiences for character creation wherever possible. The moment you start cobbling together a character’s traits without reference to real people it gets harder to write a “good” character who isn’t either unbelievably perfect or all over the place. That’s my experience anyway.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 7, 2018)

What about technique? The positive quality is given a flaw, is how I use the flaw. Let's say someone is bright and someone then becomes stubborn or hard-headed. That's the flip side to that. 

I was working on childish as a flaw. I'm trying to use it as such. I came up with the synonyms for it: Mischievous, fun-loving, inexperienced.

Noble: overgenerous. And so on. The flaw is an error in judgment. A mistake.

I am on thinking flaw is a good way to build a more complex and dimensional character.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 8, 2018)

There's something in this conversation that I think has, if not been entirely missed, then not emphasized enough. It is probably the real reason why so many goody-two-shoes become beloved.

Most stories are bigger than a single character

Try it and see, I'd say. For a lot (most?) _really _good stories filled with lots of _really _good characters, a single dullard is not a deal breaker and much blandness can be forgiven if other avenues provide rich pickings. I mean, Luke Skywalker is pretty damn boring too, isn't he? But Star Wars is a fantastic story as a whole, so he just becomes this kind of pawn. I suspect Harry Potter could still be popular if Rowling had written him as effectively a chicken leg in spectacles, because there's a lot going on in those books and not by any means does it all concern Harry.

NOT saying that character isn't hugely important and that it's acceptable to leave anything poorly realized out of sheer indifference or apathy, only that the pig bicture should be considered, you know? Not every character needs manifest as some sort of Freudian specimen in order for the piece as a whole to work. Fretting over the realness of one's characters excessively will, at best, lead to a process that is drawn out to the point of torture and at worst take your eye off the ball of other items that just might be more important in the grand scheme.

Try it and see.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

Wow has there been a lot of discussion since I was last here! I'm not even going to try to address the various points made tonight. But here's a few things. 

Completely perfect physically? I agree with Bayview. It's doubtful a handful of people can agree on what's perfect. I was not thinking of physical parameters.

I was thinking of morals, values, ethics, and, to a certain degree, intelligence. Not that anyone can be perfect. But perhaps striving for perfection. Pushing themselves to be the best they can be.

I suppose it can be argued that no one can have perfect morals because no group would be able to agree on what is perfect. So that argument can hold no matter what I meant by "perfect". That was a poor term to select, yet jumped out at me because to not have flaws is to be perfect.  

Maybe a better question is : Is it necessary to deliberately give a character flaws? Because won't someone see some aspect of his / her personality as a flaw no matter what the author's intention?

Or maybe : Do readers like larger than life characters?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 8, 2018)

Even John Wayne's characters had flaws.  In fact his characters had some pretty poignant flaws, like the rancher who complains of "burning daylight" at 4am, or the guy who just got out of prison for killing a way (and is now on the stagecoach to Lordsburg.)  
Leroy Gibbs is so flawed that he has a crazy set of unforgiving rules that he lives by (including rule #9; never apologize because it shows weakness.)
Sheldon Cooper is so deeply flawed that they built an entire show around his wierdness.

Where I see a lot of new writers going wrong is that they make their characters faultless/blameless.  They get so caught up in creating a good character that they create a totally unobjectionable character, someone who not only does not make mistakes, but who has antiseptically clean values.  The Survivalist had a protagonist like this; and it made the hero feel 2 dimensional to me.  

Real people not only have physical defects (glasses, comb overs, fake tan, small hands...), but they also have weird values, and strange beliefs (like Blackstone taking exception to an earlier Jesus reference*.)  Some people are selfish, some people are sloppy, and some of the nicest people in the world routinely throw their cigarette butts on the ground.  Even good people do bad things, and often bad people do things with the best of intentions.  Real people are complex.



Jesus was not actually elevated to the status of God, or part of the holy trinity, until the Council of Nicea, some 300+ years AD.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Even John Wayne's characters had flaws.  In fact his characters had some pretty poignant flaws, like the rancher who complains of "burning daylight" at 4am, or the guy who just got out of prison for killing a way (and is now on the stagecoach to Lordsburg.)
> Leroy Gibbs is so flawed that he has a crazy set of unforgiving rules that he lives by (including rule #9; never apologize because it shows weakness.)
> Sheldon Cooper is so deeply flawed that they built an entire show around his wierdness.
> 
> ...



I already said "perfect" was a poor choice of words. What about "larger than life" or "striving for perfection" or "being the best they can be"?

General question : How much or how large of flaw(s) is needed for realism? For interest?


----------



## Bayview (Apr 8, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I already said "perfect" was a poor choice of words. What about "larger than life" or "striving for perfection" or "being the best they can be"?
> 
> General question : How much or how large of flaw(s) is needed for realism? For interest?



I think "being the best they can be" is interesting, for sure. "Larger than life", though? That generally doesn't interest me. I don't want to read about superheroes (most of the time). I want to read about characters struggling and fighting and overcoming.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 8, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think "being the best they can be" is interesting, for sure. "Larger than life", though? That generally doesn't interest me. I don't want to read about superheroes (most of the time). I want to read about characters struggling and fighting and overcoming.



I'm not talking about super heros. Holmes and Poirot were not super heros. Yet they had abilities beyond 98% of the population. Harry Potter, too. Though Harry got weaker over time. Readers did seem to enjoy those characters.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 8, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I'm not talking about super heros. Holmes and Poirot were not super heros. Yet they had abilities beyond 98% of the population. Harry Potter, too. Though Harry got weaker over time. Readers did seem to enjoy those characters.



That’s actually a pretty interesting question, come to think of it. Are Sherlock Holmes et al not just more subtle versions of superheroes?

I mean of course they’re not part of the genre, but in terms of the kind of characters they are could this not explain their place in their audience’s hearts?

 Is Sherlock Holmes not a superhero, or at least closely related?

Hear me out: My understanding of a superhero is (1) The possession of superhuman ability or power and (2) The use of said ability or power to fight evil, usually criminal in nature. Is there anything else?

If not, then besides costume and the nature of their power (one is physical and one is mental), what are the fundamental differences in character between, say, Batman and Poirot? Does Harry Potter not use his innate and super powered abilities and guile to fight a type of crime? Is there much difference between Hogwarts and Gotham City in terms of how each is protected by their “superhero”?

Would be interested to hear thoughts on that.


----------



## pear (Apr 9, 2018)

Larger than life characters often are boring to read (and write!) because idk they feel very false. No real human is like that, not even the greatest person was flawless. Flaws don’t need to be huge to be there, they can be hidden and hard to see straight away. 
Flawed characters are more realistic, and readers can relate more to them I feel. Of course, this might just be me but I find characters who are too perfect, too ‘larger than life’ annoying as hell.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 9, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> That’s actually a pretty interesting question, come to think of it. Are Sherlock Holmes et al not just more subtle versions of superheroes?
> 
> I mean of course they’re not part of the genre, but in terms of the kind of characters they are could this not explain their place in their audience’s hearts?
> 
> ...



Holmes and Poirot were at the top of human capabilities, but didn't have any "powers". In theory, a human with similar genetics and nurturing (food, education, etc) could achieve the sanr level of ability. Being alien or bitten by a radioactive spider is not necessary.  

That distinction aside, there IS a similarity between such extraordinary characters and superheros.

Moriarty was a kind of super villain. He was also extremely intelligent, but used his gift for less ethical or more selfish ends.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 9, 2018)

pear said:


> Larger than life characters often are boring to read (and write!) because idk they feel very false. No real human is like that, not even the greatest person was flawless. Flaws don’t need to be huge to be there, they can be hidden and hard to see straight away.
> Flawed characters are more realistic, and readers can relate more to them I feel. Of course, this might just be me but I find characters who are too perfect, too ‘larger than life’ annoying as hell.



I hear/read that sentiment among writers, but the popularity of such characters leads me to believe that among those not inspired to write the opposite is true. That's why I asked the questions.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 9, 2018)

There may be an element of genre to this? 

We're talking mostly about detectives in our examples, I think. (although we're talking about _old_ detectives - are the modern ones the same?) I don't read action/adventure style books, but based on the movies I've seen I can imagine the over-the-top characters might be common in that genre, as well? I hear Fantasy writers worrying that they may have made their characters OverPowered so it's hard to create realistic conflict for them...

I guess the equivalent in Romance would be the Dukes/Billionaires subset.

I think maybe over-the-top characters come in when readers are looking for wish fulfillment/escapist fantasies? They don't _want_ realism, not right then.

So... there's a market for over-the-top characters in at least some genres. There's also a market for more realistic characters. Probably important that authors realize which kind they're writing so they can match the rest of the story to the demands of that market?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 9, 2018)

Bayview said:


> There may be an element of genre to this?



My main characters are female, and I feel a lot of pressure to make the eventual male interest tall, handsome, strong, economically self-sufficient, sensitive, caring, etc. The male lead meanwhile loves her from the start and keeps loving her no matter how badly she treats him. If he is a smoker, he gives it up and in general his original flaws (if any) tend to disappear.

I don't particularly like that message, but I am guessing it's what readers want.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 9, 2018)

> I hear Fantasy writers worrying that they may have made their characters OverPowered so it's hard to create realistic conflict for them...



For flawless  OP character to work, the way they solve conflicts must be showy and awesome. Like Steven Seagal in his prime. But prose can't show that, so it's not really doable in that medium.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 9, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I can't speak for other readers, but for myself, *I prefer flawed characters because they have room to grow and change*. Flaws also present a natural stepping stone toward conflict, which further deepens the reading experience for me.
> 
> For example: our protagonist might have been sexually abused in the past, now is violently avoidant of any sort of physical intimacy. You can see how this kind of flaw would be ripe for conflict (both external, and internal) whenever the character finds herself in an intimate situation. This might even lead to her pushing away a character who she feels very strongly for—much to his, and her own, dismay.
> 
> A* theoretically "perfect" character, on the other hand, would have little to no room to grow or change* (unless the growth is in a negative direction). To me, that can get boring real quick, and removes the possibility of one of my favorite aspects of fiction: seeing the character evolve throughout the story. :encouragement:


This.

There can be no improving a perfect character.  This is the main reason people don't love Superman as much as they love Batman or Wolverine.  Perfect makes them less human.  Without the chance to grow, it makes the character boring to follow without the writer needing to continually ramp up the external conflicts and/or add more interesting side characters.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 9, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> This.
> 
> There can be no improving a perfect character.  This is the main reason people don't love Superman as much as they love Batman or Wolverine.  Perfect makes them less human.  Without the chance to grow, it makes the character boring to follow without the writer needing to continually ramp up the external conflicts and/or add more interesting side characters.



Largely playing devils advocate here, but while there may be no improving a perfect character there is plenty of opportunity to tear them down, hopefully with a view to restoring them at the end.

Again I must go back to the Jesus example and the only reason I fixate on him (I am an atheist) is because that kind of character, a moral outcast in an immoral world, is a staple of so much traditional literature I feel it would be a mistake to dismiss these characters as being less interesting or worthwhile because they may not be what real people are like. 

 There is no requirement that a character be any certain way other than compatible with the story in which they are written. Sometimes that may require a certain moral fastidiousness. For all my complaints about Harry Potter for all I know the book would have been worse if he had been written differently and I would not (not seriously anyway) be arrogant enough to tell that author how to write him. It’s a good book, that’s all that matters ultimately.. Modern fiction may largely prefer a redemptive arc, but that doesn’t mean one cannot invert the arc and I know of no good data that says people overwhelmingly prefer Batman to Superman - and even if they did it still wouldn’t prove the theory. 

I do see a lot of remarkably strong statements on the subject flying around this thread. It is fine if it’s your view, but I wonder when people say things like “Perfect characters are boring” if they are really thinking of literature as the entire canon and not just of the last book or two they read..


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Apr 9, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> For flawless  OP character to work, the way they solve conflicts must be showy and awesome. Like Steven Seagal in his prime. But prose can't show that, so it's not really doable in that medium.



Read Bright Star by Robert Louis Stevenson III; shit READS like a Segal movie.

No BS, a short ass, well written, action packed thriller with a Seal who loses his friend, kills EVERYONE, then singlehandedly saves an entire NASA crew from a reentry capsule at the bottom of the Pacific.

I swear I read the whole book in 90 minutes, lmao.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 9, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Largely playing devils advocate here, but while there may be no improving a perfect character there is plenty of opportunity to tear them down, hopefully with a view to restoring them at the end.
> 
> Again I must go back to the Jesus example and the only reason I fixate on him (I am an atheist) is because that kind of character, a moral outcast in an immoral world, is a staple of so much traditional literature I feel it would be a mistake to dismiss these characters as being less interesting or worthwhile because they may not be what real people are like.
> 
> ...


Bible is boring as all get out.  Jesus, as a character, is boring.  What makes the story of Jesus interesting is the miracles and the actions of those around him.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 9, 2018)

Batman doesn't grow in his core ideals. They're just as static as Superman's. The whole point of their stories is to see their ideals tested in a flawed world, but never broken. Any change they undergo is always on the periphery of their characters and always returned to the status quo after the arc or run is over, for the new writers to have a clean slate. They're incorruptible symbols, much like Jesus. So they can't be humanized, and to try is to miss the point. It's intended for the people around them to be the most interesting aspect, because they're the ones who follow the hero's example and who's lives get changed.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 9, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> Bible is boring as all get out.  Jesus, as a character, is boring.  What makes the story of Jesus interesting is the miracles and the actions of those around him.



Your opinion is your opinion, but it seems strange given the vast numbers of people who devote their lives to this boring character - which I guess comes back to Jack Of All Trades's original point.

I do recognize your point that the context makes Jesus of interest but I disagree with the judgment nevertheless. Story is what makes most of our characters interesting. Ebeneezer Scrooge is really only an interesting character because of what happens to him, the 'miracles' and 'actions of those around him' (he himself does little except watch and grouch) and yet he is such a heavyweight _character _his name has become part of popular culture and familiar to even those who have never read the books. I see Jesus as being sort of like that. For me, very few characters are interesting outside of the events in which they appear. I actually think Jesus as a character within that particular story could not be made more interesting. His superhuman moral authority and how it juxtaposes with a world built on human failings (greed, envy, etc) is powerful. But each to their own.

As far as the Bible being boring, the Bible is 66 books full of hundreds of characters, many of whom are morally complex and likely the basis for many books you do like, so I find that statement about as nonsensical as a scientist saying the Big Bang wasn't really not that well done. This thread is not about the bible so it's whatever and we aren't going to squabble about it, however I feel like for any writer (a published one especially) to make such an absurd statement rather proves my prior point about absolutism.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 10, 2018)

Using Jesus as an example of how to develop a fictional character for a novel isn't a very effective choice, IMO. Religious beliefs aside, The gospels weren't written as fiction, so fictional constructs do not apply. Texts from any religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, science, whatever are not written as fiction (Well, maybe Scientology...). If we want to apply publishing standards to such philosophical texts, we'd be better off apply non-fiction techniques, and that's not the purpose of this thread.

Flaws in our heroes are good. Not absolutely necessary for a successful novel, but good, for all the reasons stated in prior posts.


----------



## SueC (Apr 10, 2018)

> Do *readers like perfect characters?
> 
> And why do writers prefer flawed ones?*



To answer your first question, Jack. IMO, I think readers like characters who are well-formed and carry with them a certain morality and class. Everyone aspires to be that type of person. However, I sometimes feel that the "liking" is tempered, or temporary. It's like when you meet someone who is just an outstanding individual initially, but in time either shows other, darker qualities, or you simply get bored with the perfection. It doesn't seem to last.

The second question as to why "writers" (not readers) prefer flawed characters is because it is nearly impossible to maintain a quality of goodness throughout a story or a book, without eventually breaking in a flaw or two, to keep the readers' interest. As we all know, there has to be conflict of some sort, and it is difficult to contrive story lines that are compelling without a swear word, or a lie or some other fault sneaking in.

I noticed the initial discussion and examples focused more on actions of well-known fictional characters, as opposed to inherent nature, like being honest or faithful and may have gotten a little sidetracked with who knows more about Sherlock or Harry than anyone else. Hercules, for example, may have been awesome in what his character did, but it was his poignant farewell episode and death, I would guess, that caused the mourning. We realized, beyond his skill, there was a genuine, caring and passionate person; one we would miss. I've seen most of the programs, and thought him arrogant, not perfect at all, until he was ready to say goodbye.

Just my two cents. Carry on . . .


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 10, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Using Jesus as an example of how to develop a fictional character for a novel isn't a very effective choice, IMO. Religious beliefs aside, The gospels weren't written as fiction, so fictional constructs do not apply. Texts from any religion, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, science, whatever are not written as fiction (Well, maybe Scientology...). If we want to apply publishing standards to such philosophical texts, we'd be better off apply non-fiction techniques, and that's not the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Flaws in our heroes are good. Not absolutely necessary for a successful novel, but good, for all the reasons stated in prior posts.



Terry, Hi.

I think this may have gone down a bit of a rabbit hole with the bible stuff. Partly my fault. I do agree that Jesus isn't a great example for the reason you mentioned, since it isn't seen as literature by most people, particularly most of its fans. 

What I was really trying to get at is the literary _analogues_ for Jesus rather than Jesus Himself. These are, I think, much better examples of characters commanding a superhuman moral authority. 

There are lots of such analogues in fiction. I mentioned Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia initially. Since you referenced Stephen King in another thread, perhaps a good (and more adult oriented) example could be John Coffey from The Green Mile. 

If memory serves Coffey is actually supposed to be some sort of angel - though I can't say for sure if that specific identity is ever confirmed or not (he has some supernatural talents, is all I remember). Either way it's  the arc of a morally pure person (if Coffey does anything immoral of significance in the course of the book please do correct me!) falling victim to the immorality and corruption of the world in which he lives. That arc is, I think, the best (and possibly only?) use for the flawless character and in that case it is very effective at creating a strong character.

Other than that, I am not defending the brainless use of Mary Sues and others in most instances. All concerns raised regarding thoughtless or lazy character development I 100% agree with. The issue I have continuously raised is when that sort of opinion is applied in the language of universal fact, which certain folks (not yourself) continue to do throughout the thread. In actuality the effectiveness of any character is entirely down to how their morality (and everything else about them) is tailored to the specific story and the meaning overall.

 With that being said, I would be very interested to hear how the circle is squared if anybody wishes to continue to say *perfect characters are boring.
*
Hope that helps!


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 10, 2018)

SueC said:


> Hercules, for example, may have been awesome in what his character did, but it was his poignant farewell episode and death, I would guess, that caused the mourning.



Of course it was his death that triggered the mourning. One doesn't mourn for someone who is still alive.

But one doesn't really mourn someone who was disliked, either. So the fact that there was a mourning shows how liked or loved the character was.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 10, 2018)

Harry Potter has been ignored a lot in this conversation. I'm not sure if that's because so few read or liked the Harry Potter books or what. Since that is recent and a huge money maker, which implies well loved or liked, I'd like to focus a bit on Harry and company.

These are the questions that are coming to mind : 

Does Harry have flaws? 

If so, what are they? 

Do you think Harry was the biggest draw for that series? 

If no, what do you think attracted the most readers, or specifically you?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 10, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Harry Potter has been ignored a lot in this conversation. I'm not sure if that's because so few read or liked the Harry Potter books or what. Since that is recent and a huge money maker, which implies well loved or liked, I'd like to focus a bit on Harry and company.
> 
> These are the questions that are coming to mind :
> 
> ...



I didn't read all of the books. I think Rowling does characters better than anyone, so that's my explanation of her success. It was well-written.

To me, Harry Potter succeeded by inspiring help from his friends. To me, that was a unique kind of hero.

So I saw no attempt to deliberately give him flaws. Neither was he perfect at anything, the only way to have that character is that he can't succeed by himself.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 10, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Harry Potter has been ignored a lot in this conversation. I'm not sure if that's because so few read or liked the Harry Potter books or what. Since that is recent and a huge money maker, which implies well loved or liked, I'd like to focus a bit on Harry and company.
> 
> These are the questions that are coming to mind :
> 
> ...



For me Harry Potter as a character firmly belongs in the Messianic box, perhaps more than is immediately obvious. The whole book borrows hugely from Judeo-Christian lore. Ron and Hermoine (and some others) act as analogues for disciples. Hogwarts is earth where the battle between good and evil reigns. The concept of sorting pupils into houses based upon their moral character is essentially the sheep and goats parable, with the notion that there exist different moral classes of (most) people in that world. To that degree, Harry Potter as a character is just fine for the book. Couldn't imagine him any other way.

Harry Potter's flaws, from what little I recall of them (and that's the problem, he isn't terribly memorable like that) are mainly in the safe area for me. At no point does he do anything that struck me as particularly vindictive. Rather like Jesus smashing up the temple, it's not a big deal, and we are always supposed to understand why.

My indifference toward Potter where I do like characters like Coffey from Green Mile is because for me, his character is too archetypal and rather too simplistic. The story simply does not do enough to tell me why he is the way he is and I don't buy him as being the every man (or every boy) he is presented to be at the start of the story.

That being said, I do believe the draw for others is exactly what is not the draw for me, that this is largely subjective and dependent on the reader's familiarity of the kind of books that HP borrows from, and it is a book written for children. So I don't intend for my judgment on HP to be sacrosanct or anything.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 10, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Neither was he perfect at anything, the only way to have that character is that he can't succeed by himself.



You think?

 The kid climbed on a broomstick for the first time ever and literally within pages is on the Gryffindor team, whereupon he manages to catch the Golden Snitch in the first Quidditch game he ever played. To name but one example.

Did I miss something crucial?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 10, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> You think?
> 
> The kid climbed on a broomstick for the first time ever and literally within pages is on the Gryffindor team, whereupon he manages to catch the Golden Snitch in the first Quidditch game he ever played. To name but one example.
> 
> Did I miss something crucial?



Well, Voldemart tried to kill him and couldn't. The broom-flying is actually mild compared to that. Yes, Harry does amazing things. He is pure of heart. Can you think of a better name than Messianic for characters who are meant to be that good?

I am just telling you what I felt. That he could not succeed without his friends, that he motivated them to want to help, and I can't think of a hero like that, at least for an action/fantasy book.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 10, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, Voldemart tried to kill him and couldn't. The broom-flying is actually mild compared to that. Yes, Harry does amazing things. He is pure of heart. Can you think of a better name than Messianic for characters who are meant to be that good?
> 
> I am just telling you what I felt. That he could not succeed without his friends, that he motivated them to want to help, and I can't think of a hero like that, at least for an action/fantasy book.



I respect your opinion as your opinion, Emma, I am just asking questions. I am not asking them to denigrate your opinion but to help make it stronger. Scrutiny tends to do that. In my opinion it does, anyway!

I said myself I believe HP to be a messianic analog and the whole book to be on that ilk. While I don't think Rowling necessarily consciously intended that to be the case (unlike CS Lewis who absolutely did) I don't think there's any doubt that conventional, Christian good/evil morality is rampant throughout Harry Potter, just as it is in a lot of fantasy fiction. It's not quite an allegory, but it's not terribly unorthodox for kids fantasy.

My one and only issue with Harry Potter is he is a Mary Sue and the book does not justify it. Morality aside, he did not need to succeed so seamlessly at so much and the fact that he does makes him less identifiable, for me anyway.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I often wonder how many children really find this sort of character enchanting versus how many actually find it makes them feel worse about their own lives? 

I mean, like, Harry Potter is not getting his head shoved in the toilet, is he? He's not getting his lunch money stolen or whatever. He's never alone at lunch. No, he's with his friends who maybe aren't your sterotypical jocks but are still relatively human. At no time do I recall him having to use strength of personality to overcome the occasions he is bullied (and he is never bullied in a particularly damaging or hurtful way, usually that's one of the other characters if it happens at all...) but he uses magic, something no real child has. 

I think most bullied or lonely or otherwise disadvantaged kids will probably not relate to Potter himself whatsoever, at least not past the first few chapters with the Dursleys. Popular kids might, though. None of that matters a whole lot, of course, except when some middle-aged adult tries to then say this character is _identifiable _or whatever.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 11, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> There is no requirement that a character be any certain way other than compatible with the story in which they are written. Sometimes that may require a certain moral fastidiousness. For all my complaints about Harry Potter for all I know the book would have been worse if he had been written differently and I would not (not seriously anyway) be arrogant enough to tell that author how to write him. It’s a good book, that’s all that matters ultimately.. Modern fiction may largely prefer a redemptive arc, but that doesn’t mean one cannot invert the arc and I know of no good data that says people overwhelmingly prefer Batman to Superman - and even if they did it still wouldn’t prove the theory.
> 
> I do see a lot of remarkably strong statements on the subject flying around this thread. It is fine if it’s your view, but I wonder when people say things like “Perfect characters are boring” if they are really thinking of literature as the entire canon and not just of the last book or two they read..


Am not sure what you're arguing here.  I'm not suggesting that there's only one way to write a character. Write your character however you like. But, a "perfect" character is in and of itself boring. The reasons were already stated, so there's no need to repeat that.

If you want a character with depth, making one that's above all human foibles is the wrong path.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 11, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> If you want a character with depth, making one that's above all human foibles is the wrong path.



For that to be universally applicable, Tettsuo, you have to explain why characters like John Coffey (and yes, I guess Harry Potter, and if you need more just tell me how many...) are among the most acclaimed in all literature being that they are more or less morally unblemished and certainly above what most would call human foibles. 

Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim(s) over and over does not make it true. At a certain point you have to explain why these various exceptions are there. That is what I have been arguing. Not sure how much more simply it can be put.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 11, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, Voldemart tried to kill him and couldn't. The broom-flying is actually mild compared to that. Yes, Harry does amazing things. He is pure of heart. Can you think of a better name than Messianic for characters who are meant to be that good?
> 
> I am just telling you what I felt. That he could not succeed without his friends, that he motivated them to want to help, and I can't think of a hero like that, at least for an action/fantasy book.



Just about any 'quest' fantasy from Frodo Baggins in _The Lord of the Rings,_ to Rand al'Thor in T_he Wheel of Time_ series, and Katnis Everdeen in _The Hunger Games_.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 11, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> For that to be universally applicable, Tettsuo, you have to explain why characters like John Coffey (and yes, I guess Harry Potter, and if you need more just tell me how many...) are among the most acclaimed in all literature being that they are more or less morally unblemished and certainly above what most would call human foibles.
> 
> Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim(s) over and over does not make it true. At a certain point you have to explain why these various exceptions are there. That is what I have been arguing. Not sure how much more simply it can be put.


John Coffey had no depth, he was a force of nature.

Also, being acclaimed does not mean the character has depth.  No one is studying the complexity of Harry Potter.  In fact, people were more interested in the motivations of Voldermort and Dumbledort (in fact, most other characters in the series) than they were in Harry Porter.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

The discussion sure has gotten interesting!



Tettsuo said:


> John Coffey had no depth, he was a force of nature.
> 
> Also, being acclaimed does not mean the character has depth.  No one is studying the complexity of Harry Potter.  In fact, people were more interested in the motivations of Voldermort and Dumbledort (in fact, most other characters in the series) than they were in Harry Porter.



So then you're saying you think the series was so popular because of the other characters and not Harry? If so, is that just your opinion, or have you read that somewhere? (Just trying to understand the popularity of the series.)


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

It seems there are a few such "flat", "boring", "two dimensional" characters starring in popular books and/or series. 

So if those characters are so boring, then why are the books so popular?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I respect your opinion as your opinion, Emma, I am just asking questions. I am not asking them to denigrate your opinion but to help make it stronger. Scrutiny tends to do that. In my opinion it does, anyway!
> 
> I said myself I believe HP to be a messianic analog and the whole book to be on that ilk. While I don't think Rowling necessarily consciously intended that to be the case (unlike CS Lewis who absolutely did) I don't think there's any doubt that conventional, Christian good/evil morality is rampant throughout Harry Potter, just as it is in a lot of fantasy fiction. It's not quite an allegory, but it's not terribly unorthodox for kids fantasy.
> 
> ...



Your post has me wondering a couple things.

What kind of story would justify a "Mary Sue" type character?

So I guess you didn't identify with Harry? Did you keep reading the books in the series? If so, why? (Still trying to identify that special something that made those books so popular!)


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, Voldemart tried to kill him and couldn't. The broom-flying is actually mild compared to that. Yes, Harry does amazing things. He is pure of heart. Can you think of a better name than Messianic for characters who are meant to be that good?
> 
> I am just telling you what I felt. That he could not succeed without his friends, that he motivated them to want to help, and I can't think of a hero like that, at least for an action/fantasy book.



This may have nailed it.

Was Harry popular because it demonstrated what most of us feel -- that we can do more, but only if someone outside of ourselves believes in us and our abilities?

Isn't that the underlying reason we all hang out here? To be surrounded by others who say, "You can write!"


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 11, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> Am not sure what you're arguing here.  I'm not suggesting that there's only one way to write a character. Write your character however you like. But, a "perfect" character is in and of itself boring. The reasons were already stated, so there's no need to repeat that.
> 
> If you want a character with depth, making one that's above all human foibles is the wrong path.



We, at least I, are/am trying to understand why so books with such "boring" characters are so popular. What are your theories on that subject?


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 11, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> The discussion sure has gotten interesting!
> 
> So then you're saying you think the series was so popular because of the other characters and not Harry? If so, is that just your opinion, or have you read that somewhere? (Just trying to understand the popularity of the series.)


Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.

As for the popularity of the series, the stories are really interesting and fun.

It seems you're confused about character depth and popularity. They are not analogous.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 11, 2018)

Tettsuo said:


> John Coffey had no depth, he was a force of nature.
> 
> Also, being acclaimed does not mean the character has depth.  No one is studying the complexity of Harry Potter.  In fact, people were more interested in the motivations of Voldermort and Dumbledort (in fact, most other characters in the series) than they were in Harry Porter.



""Force of nature" is an idiom that has no fixed meaning whatsoever when applied to a character. You have not provided your definition, so regretfully I can only read this as a kind of semantic splitting of hairs. A wriggle-out.

Your opinion is your own and need not be justified, but I invite you to explain it in plain English so it can be of help to those of us who might learn. I asked you a very simple question and feel I got evasion. What is the difference between an interesting character and one who is a 'force of nature'? I have no idea. I strongly doubt anybody else does. I somewhat doubt you do.

The way I see it is pretty simple: Pretty much any character that creates an emotional response to their condition has a degree of depth. Enough for it to work, anyway. Whether their moral makeup matches a human being is somewhat irrelevant. I saw the adaption of The Green Mile in a theater and the audience wept when Coffey died, and arguably Michael Clarke Duncan plays the character even more simply than in the book. So explain why that doesn't count as a character of _depth_? 

Whether it's John Coffey asking not to be left in the dark because he's afraid of it, or Mufasa teaching Simba about mortality, or any one of thousands of moralist characters, these are worthwhile and necessary types to call on occasionally. At least I think so.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 11, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> ""Force of nature" is an idiom that has no fixed meaning whatsoever when applied to a character. You have not provided your definition, so regretfully I can only read this as a kind of semantic splitting of hairs. A wriggle-out.
> 
> Your opinion is your own and need not be justified, but I invite you to explain it in plain English so it can be of help to those of us who might learn. I asked you a very simple question and feel I got evasion. What is the difference between an interesting character and one who is a 'force of nature'? I have no idea. I strongly doubt anybody else does. I somewhat doubt you do.
> 
> ...



It's been a long time since I read _The Green Mile_, but your reminder about JC not wanting to be left in the dark helped me remember a bit... and for me, it was that vulnerability that made him an interesting character. He seemed to have wisdom, but not necessarily intelligence, or maturity? Like he was sort of a half-formed Jesus. I think if he'd been Full Jesus, smarter and more confident and mature, he wouldn't have been nearly as compelling for me.

I didn't cry when he died because they were killing a magical messiah; i cried because they were killing a child.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 12, 2018)

Bayview said:


> It's been a long time since I read _The Green Mile_, but your reminder about JC not wanting to be left in the dark helped me remember a bit... and for me, it was that vulnerability that made him an interesting character. He seemed to have wisdom, but not necessarily intelligence, or maturity? Like he was sort of a half-formed Jesus. I think if he'd been Full Jesus, smarter and more confident and mature, he wouldn't have been nearly as compelling for me.
> 
> I didn't cry when he died because they were killing a magical messiah; i cried because they were killing a child.



I think you might be onto something there. It was a few pages back on this thread, but I vaguely remember observing myself - I think it was in response to A Song Of Ice And Fire - that characters with mental or physical disabilities are disproportionately more likely to be presented as morally flawless than able-bodied or able-minded characters are.

 In literature being an orphan or from a tragic background also seems to count as a form of handicap, so maybe that explains Harry Potter. Certain John Coffey's being a black man in depression-era Louisiana coupled with an obvious lack of education would be I think.

I think a lot of this comes from the need in literature to achieve some sort of balance, a kind of ying-yang whatever: So the poorer you are, the more spiritually wealthy you are (A Christmas Carol); the dumber you are, the nobler you are (Forrest Gump); the bigger you are, the more childlike (Coffey) and so on. There's the whole rags to riches thing as well, which I definitely think is a big part of the draw for Potter.


----------



## Pepys (Apr 12, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> So let's drop Holmes. There's still Poirot.



Poirot is a flawed character. His detecting skills might be perfect, but he himself is clearly characterised as being far from perfect. He's vain, pedantic, egotistical, a hypochondriac, fussy, irritable and snobbish. That makes him hugely interesting because it provides contrast to his professional brilliance. Readers love him despite his flaws. 

Harry Potter too is flawed. He's shown at different points in the series as being stubborn, rash, obtuse, biased, sulky, petulant and downright brattish. Again, that doesn't stop him being lovable. 

I'd argue that all great characters are shown to have flaws of some kind or another. They may be brilliant/brave/dashing/unselfish but they'll also be bad tempered/substance-abusing/misogynistic/colonial/cold-hearted etc. I can't think of a single great character that doesn't have flaws. Flaws make characters human and interesting.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 12, 2018)

I don't find a character making  unforced errors because they're flawed, nearly as interesting as forced errors. It's the difference between watching a bad chess player getting beat from their own blundners, to watching two masters going at it and one being out played.



> I can't think of a single great character that doesn't have flaws


.

Superman.


----------



## Pepys (Apr 12, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> .
> 
> Superman.



I said GREAT character.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 12, 2018)

Pepys said:


> I said GREAT character.



He is a great character. A character doesn't get to be a worldwide cultural staple for eighty years unless they are great.


----------



## Pepys (Apr 12, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> He is a great character. A character doesn't get to be a worldwide cultural staple for eighty years unless they are great.



I beg to differ. I love Superman, and I grant you he's a cultural staple, but in my opinion he's not a great character. No more than are Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, who are also worldwide cultural staples (and loved world over). 

Great characters have depth, complexity, contradictions, internal conflicts, and usually (but, I'll concede, not always) a character arc - they change, grow, learn new things, make mistakes along the way. They're relatable. Superman isn't.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 12, 2018)

> Poirot is a flawed character. His detecting skills might be perfect, but he himself is clearly characterised as being far from perfect. He's vain, pedantic, egotistical, a hypochondriac, fussy, irritable and snobbish. That makes him hugely interesting because it provides contrast to his professional brilliance. Readers love him despite his flaws.
> 
> Harry Potter too is flawed. He's shown at different points in the series as being stubborn, rash, obtuse, biased, sulky, petulant and downright brattish. Again, that doesn't stop him being lovable.
> 
> I'd argue that all great characters are shown to have flaws of some kind or another. They may be brilliant/brave/dashing/unselfish but they'll also be bad tempered/substance-abusing/misogynistic/colonial/cold-hearted etc. I can't think of a single great character that doesn't have flaws. Flaws make characters human and interesting.




And while I agree that Jesus isn't a great example of a fictional character, I think it's only his weakness (his humanity) that makes us care about him as a... well, as a human. If he were the full-powered God who couldn't be killed, we wouldn't really worry about him. He can't REALLY suffer, he might get wrathful now and then but otherwise doesn't seem to have a lot of "human" emotion, etc.

It's a lot easier to care about somebody who feels pain and can die (at least temporarily) and who weeps and whatever else Jesus did that seemed human, than it is to care about something truly omnipotent. I think Jesus gets a lot of love because of his vulnerabilities, not his strengths.


----------



## Smith (Apr 12, 2018)

Pepys said:


> I beg to differ. I love Superman, and I grant you he's a cultural staple, but in my opinion he's not a great character. No more than are Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, who are also worldwide cultural staples (and loved world over).
> 
> Great characters have depth, complexity, contradictions, internal conflicts, and usually (but, I'll concede, not always) a character arc - they change, grow, learn new things, make mistakes along the way. They're relatable. Superman isn't.



Superman is relatable in other ways. Kids grow up wanting to be the hero who wears a cape, can fly, is really strong, catches the girl, and kicks the butts of the bad guys.

These are things you can say about a lot of different heroes, sure, but I'm just saying that I think it's the fact that he's unrealistic which makes him relatable.

On the contrary, even Superman can't be in more than two places at once (at least not as far as I know; I only paid attention to the new movies with Henry Cavill). I seem to recall him being faced with tough moral challenges, he's responsible for looking after practically everybody, and his virtue is what makes him likable, and relatable in the sense that people wish they could attain that.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 12, 2018)

Even Superman has kryptonite, right? 

Is that just about plot, or is it characterization as well?


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 12, 2018)

Pepys said:


> I beg to differ. I love Superman, and I grant you he's a cultural staple, but in my opinion he's not a great character. No more than are Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, who are also worldwide cultural staples (and loved world over).
> 
> Great characters have depth, complexity, contradictions, internal conflicts, and usually (but, I'll concede, not always) a character arc - they change, grow, learn new things, make mistakes along the way. They're relatable. Superman isn't.



It's elitism to say complexity is inherently better than simplicity. Nor is change for the sake of change, particularly compelling. Characters are not real people, they are concepts. They serve narrative function beyond imitating real human beings, because a character that imitates a real human in all our contradictory complexity is destined to fall short. Superman, as the "Man of Tommorow" is supposed to represent what humanity can be if they strive to make positive choices. That's the fundamental concept of his character. He therefore doesn't work on a fundamental level if you make him "one of us" as we are now.  He just becomes dudebro with powers. His powers are not what makes him Superman.

Take a literary example. Sara Crewe from A Little Princess. All having her beat up another kid in rage, (realistic flaw: abused children can lash out) or cuss out Miss Minchin-   would have done is dilute the book's central theme.


----------



## Pepys (Apr 12, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> It's elitism to say complexity is inherently better than simplicity.



Why is that elitism? 

It's not only intellectuals who appreciate and understand complexity. We're a complex species. Complexity is an innate part of being a modern human being (homo sapiens). It's endlessly fascinating. It's nothing to do with privilege, background or education.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 12, 2018)

Flaw.

Superman is boring. It's always a forgone conclusion whats going to happen: superman wins. Every...stupid...time. This is just my opinion but simplicity is boring. So is predictability. When you know that he's going win every...stupid...time, its like the most bland, yet most popular hamburger with salt, grease, and ketchup ( sugar), it's boring. 

But don't listen to me. What do I know? I'm just some nerd discussing... reading, which most of the planet doesn't bother with, anyway. No, they prefer their boring-ass hamburgers and predictable stories, with plenty of grease, salt and sugar. I would die of boredom writing that sort of...c-cra- most popular stuff. 

I mean... can you actually _read_ Superman? Isn't the whole thing just comic books, which really aren't books, are they? They're a bunch of drawn images portraying heroic/sexy poses, *wham* * bang!* * pow!* which I get. I like to get that instant insert-myself into that ego-boost physical confrontation scenario drawn right-there-for-me on the page. Like, it is really cool to sock the superstrong, looks-like-he-can-easily-kick-your-ass, scary, bad-dude, who's a really really bad guy and so so deserves it, but it's all so limited. 

They're not books. Comic book- that's like saying Ferrari-pinto. Two opposite ends of the spectrum. They're picture-scenes that could be in a book, but they're not in a book, they're in a 'comic-book',  a magazine which is designed to be low effort 'reading'.You don't read; you 'look'. And there's a few words of text.


----------



## Smith (Apr 12, 2018)

Pepys said:


> It's not only intellectuals who appreciate and understand complexity. We're a complex species. Complexity is an innate part of being a modern human being (homo sapiens). It's endlessly fascinating. It's nothing to do with privilege, background or education.



What do you mean by complexity?

It really depends on the level of analysis that you want to look at it from.

While I'm not going to argue that Superman is actually more or less complex than other super heroes, I don't think he's necessarily simplistic. The simple fact that - with the exception of kryptonite - he can essentially do anything and beat all the bad guys, doesn't account for the fact that it's up to him to use those powers for good and not evil in the first place. While a simple dichotomy on the surface, I think we can all agree it's more complicated than that.

And if I'm not mistaken, a huge part of his origin story is trying to keep his powers secret because it would draw a lot of unwanted attention. Some people might want to try and use him for their personal gain. Other people might try to destroy him, or the ones he cares about. People might be afraid of him. And, of course, the other 90% of the 7 billion people on Earth will want his protection.

EDIT: Not just a part of his origin story, but his character in general; I don't know how I forgot the whole "Clark Kent, journalist" alter-ego. Trying to learn what it means to be a normal human being, and sometimes maybe even resisting the urge to jump in and save the day. Choosing his battles, so to speak. Plus, doesn't he have a love interest? How does a being like him handle prioritizing his love with, say, saving a whole city?

Now, admittedly most of what I've said is applicable to most, if not all, comic book superheroes. But really I'm just making the argument that the majority of comic book superheroes are complex at _some_ level. However, personally I agree with Kevin that I find Superman rather boring and uninspired. He lacks vulnerability because he's basically immortal, for starters. So whatever happens to Superman, we can basically bet the farm that he's not going to die. And in most action stories, a big source of suspense is supposed to be us wondering if our hero is going to make it out or not.

To that last point, at least Deadpool is funny, and purposefully designed in a way that is subversive to the superhero status-quo.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 12, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Your post has me wondering a couple things.
> 
> What kind of story would justify a "Mary Sue" type character?
> 
> So I guess you didn't identify with Harry? Did you keep reading the books in the series? If so, why? (Still trying to identify that special something that made those books so popular!)



I think I might have phrased that poorly. No book can justify a Mary Sue, I don’t think, because a Mary Sue is by defintion a poorly justified character: A character with skills that are beyond their natural station and with no explanation as to why. It’s a product of author vanity more than thought as to what belongs in the story.

As far as why I enjoyed the books, I guess it was in spite of, not because of, the protagonist. I personally have a pretty good tolerance for what I find to be a single instance of poorly drawn characterization (unlike others on this thread, reading some responses) so long as I enjoy the world in which the book is set as a whole. I did not identify with Harry because I could not recognize that type of child in either myself or anybody I remember encountering, however I did identify with the setting. I thought Hogwarts was a fantastic setting and was brought to life damn near perfectly. I also thought certain other characters were intriguing (a lot of them actually!) and the concept of a wizarding school, which while not an original concept at all (Rowling was damn lucky not to be tarred with the plagiarism brush, in my opinion) was written of in excellent, modern yet traditional YA prose. I could go on for pages. I do score those books very highly and have huge respect for the author. I was lucky enough to meet her once and she was lovely...

BUT I think with something like Harry Potter it’s easy to get so seduced by the overall quality of the franchise it gets a kind of sacred cow treatment. Lord of the Rings is the same way. These aren’t perfect books and anybody who pretends otherwise is full of it. Lord of the Rings particularly has a very dull prime antagonist in Sauron, a kind of simplistic and pervasive Victorian paternalism, a rather bland and entirely Eurocentric world, etc. Not to derail the thread on this stuff, only to say for me personally a book is usually bigger than a single poorly done character or thing.


----------



## Newman (Apr 12, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.



A better question is "To change, or not to change."

You're going to change something and "flaw" is just one example of an external representation.



Jack of all trades said:


> To flaw, or not to flaw. That is the question.
> 
> Recently a member posted a remark about how no character should be free  of flaws, or perhaps it was that all characters should have flaws.  Either way, the point is the same -- perfect characters are not good.
> 
> ...



All of the characters above which you see as perfect, are not perfect.

Even if they are perfect, it's irrelevant. For example, do they then provoke other characters to change.

At root we're dealing with things like theme, emotional journey and so on.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 12, 2018)

Newman said:


> A better question is "To change, or not to change."
> 
> You're going to change something and "flaw" is just one example of an external representation.



I think you’re going to need to explain this a little better. Makes zero sense from here. 




> All of the characters above which you see as perfect, are not perfect.
> 
> Even if they are perfect, it's irrelevant. For example, do they then provoke other characters to change.
> 
> At root we're dealing with things like theme, emotional journey and so on.



Jack’s post is asking whether morally untarnished characters (or essentially so) can be interesting to read. He is trying to square the popular wisdom that morally ambiguous or otherwise flawed characters are better with the reality that the above examples are generally pretty free from sin and yet extremely popular. Not sure what you’re saying.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 12, 2018)

Pepys said:


> Why is that elitism?
> 
> It's not only intellectuals who appreciate and understand complexity. We're a complex species. Complexity is an innate part of being a modern human being (homo sapiens). It's endlessly fascinating. It's nothing to do with privilege, background or education.



It's elitism because complexity from simplicity is actually more difficult to write than complexity from complexity. Superman's character is simple, his stories are often not. Elitism because it inherently rejects the tastes of "unenlightened masses" as illegitimate. 

As I said complexity for the sake of imitating real life, is doomed to fall short of what a human is. Same as an drawing or sculpture of a tree cannot compete with the vision of a real tree. Art goes beyond recording reality. What characters can do however, is communicate, represent and explore aspects of human nature, in a more clearly identifiable, concentrated form than what human beings can achieve. This is where simplicity can be an asset. 



> They're not books. Comic book- that's like saying Ferrari-pinto. Two opposite ends of the spectrum.



 I gave a book example as well.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 12, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Jack’s post is asking whether morally untarnished characters (or essentially so) can be interesting to read. He is trying to square the popular wisdom that morally ambiguous or otherwise flawed characters are better with the reality that the above examples are generally pretty free from sin and yet extremely popular. Not sure what you’re saying.



The initial post, at least, wasn't really dealing with morally untarnished characters - it was more about geniuses. Things seem to have swung around to the moral elements (with Jesus, etc.) but I think that's been a shift from the start of things...


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 12, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> As I said complexity for the sake of imitating real life, is doomed to fall short of what a human is. Same as an drawing or sculpture of a tree cannot compete with the vision of a real tree. Art goes beyond recording reality. What characters can do however, is communicate, represent and explore aspects of human nature, in a more clearly identifiable, concentrated form than what human beings can achieve. This is where simplicity can be an asset.



Bravo, exactly.

Good characters aren’t people, they are caricatures. A combination of human traits portrayed within the context of a determined scenario and usually exaggerated for dramatic intrigue. A real human being is far more (and, in a way, far less) than any book can ever hope to achieve and attempting to capture one within the relative short and primitive realm of a book is not a realistic goal. You would have better luck breeding a homunculus in a sippy cup.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 12, 2018)

Bayview said:


> The initial post, at least, wasn't really dealing with morally untarnished characters - it was more about geniuses. Things seem to have swung around to the moral elements (with Jesus, etc.) but I think that's been a shift from the start of things...



I read it as being about both: “Harry was very talented and intelligent, yet compassionate. He was bullied, without becoming (too much) of a bully. He showed more marurity than most his age. Practically perfect? Sort of. At least in the early books. And well loved”

Maybe part of the issue is that two entirely different issues (competency and morality) are being shoved into packages when many moral characters aren’t necessarily competent and vice versa? 

I blame Harry Potter for being irritatingly superior on both counts.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Apr 12, 2018)

Perhaps we write characters with little or no flaws because we want them to exemplify everything that we are not. In the same right, perhaps we write characters _with _flaws because we want them to be more down to Earth and/or personable then we could hope to be. Either way, the characters we create in our fiction do resemble us in some way. I don't think either type is boring per se, as long as we find solace in their creation.

-JJB


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 13, 2018)

Bayview said:


> The initial post, at least, wasn't really dealing with morally untarnished characters - it was more about geniuses. Things seem to have swung around to the moral elements (with Jesus, etc.) but I think that's been a shift from the start of things...




My love of mysteries was showing there. Sure, Holmes and Poirot claimed superior intelligence, but Harry didn't. So they weren't all geniuses. And I did deliberately shift things from the start. Especially away from "perfect". Is that a problem? All three are altruistic. That's what they have in common. That and competency in their field of expertise.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 13, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> I read it as being about both: “Harry was very talented and intelligent, yet compassionate. He was bullied, without becoming (too much) of a bully. He showed more marurity than most his age. Practically perfect? Sort of. At least in the early books. And well loved”
> 
> Maybe part of the issue is that two entirely different issues (competency and morality) are being shoved into packages when many moral characters aren’t necessarily competent and vice versa?
> 
> I blame Harry Potter for being irritatingly superior on both counts.



LOL


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 13, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> It's elitism because complexity from simplicity is actually more difficult to write than complexity from complexity. Superman's character is simple, his stories are often not. Elitism because it inherently rejects the tastes of "unenlightened masses" as illegitimate.
> 
> As I said complexity for the sake of imitating real life, is doomed to fall short of what a human is. Same as an drawing or sculpture of a tree cannot compete with the vision of a real tree. Art goes beyond recording reality. What characters can do however, is communicate, represent and explore aspects of human nature, in a more clearly identifiable, concentrated form than what human beings can achieve. This is where simplicity can be an asset.
> 
> ...



I agree that complexity from simplicity is difficult. But I do not see such as elitism.

If hundreds of thousands of books and/or comic books are selling with such characters, how has the taste of the masses been rejected? They buy what they like!


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 13, 2018)

Maybe part of the disagreement involves the word "flaw". 

What is a flaw and what is a trait?

Is knowing you have superior recall, and using it, and not denying it with false modesty a flaw or a trait?

I argued with my father once about the words "determined", "persistent" and "stubborn". He held up two relatives as determined and persistent, but used stubborn for someone else. I told him the only difference was a judgment. Needless to say, that didn't go over very well. But it makes my point.

Is Poirot, for example, "arrogant" or "conceited"? Or just "confident"? I don't recall Christie describing him as arrogant. She did, I think, specify that other characters viewed him as arrogant.

Is it the grey area traits that is the secret to mass popularity?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 13, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Maybe part of the disagreement involves the word "flaw".
> 
> What is a flaw and what is a trait?
> 
> ...


Maybe that is another way of writing a character flaw or trait. But to help picture it, you need a dominant trait I read somewhere that is easy to write the flaw correctly I would like to think. When planning out the character's trait. 

But it also you must know people in how they respond to real life situations I think. I read this advice. My oldest brother for example is generous because he feels giving money makes him less afraid of seeing misery or suffering, or because he is serious about helping. For example he sounds teacherly, when giving advice. Doesn't mind talking about other people's problems that he reasons. Does it provide conflict? I think he'd do badly with a jealous person. He's very educated as in went and studied a master's program. In the right context the jealous person with a divorced family could pose a threat.

Studying people around you is excellent advice. I have a aunt who drives my grandmother to the nagging point that she feels "mad".

We can I think for example induce the trait or infer it from their behavior. Then the opposite trait in the right situation could be a problem and constant conflict. Jealousy versus generosity could be one. But now there is a context for what my example may be worth.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 13, 2018)

Theglasshouse said:


> Maybe that is another way of writing a character flaw or trait. But to help picture it, you need a dominant trait I read somewhere that is easy to write the flaw correctly I would like to think. When planning out the character's trait.
> 
> But it also you must know people in how they respond to real life situations I think. I read this advice. My oldest brother for example is generous because he feels giving money makes him less afraid of seeing misery or suffering, or because he is serious about helping. For example he sounds teacherly, when giving advice. Doesn't mind talking about other people's problems that he reasons. Does it provide conflict? I think he'd do badly with a jealous person. He's very educated as in went and studied a master's program. In the right context the jealous person with a divorced family could pose a threat.
> 
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly that studying those around you help you write those kinds of characters and traits! 

Do you agree that the difference between a trait and a flaw is a judgement?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 13, 2018)

Agreed.  A trait is not what drives the character. Our flaw is what can destroy us. It is a judgment. But also it is what causes in our life experiences to regret what we do before we experience ultimate failure. Flaw drives story much more so. Also, it gives us the ideas or kernel for the character. I somehow think real humans are flawed and many writers who observed people wrote this way. i think for example Othello which has jealousy was a tragic flaw, as was Hamlet's in some people's views indecision. So he (protagonists of the plays) consequently acted on their feelings.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Apr 14, 2018)

This has been a very interesting discussion to read through. In my experience as a reader, it is not the degree of moral/intellectual/physical excellence that makes a character uninteresting, but the lack of opposition. I think the reason "Mary Sues" don't work is because they experience little to no real opposition, and what opposition they do face they instantaneously blow away. The reason why flawed characters work well is that they automatically have to struggle; there's an internal conflict there.

But, that does not mean ideal characters can't work. I personally love stories where larger-than-life characters face massive _external _opposition. All the popular perfect or near-perfect characters that have been mentioned in this conversation are part of stories where most of the conflict is external. It's okay to have a powerful good guy if you've got a powerful bad guy!

It's boring to have a character to whom everything comes easily. But it is definitely not boring, at least to me, to have an extremely good character. There are readers who like extremes. I prefer larger-than-life characters over true-to-life characters, as long as they face real opposition.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 16, 2018)

I was thinking my example maybe of generosity is a strength. But jealousy is. I tend to mislabel flaws.I think the grey area of flaws is basically identifying what we have experienced. I remember one of my childhood "bullies" was a bit jealous of me. How did I know in a reaction? Well, a jealous person will make you lose something. That creates motivation. And in essence, you have a motivated character. I had a troublesome acquaintance of my parents who is absentminded and greedy. That's another thing. The situation is unique because both I could think off in many other people. People who take what isn't theirs, and try to do so by the force of the law. Is another example. That creates motivation as well.


----------

