# Character Flaws! Why do thay always have to be physical?



## Rojack79 (Mar 7, 2019)

Ok so as some of you may know i'm working on a Christian Fantasy story that I'm working on at the moment, currently working on the outline. My big stumbling block right now is the main characters flaws. He's not the kind of guy to indulge in physical pleasures or most of them at any rate so when I try to depict his flaws I'm thinking of going with some spiritual, mental, and emotional ones. My question is will this seem to cheap or will the character come off as to perfect for people to relate to? I ask because I've seen very few examples of this kind of character done in any kind of media. In fact I really can't remember the last time I've seen this character done in both book or movie form.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 7, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Ok so as some of you may know i'm working on a Christian Fantasy story that I'm working on at the moment, currently working on the outline. My big stumbling block right now is the main characters flaws. He's not the kind of guy to indulge in physical pleasures or most of them at any rate so when I try to depict his flaws I'm thinking of going with some spiritual, mental, and emotional ones. My question is will this seem to cheap or will the character come off as to perfect for people to relate to? I ask because I've seen very few examples of this kind of character done in any kind of media. In fact I really can't remember the last time I've seen this character done in both book or movie form.



I think you may need to do some more reading or perhaps define what exactly you mean by 'flaw'. 

Plenty of fiction depicts non-physical flaws and it always has done. Whether it's outright mental illness ('Psycho', 'Misery', 'The Curious Case Of The Dog In The Night Time'), social or romantic ineptitude ('Bridget Jones Diary'), or a character prone to immoral behavior out of a misguided notion of 'doing the right thing' this stuff is as old as the hills. Are you familiar with William Shakespeare?


----------



## Rojack79 (Mar 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think you may need to do some more reading or perhaps define what exactly you mean by 'flaw'.
> 
> Plenty of fiction depicts non-physical flaws and it always has done. Whether it's outright mental illness ('Psycho', 'Misery', 'The Curious Case Of The Dog In The Night Time'), social or romantic ineptitude ('Bridget Jones Diary'), or a character prone to immoral behavior out of a misguided notion of 'doing the right thing' this stuff is as old as the hills. Are you familiar with William Shakespeare?



I'm familiar with Shakespeare but he's not my cup of tea. I know other kinds of flaws have been done but they don't seem so prominent anymore. The go to flaws seem to be all physical one,

Smoking,

Drinking,

Insecure rage at the slightest drop of criticism,

Those kinds of flaws seem to just permeate our culture now and it's frustrating to read the same old bland rehashed characters over and over again.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Mar 7, 2019)

Flaws can be emotional, physical, and mental. Not only that you have to make your character confront the flaw. If your character is impatient, make them confront the challenge or obstacle of being impatient or patient. It's a crude example but procrastinating is an example of something causing impatience. Waiting for someone to wake up from a comma is a character-centered conflict depending how you see it.

Not only that of course there is a lot to characterization. But flaws I would use it this way.

By obstacle: it is meant something like a roadblock. Can be any antagonistic force.

Rinse and repeat these easy things and it is easy to use a flaw for inspiration to get your character in trouble.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 7, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> I'm familiar with Shakespeare but he's not my cup of tea. I know other kinds of flaws have been done but they don't seem so prominent anymore. The go to flaws seem to be all physical one,
> 
> Smoking,
> 
> ...



Notwithstanding that I disagree with your premise that physical flaws are more prominent in modern literature than in days gone by, I still am not completely sure what you mean. 'Insecure rage at the slightest drop of criticism' is a mental issue more than a physical one unless the character in question is going around beating people up left and right. 

To answer your question anyway, no - focusing on spiritual/mental/emotional flaws will not come across as cheap provided you write them in a way that is honest, consistent, and not melodramatic.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 7, 2019)

Flaws can be Sheldon Cooper.


----------



## Dluuni (Mar 7, 2019)

Even a virtue can be a flaw if it causes rigidity and provides a handhold for the villain to use against them. You can also think in terms of damage, a personality trait developed by their past which hinders them in achieving their goals in the book. My WIP's central character flaw is secrecy; he has learned the hard way to play everything very close, but that makes him vulnerable to blackmail.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Mar 9, 2019)

A flaw is anything that would hinder the character from succeeding in their current situation. So a characteristic may start as a virtue, however if the character doesn't adapt to the new circumstances the same trait may become a problem. For instance 'pride' could help a person push themselves to succeed, but when they really need help pride may keep them from asking for assistance.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think you may need to do some more reading or perhaps define what exactly you mean by 'flaw'.
> 
> Plenty of fiction depicts non-physical flaws and it always has done. Whether it's outright mental illness ('Psycho', 'Misery', 'The Curious Case Of The Dog In The Night Time'), social or romantic ineptitude ('Bridget Jones Diary'), or a character prone to immoral behavior out of a misguided notion of 'doing the right thing' this stuff is as old as the hills. Are you familiar with William Shakespeare?



Indeed! Jane Austin's Mrs Norris was my first thought.

Rojack79, first off I would recommend you try going to a decent production of a Shakespeare comedy, the history and tragedy can be a bit heavy as a starter, but plays are written to be seen, and he really is good, it is not all reputation and English teachers going on. Secondly I would pay careful attention when you are posting an opening post, it is the one everyone is going to refer to; things like a possessive apostrophe in ' character's ' and 'either book or movie' rather than 'both book or...'. If you are serious and accurate 
people will take the question more seriously. And look at this:-
Ok so as some of you may know i'm *working on* a Christian Fantasy story that I'm *working on* at the moment, currently _*working on*_ the outline.
Can we take it you are working on something? And you capitalise one_ I'm_ and not another. The mind does not switch on and off, it is good practice to read and edit everything you write, then you will make fewer errors when it is important, and as I said, opening posts are important, they set the tone of the thread.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 11, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Rojack79, first off I would recommend you try going to a decent production of a Shakespeare comedy, the history and tragedy can be a bit heavy as a starter, but plays are written to be seen, and he really is good, it is not all reputation and English teachers going on.



Whenever people say 'Shakespeare isn't my cup of tea' I sigh. It's nobody's fault, schools just can't figure out how to teach it and all the well-known movie adaptions have been lame as hell. Combine these with the reality that the language takes a little bit of work and color me unsurprised.

But Olly's right, it's a theatrical experience and a great source for inspiration on how to write _character. _It's incredible how even now so many books borrow from Shakespeare, even if its mainly on a subliminal level. 

The best Shakespearean example of a character with non-physical flaws, in my opinion, is King Lear. The entire story revolves around pride, ego and stubbornness. Essentially the character, an old man who wants to retire, disowns his daughter because she does not kiss his ass, leaves all his money to his other two daughters who did kiss his ass, and then refuses to accept the reality of his mistake even when they start to abuse him, culminating with him becoming insane/suicidal. his happens all the time in the modern world: The vulnerable getting lead astray by the ulterior motives of those around them and oblivious because of their own delusions. It's extremely relevant, and beautifully portrayed. Hamlet likewise.


----------



## Newman (Mar 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Ok so as some of you may know i'm working on a Christian Fantasy story that I'm working on at the moment, currently working on the outline. My big stumbling block right now is the main characters flaws. He's not the kind of guy to indulge in physical pleasures or most of them at any rate so when I try to depict his flaws I'm thinking of going with some spiritual, mental, and emotional ones. My question is will this seem to cheap or will the character come off as to perfect for people to relate to? I ask because I've seen very few examples of this kind of character done in any kind of media. In fact I really can't remember the last time I've seen this character done in both book or movie form.



Doesn't have to be physical. The important thing is that it repairs, which is part of the arc. It's a signal of transformation.


----------



## JessicaT (Apr 7, 2019)

Newman said:


> Doesn't have to be physical. The important thing is that it repairs, which is part of the arc. It's a signal of transformation.



This +1.

One of my WIP stories has a college freshman as the MC and her best friend, also a freshman, is dealing with the sexual abuse from her father as a child. In addition to the abuse (no longer present in her life but the affects/effects are), when she disclosed to her mother she wasn't believed. So the MC's best friend has literally dealt with the abuse in silence for years and all the things that sexual abuse brings.

While not a "flaw" (it's not her fault) of hers, it is something she has to deal with still. She agonizes over disclosing to her best friend but ultimately does and is embraced and believed by her (yes, there's lots of tears and hugs).

Perhaps your MC has suffered some kind of abuse as a child? Perhaps something one of his parents said to him (something really, really stupid like "you'll never amount to anything!") as a child still resonates with him today?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 9, 2019)

I don't really go for flaws. They always seemed formulaic to me.
With my characters it's about their deal.
Y'know, when you meet someone weird, and later you ask someone else "What's that guy's deal?"

Some characters are flawed, some have blind spots, some have extreme bias, greed, uncouth, perverts, drug users, closeted, assholes, liberals, agnostics, church zealots, and any other social malfunction you see in the modern world. I get my inspiration from reading non-fiction.

Often when I need a character, I just think back to someone I knew OUaT, and base it on them.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 10, 2019)

Ok so I am changing my original opinion on flaws. But I will add some notes based on a book I read that discusses giving a imaginary character a trait.

I agree with you Ralph that flaws aren't a necessary addition for a character's personality. Everyone has a different approach as well. I am still doubting how to add a flaw to a character as in how to do it properly.

It's downright confusing for me to assign a flaw to someone in a story (without it being a cliche). However I read on a method. I have struggled to find a way to understand it. I have tried to answer the question for my own writing. It's difficult to say how people who are flawed, and why they are. I dont have an answer for how to write with a flaw with absolute clarity. What I do suggest is giving an adjective to a character reaction if necessary. Because it helps to know how a character will react or think. I think after reading how other writers do this, if you like to write about yourself and people you know. These are the best sources of information for a story character. I was doing some reading on this book, jk rowling based all her characters using an autobiographical profile of people she met. They gradually changed over time. Professor snape and hermoine were among those people rowling wrote about as "based on real life people".

I will try explaining flaws from david rush's book. Which is a method.

(Flaws are something difficult to define. I think that's something writers have to discover by themselves. Sometimes you can get lucky. There is supposedly a downside to every strength. When there is a situation in a story and some context.

If a reaction is adverse in a story as in it contributes to the plot,you could find a flaw by accident. )

The book I read said if you add add traits to a character for example ambitious you can argue they will behave a certain way. Will they harm other people to get their way? Will they seek power and status? The ends will justify the means for them. It sounds like a tragic flaw, except it hasn't been written. All those describe an ambitious person. One that seeks promotions for instance. Shakespeare's characters were considered flawed. He made strengths in some cases flaws making the play a tragedy.

Not all traits are equally useful to make flaws, how to do you make a compassionate person a interesting person and flaw? You simply cannot because that has to be what the person uses to win in a conflict situation. After you use compassion as the trait, how will the conflict play out?

In the same example ambitious can be used to win in a conflict, and can also backfire.
from: 





> david rush (according to him a goal must be urgent: i. It's specific and visible: Laura must get married. 2. It's completable: It will end when Laura says, "I do." 3. It's positive: Amanda is going toward something, not leaving something. 4. It certainly is important. The stakes are very high: survival. 5. It certainly involves somebody else: Tom, Laura, and the prospective bridegroom.source: David Rush. Building Your Play: Theory and Practice for the Beginning Playwright


Let's say I make up a conflict. The person that drives the action of the story needs the flaw to drive the action of the story. Compassion needs to drive it.

An example I typed that might not work. This is what I mean when the flaw doesn't work like when I want it to work. I don't know maybe someone passes away and a person thinks that giving a bouquet of roses out of compassion is from someone that loved her but this action is misinterpreted as a former love affair. The next day the mc decides he needs to show compassion to his newest problem. The mc shows sympathy or compassion by forgiving the antagonist about the confusion but now hasn't solved a problem yet. He needs to prove even though he dislikes the person he must even though not invited to be there. He wants to pay condolences to his dead high school friend who shows he needs to make friends with by looking for belongings to remember her to help his friends from high school cope with the loss because one friend of his is suicidal (a best friend). So he steals or takes away a memento that another person thinks will earn him compassion by giving the memento to someone else. He thinks it will give him forgiveness that will give him someone to save (the suicidal girl).

what is at stake: 
If he saves this person's life. He will have proved that he is a compassionate person to all life forms even though he failed to brighten up her spirits. The inner conflict will be: suicide is avoided, if the person does nothing wrong to depress the other person. It is an act of heroism. He will change as a person like a chameleon does in colors since he is depressed as well. Depression is brought on by sad thoughts. He wants to admit her to a hospital. She has escaped the house.

The other personality could be honor. Show the character's belief in honor, and as the saying goes "maybe I will pay my respects to you" (personal belief of the person and flaw since it is a form of pride and can be seen as pride in a way).
(honor I have seen this in movies and it can be shown this way)(a person secretly tapes a conversation vowing a promise) (the important part is that it can be seen easily such as ambition can in a story) A person wants to honor those who have lost their lives. All in order to attain the goal of honor. (soldiers have honor)(death requires to honor those who have passed away)(this disturbance disrupts the scene)

Sorry long post but I wanted to present in this part of the post david rush's approach.

Respect can also be used as an adjective. It will help the character react a certain way and if a flaw it has to be what is driving the scene (that is action is caused by a character that displays this trait or quality by pursuing the goal; he calls this strategy, in respect is easy to picture and honor (easy to picture as a goal by using a (transitive) verb, for example to cheer someone up could be considered a goal and is visible) and the flaw of honor is also disrupting the scene (conflict).

I respect opinions that will say this seems to be not a good way of writing. I however decided to post it anyways to follow up on earlier post I wrote some time ago on characters and flaws. It's one author's point of view so it is ok so for me it is important to acknowledge this. Not everyone agrees with these methods.

I am going to write some autobiographical sketches based on the a creative writing book course by Cambridge which introduction to creative writing is one book I will be reading (using real life people to write stories is what I am trying to do here; the book covers this information).


----------



## GenreShinobi (Apr 10, 2019)

Flaws. I like that someone referenced a persons "deal". I like to think about it as "Damage". If you think about an action character like John Wick, his flaw is his obsession. But it isn't present and persistent throughout his life, it's only revealed once specific events occur and it's actually a symptom of his grief.

You'd mentioned how many characters commonly have physical flaws, but from the examples you gave those weren't actually the flaws. "Drinking" isn't typically the flaw, it's a symptom of the flaw. If ya get my drift. 

And when a person drinks for a reason, and not just because he's a drunk, it adds a depth that people can relate to. 

The flaw is a two part thing. The core damage + how it manifests. The flaw, comes from somewhere that is almost always 100% internal. The death of his wife causes grief, which manifests as alcoholism. He's mentally unstable, which manifests as a curiosity that lacks boundaries or concerns for others safety. The abuse she survived in childhood, manifests as self harm and anxiety. 

There are examples of purely physical flaws where the internal damage is the symptom. August Pullman, from Wonder, for example is a characters who physical imperfections actually caused his internal damage.

I personally find flaws that aren't extreme more compelling. Flaws the character fights against, and occasionally overcomes tends to have me guessing on whether or not the person will give in this time, or stay strong.


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 10, 2019)

Flaws are what make characters believable to begin with, I think. A character without any serious flaws is at best implausible, and at worst also downright boring.

Personally I strongly prefer the "anti-hero" character type, a protagonist with serious personality flaws, oftentimes hardly better than the villains. An anti-hero embodies the true spirit of humanity, the ability to overcome adversity and do what is morally right in spite of one's own deep personal flaws, rather than because of a lack of them. I certainly find such characters much more relatable than the traditional "perfect" hero types.


----------



## James Wolfe (Apr 10, 2019)

I tend not to give my charters flaws, at least not consciously as I don't really thing about what flaws or even characteristics I am going to assign to them.  It just seems to happen as I write or develops as i'm editing. Like when I added a rival for my main character, it brought out a lot of my MC's personality. such as being a bit spoiled and arrogant at the start of the series. 

I guess I didn't really see in the terms of flaws when I made her father an alcoholic due to the burdens of being a King and never getting to know his father. It was just to show he couldn't handle the stresses of it.


----------



## JessicaT (Apr 10, 2019)

Let's not forget about _perceived_ flaws (or however you want to characterize it, _it_ being _flaws_). One religion shakes their head at another for their beliefs, one political group shakes their head at another for their beliefs, et cetera.

Just because someone doesn't _think like you_ doesn't make them flawed or weird.


----------



## willowarc (Apr 10, 2019)

I have a character in one of my stories that is very pragmatic and speaks in the third person. She effects as being autistic in a practical sense, however is not, at least at the moment, as I have not fully developed her character completely, as she is a main supporting character at the moment. I mean her pragmatism is intentional to show that she knows a lot more than she lets on to know, it gets stuff done.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 10, 2019)

JessicaT said:


> Just because someone doesn't _think like you_ doesn't make them flawed or weird.



No, but people who_ are_ weird and flawed don't think like me, so it ups the chances.


----------



## JessicaT (Apr 10, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> No, but people who_ are_ weird and flawed don't think like me, so it ups the chances.



Thanks, you just proved my _entire point_ though you only quoted _part of my statement_. It's all in the perception (if they _think like me_ or not; religion, politics, etc.).


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 10, 2019)

Like I said; it's not so much a flaw as "What's their deal?"
The best characters are atypical in some way.
Ordinary, normal, people are generally boring.
Tis why no one has made a story about *your* life; you're all boring. 

Where I see a lot of writers go wrong is when they try to create inoffensive characters.
They can't bear to have their hero do something non-PC because they feel it reflects on them as a writer...but it doesn't really. Did you fault Stephen King for Flagg's amoral personage? Did you fault Mary Shelly because one of her characters drowned a little girl?

Make your characters abbynormal.


----------



## WolfBane (Apr 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Ok so as some of you may know i'm working on a Christian Fantasy story that I'm working on at the moment, currently working on the outline. My big stumbling block right now is the main characters flaws. He's not the kind of guy to indulge in physical pleasures or most of them at any rate so when I try to depict his flaws I'm thinking of going with some spiritual, mental, and emotional ones. My question is will this seem to cheap or will the character come off as to perfect for people to relate to? I ask because I've seen very few examples of this kind of character done in any kind of media. In fact I really can't remember the last time I've seen this character done in both book or movie form.



There are plenty of so-called "flaws" (no offense to anyone calling them flaws) that have absolutely nothing to do with physical. The easiest are psychological "flaws" such as derangement, bipolarism, schizophrenia, etc. The "flaw" of moral behaviour - killing, rape, theft, etc. The "flaw" of social standing (being dirt poor isn't a physical trait). 




Rojack79 said:


> I'm familiar with Shakespeare but he's not my cup of tea. I know other kinds of flaws have been done but they don't seem so prominent anymore. The go to flaws seem to be all physical one,
> 
> Smoking,
> 
> ...



My suggestion is diversify what you read. I've read plenty of books where the character's "flaws" are more than the dull old humdrum of smoking & drinking.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 11, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Like I said; it's not so much a flaw as "What's their deal?"
> The best characters are atypical in some way.
> Ordinary, normal, people are generally boring.
> Tis why no one has made a story about *your* life; you're all boring.
> ...



I disagree. Some of the best fiction is written about normal 'boring' people who are put in extraordinary situations. That's particularly the case with horror and thriller fiction. Stephen King has made a career of taking the everyman and pitting him against monsters, both literal and figurative.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 11, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I disagree. Some of the best fiction is written about normal 'boring' people who are put in extraordinary situations. That's particularly the case with horror and thriller fiction. Stephen King has made a career of taking the everyman and pitting him against monsters, both literal and figurative.



I haven’t probably read as much King as you, but it seems to me a lot of King’s effective everyman characters are only “normal” and “boring” on a superficial level. 

Plenty do absolutely have flaws, often quite heinous ones. Jack Torrance is an “Everyman” who is also an alcoholic, frustrated writer, child abuser, for instance. The MC from Misery has an addictive personality that turns him into a drug addict. An awful lot have alcohol problems or some kind of addiction, presumably to reflect Kings own demons.

I’m not able to give sufficient examples to speak in absolute terms here and YMMV on what is  “normal” anyway but it seems to me Ralph’s point mainly stands that good character design is about creating (inwardly at least) complex characters as opposed to just avatars of vanilladom who just happen to be in a fix that day.

Most good thriller fiction I’ve read has characters which only display a facade of Everyman but are, underneath it, screwed up in some fundamental way.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 11, 2019)

But, aren't we all screwed up in some way? That _is_ normal. Of course no one should create vanilla characters without any defining characteristics, that would be severely abnormal. Everyone has their demons, but we don't always see them. That's what I mean by a normal person, a man, or woman just like you or I, each of us carrying our own baggage. Given the right set of circumstances that baggage can be a curse, or a salvation. That's where interesting fiction comes from.

King writes plenty of 'normal' characters. The protagonist in the _Mr. Mercedes_ trilogy is just a retired cop suffering from depression until..., the protagonist in _The Dead Zone_ starts out as about a normal a guy as you can imagine (his name is even John Smith) until..., all of the main characters in _The Stand_ are just people until.... But going beyond King, Santiago in _The Old Man and the Sea_ is just a fishermen, _Jane Eyre_ is just an orphan, Sheriff Brody in _Jaws_ is just a cop, and the list goes on and on. Ordinary people put into extraordinary situations.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 11, 2019)

Terry D said:


> But, aren't we all screwed up in some way? That _is_ normal. Of course no one should create vanilla characters without any defining characteristics, that would be severely abnormal. Everyone has their demons, but we don't always see them. That's what I mean by a normal person, a man, or woman just like you or I, each of us carrying our own baggage. Given the right set of circumstances that baggage can be a curse, or a salvation. That's where interesting fiction comes from.
> 
> King writes plenty of 'normal' characters. The protagonist in the _Mr. Mercedes_ trilogy is just a retired cop suffering from depression until..., the protagonist in _The Dead Zone_ starts out as about a normal a guy as you can imagine (his name is even John Smith) until..., all of the main characters in _The Stand_ are just people until.... But going beyond King, Santiago in _The Old Man and the Sea_ is just a fishermen, _Jane Eyre_ is just an orphan, Sheriff Brody in _Jaws_ is just a cop, and the list goes on and on. Ordinary people put into extraordinary situations.



Yeah, we are all screwed up in some way. I think that's kind of my point. 

I think this is probably just another case of splitting semantic hairs over something that is essentially obvious to all of us. Although if not, this could be an interesting discussion...

My interpretation of Ralph's comment "The best characters are atypical in some way" was  that he simply means the characters should not be predictable, insipid versions of their 'type'. That they should have some set of idiosyncratic trait(s), a personality, an inner voice. That this should be the case even if (or especially if) they are outwardly rather conventional. I certainly don't think he means every character should be some kind of OTT mad scientist or gunslinger. It's a more nuanced approach.

You are right that Santiago from TOMATS is 'just a fisherman'...except he's not, is he? He has this whole hidden depth, this backstory that does not simply concern fishing and that in Hemingway style is not exactly explained but certainly is alluded to through images, like...



> 'He no longer dreamed of storms, nor of women, nor of great occurrences, nor of great fish, nor fights, nor contests of strength, nor of his wife. He only dreamed of places now and of the lions on the beach. They played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them as he loved the boy.''



That's not what I would classify as expected for 'just a fisherman'. It indicates some kind of unique backstory, some individual plight, a set of emotions, ones that may go beyond what would be expected of 'just a fisherman'. I always found the relationship with the boy a curious one for instance.

But you are right that what makes Santiago an interesting character is how 'ordinary' he is, how humble and unsophisticated his thought patterns. It is this kind of paradox that makes characters interesting IMO. It’s also as much about voice and how other characters respond to him as it is “who he is”.

Honestly, I don't think words like 'ordinary' or 'typical' or 'boring' are very helpful in any art. What is a typical orphan anyway? There's really no such thing as a dull character, only a dull writer. An artist like Edward Hopper paints scenes and people that are almost absurdly devoid of 'character' at first glance but become a lot more the longer you look at them.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 12, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I disagree. Some of the best fiction is written about normal 'boring' people who are put in extraordinary situations. That's particularly the case with horror and thriller fiction. Stephen King has made a career of taking the everyman and pitting him against monsters, both literal and figurative.




They only appear to be ordinary, but the events prove them to be exceptional in the end.
All the _normal_ people get killed.

I'm not saying that ordinary characters are verboten, they're just harder to sell.
People read to be taken to new places and meet new people.


----------



## moderan (Apr 13, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> They only appear to be ordinary, but the events prove them to be exceptional in the end.
> All the _normal_ people get killed.
> 
> I'm not saying that ordinary characters are verboten, they're just harder to sell.
> People read to be taken to new places and meet new people.


And kill them.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 13, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> They only appear to be ordinary, but the events prove them to be exceptional in the end.



No, they really are ordinary, but events bring out the exceptional person lurking inside every normal one. On one level that is the rational that allows people to associate with Bruce Willis, or whoever, on another it is actually true, heroes really are ordinary people who step up to the mark, that's what makes it possible to associate with fictional heroes.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 13, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> No, they really are ordinary, but events bring out the exceptional person lurking inside every normal one. On one level that is the rational that allows people to associate with Bruce Willis, or whoever, on another it is actually true, heroes really are ordinary people who step up to the mark, that's what makes it possible to associate with fictional heroes.



How can a character 'really be ordinary*' *but yet 'have an exceptional person lurking inside'? ​They can't, can they? Either you are ordinary or you are extraordinary. There's nothing really ordinary about Bruce Willis's characters beyond the superficiality of looks or occupation (him being an oil driller or whatever) - they are nascent heroes.

Whether the exceptional nature of a character is evident to those around the character and/or the reader is a matter of stagecraft (and an important one) but it has nothing to do with the character's true _identity_ anymore than a gay man who puts on the appearance of heterosexuality is any less gay. Lots of characters might seem ordinary and that may very well be the facade, but that doesn't mean they are.

I don't actually think there is any such thing as an ordinary or boring character (or human being, for that matter) only an incomplete or undeveloped or misunderstood one. So I think this kind of language to be rather unhelpful. But if we are going to continue to bang the drum of 'ordinary characters can be interesting characters' then we should probably pick a horse and stick with it.

 Can a character really be made interesting solely by being placed in external circumstances? If so, how does that work? What determines their survival and ultimately their heroism? Just sheer luck? That would not seem very plausible. In reality, heroism and heroic acts are probably a mix of luck: Of having a character who seems unassuming but actually has a trove of hidden [virtue] who is put in a situation where this [virtue] is nurtured into one or more heroic acts, where other 'ordinary' types would either run away screaming or, as Ralph says, die burning. But to pretend there's no difference seems to do a certain disservice.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 14, 2019)

I agree that character flaws are in fact simply the perceptions and prejudices of others, so the whole concept of them is itself flawed. Consequently I have no idea why they are considered so essential in literature. Why insist on a story being based on flawed concepts? If this is the case then the story arc should resolve the flaws within itself rather than "resolving" imagined flaws in its characters.

A flaw normally means that something is unfit for its purpose. What then is the purpose of a person outside of any predefined context?


----------



## Pallandozi (Aug 22, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Either you are ordinary or you are extraordinary.



Have you listened to Phil Zimbardo talking about the "Banality of Heroism" ?


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 22, 2020)

Here's a helpful list:


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 22, 2020)

Here's an interesting character:
Has OCD, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Paranoid Schizophrenia, Tourette's syndrome, Gonosyphillherpades, Chronic Gluteal Perspiration, and is addicted to laxatives, caffeine, alcohol, and cigarettes.

I would estimate the life expectancy to be about two weeks so make the story short for this one.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 22, 2020)

Physical deformities or disabilities do not count as "character flaws" in my opinion. 

Their _character _​must be flawed, not their bodies.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 23, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> Here's an interesting character:
> Has OCD, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Paranoid Schizophrenia, Tourette's syndrome, Gonosyphillherpades, Chronic Gluteal Perspiration, and is addicted to laxatives, caffeine, alcohol, and cigarettes.
> 
> I would estimate the life expectancy to be about two weeks so make the story short for this one.



There's nothing in that laundry list that would cause a character to have a short life expectancy. The AIDS still wouldn't kill a person in two weeks. These are all long-term disorders and ailments. 

I'm actually writing characters that are "worse off." For instance, one is a DID system, and between the group of six main personalities, we've got: many varied flavors of OCD, probably at least one psychotic disorder, many dissociative disorders, possibly high functioning autism and ADD, severe depression (possibly with psychotic symptoms); addictions to cigarettes, caffeine, alcohol, sex and narcotics; amnesia, fugue, antisocial personality disorder (what sociopaths and psychopaths actually get diagnosed with), borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, Machiavellianism, sadism, masochism, psychosomatic numbness, selective mutism, eating disorders, self-harm, issues with autohypnosis, learned helplessness, agoraphobia, internalized homophobia, denial, projection, transference, codependency, gender dysphoria, rejection sensitive dysphoria, oppositional defiance, pretty much every orientation and stripe of the rainbow LGBTQIA+ flag, bilateral clubfoot, various sexually transmitted diseases, vision and hearing problems.  

My super boring, normal Clark Kent protagonist was hiding all of that. And more. For ten years. To our credit, DID is a highly covert disorder and does its best to hide and appear perfectly normal. We're not sure how old he is, but we think he's around thirty.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 23, 2020)

seigfried007 said:


> There's nothing in that laundry list that would cause a character to have a short life expectancy. The AIDS still wouldn't kill a person in two weeks. These are all long-term disorders and ailments.
> 
> I'm actually writing characters that are "worse off." For instance, one is a DID system, and between the group of six main personalities, we've got: many varied flavors of OCD, probably at least one psychotic disorder, many dissociative disorders, possibly high functioning autism and ADD, severe depression (possibly with psychotic symptoms); addictions to cigarettes, caffeine, alcohol, sex and narcotics; amnesia, fugue, antisocial personality disorder (what sociopaths and psychopaths actually get diagnosed with), borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, Machiavellianism, sadism, masochism, psychosomatic numbness, selective mutism, eating disorders, self-harm, issues with autohypnosis, learned helplessness, agoraphobia, internalized homophobia, denial, projection, transference, codependency, gender dysphoria, rejection sensitive dysphoria, oppositional defiance, pretty much every orientation and stripe of the rainbow LGBTQIA+ flag, bilateral clubfoot, various sexually transmitted diseases, vision and hearing problems.
> 
> My super boring, normal Clark Kent protagonist was hiding all of that. And more. For ten years. To our credit, DID is a highly covert disorder and does its best to hide and appear perfectly normal. We're not sure how old he is, but we think he's around thirty.



lol. Anyone think this is over the top? Go big I always say.

Wait... worse off? More like better off dead. lol.

...bilateral clubfoot... lol what the fuck man!?!


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 23, 2020)

Acrorodentophobia:

The fear of having to capture a squirrel in an attic with only rafters, and insulation underneath you.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 23, 2020)

Imo any sort of flawed behavior is good for trouble even if it comes from a disorder. But you need concrete examples.  The flaw can help cause trouble. The obsessive compulsive character repeats behaviors. That's trouble for me, because when you are obsessed with an activity you can't move on to important things in life. For schizophrenic behavior depression can impede you to do certain things. You can also seem indecisive. Your rational to the point when you have Asperger that you neglect some social situations. They are said to be lonesome people. I would say these people are ill-equipped for certain situations. That makes them ideal for trouble.




Lee Messer said:


> lol. Anyone think this is over the top? Go big I always say.





Lee Messer said:


> Wait... worse off? More like better off dead. lol.
> 
> ...bilateral clubfoot... lol what the fuck man!?!



I think what he said is a good point.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Aug 23, 2020)

@Lee Messer
a lot of that list is just very odd quirks, not flaws per say. "Sings the last part of a sentence"????


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 23, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> @Lee Messer
> a lot of that list is just very odd quirks, not flaws per say. "Sings the last part of a sentence"????



I like quirks, pet peeves, annoyances, and fetishes. Everybody's got them.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Aug 23, 2020)

Oh, yes, certainly. This thread was more on the topic of flaws, though. Quirks aid in characterization on an immediate level (details), flaws on a structural level (big picture, overall plot).


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 23, 2020)

Flaws are intimately tied with arc, I feel.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 24, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> lol. Anyone think this is over the top? Go big I always say.
> 
> Wait... worse off? More like better off dead. lol.
> 
> ...bilateral clubfoot... lol what the fuck man!?!



Nope, still not better off dead. Keep in mind, I'm describing a six-in-one situation throughout a man's life. This stuff doesn't affect all of them equally throughout that ~30 year period. He was born with bilateral clubfoot, but this was eventually treated, so the guy walks fine. A couple of his child alters have internalized that deformity, and so when they appear in the inner world or take executive control of the body, they can't walk. 

What's important here is that each of these conditions appears in response to trauma or as a cause of it. In specific circumstances, most of these are coping mechanisms, defense strategies, and actually *improved* his/their survival odds during their childhood. For instance, the primary antagonist has all the personality disorders, plus the sadomasochism, psychosomatic numbness, some self-harm and rejection sensitive dysphoria. He's highly intelligent and imaginative, but all of those "flaws" appeared in response to overwhelming trauma, and if he hadn't developed traits like psychopathy, they would've died. They needed someone self-absorbed and unburdened by a conscience--but they also needed this part to be self-contained and compartmentalized. Those traits were necessary for the group's survival, but those traits would've gotten them into serious trouble if they'd been outwardly present all the time. There were times when an inability to feel intense pain (even to find it pleasurable) or to fearlessly laugh in an abuser's face actually helped them survive. As something also of a gatekeeper personality, it was also his job to "throw his brothers under the bus" and pick which of the others took what kinds of abuse, but he wouldn't have been able to perform this necessary job if he'd retained empathy and a conscience. Readers love this guy. He's actually battered himself into a redemption arc and is working on getting his conscience and emotions back as he heals, but this is going to be a long, difficult road. 

 I never set out to make a character any of these things--these traits occurred organically and were "diagnosed" long after I'd started writing each of the characters. I hadn't intended to write a book/series about a group of trauma survivors struggling to cope and heal, and I certainly hadn't intended these characters to be housed in the same body. It's actually left open for reader interpretation as to whether or not they are a DID system (other theories include telepathic manipulation inducing a DID-like state). 

Interestingly, no reader has ever mentioned anything about me piling too many flaws on a character. Each of those characters is much loved, in fact--even the bad guy. The villain was actually the first one to get his own fangirls.


----------



## TheManx (Aug 24, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> Here's a helpful list:
> View attachment 25994




Now what's this list? Because I'm a closeted dancer. Should I be worried?


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 24, 2020)

Nope, because those are mostly just quirks and not flaws at all. Flaws have to have some downside to them. 

In a somewhat roundabout way, in my above post, I was partially getting at the idea that flaws and virtues are highly dependent on context. The same trait can be either in most instances. Even a short, slight, pretty, gay, farsighted, sadomasochistic, narcissistic, Machiavellian sociopath with BPD and psychosomatic numbness might actually be the best guy for the job in the right circumstances. Outside of those circumstance, however, such a character would probably considered enormously flawed.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 24, 2020)

Some writer advice I read said that you can use more than one flaw for a character. Not every personality trait that is negative would be considered a good fit for the character's flaw though. It also helps the scene move forward according to the advice and complicates their problem or the conflict. Because some flaws for some characters that have traditionally appeared for characters in stereotypical characters in stories can be a good flaw to assign to a fictional character. Maybe it would be a good idea to assign flaws from stories that are read. The shiftless king is the opposite of the ambitious king in Shakespearean plays. Someone who is not humorous is not serious about life. I am reminded of a character in a different story that is not well known of Shakespearean plays. If you aren't serious about things that are serious and merit attention you will find yourself in trouble. In the story I read a character committed a crime, but turned out it was a hoax and his fortune changed at the end of the story. He became famous. It's been a while since I read it. But this is my take on the approach or how to find a flaw for a character.

I don't know how other people find or define the flaw. Do people take their flaws from characters in other stories? I see myself doing this more often. Its better than assigning a bad negative trait considered a flaw in my opinion but it is just my own point of view.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 26, 2020)

seigfried007 said:


> Nope, because those are mostly just quirks and not flaws at all. Flaws have to have some downside to them.
> 
> In a somewhat roundabout way, in my above post, I was partially getting at the idea that flaws and virtues are highly dependent on context. The same trait can be either in most instances. Even a short, slight, pretty, gay, farsighted, sadomasochistic, narcissistic, Machiavellian sociopath with BPD and psychosomatic numbness might actually be the best guy for the job in the right circumstances. Outside of those circumstance, however, such a character would probably considered enormously flawed.



Im glad to help you get there. My way of helping is to offer options... as many options as I can. I may or may not be affiliated with them. I offer as much as I can in the expectation that you would choose. If a main character had a massive amount of flaws, I think we'd be talking about a very different concept on the story. Maybe the story would be about those flaws, and not the seeming plot, right? I mean, if you give someone that many flaws, it dominates the plot, I think. Would be a funny story though. Imagine.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 26, 2020)

seigfried007 said:


> Nope, still not better off dead. Keep in mind, I'm describing a six-in-one situation throughout a man's life. This stuff doesn't affect all of them equally throughout that ~30 year period. He was born with bilateral clubfoot, but this was eventually treated, so the guy walks fine. A couple of his child alters have internalized that deformity, and so when they appear in the inner world or take executive control of the body, they can't walk.
> 
> What's important here is that each of these conditions appears in response to trauma or as a cause of it. In specific circumstances, most of these are coping mechanisms, defense strategies, and actually *improved* his/their survival odds during their childhood. For instance, the primary antagonist has all the personality disorders, plus the sadomasochism, psychosomatic numbness, some self-harm and rejection sensitive dysphoria. He's highly intelligent and imaginative, but all of those "flaws" appeared in response to overwhelming trauma, and if he hadn't developed traits like psychopathy, they would've died. They needed someone self-absorbed and unburdened by a conscience--but they also needed this part to be self-contained and compartmentalized. Those traits were necessary for the group's survival, but those traits would've gotten them into serious trouble if they'd been outwardly present all the time. There were times when an inability to feel intense pain (even to find it pleasurable) or to fearlessly laugh in an abuser's face actually helped them survive. As something also of a gatekeeper personality, it was also his job to "throw his brothers under the bus" and pick which of the others took what kinds of abuse, but he wouldn't have been able to perform this necessary job if he'd retained empathy and a conscience. Readers love this guy. He's actually battered himself into a redemption arc and is working on getting his conscience and emotions back as he heals, but this is going to be a long, difficult road.
> 
> ...




This is outrageously hilarious! It's like character development in the land of bedlam! Title the book "Insane World". It'd be a modern day "Alice In Wonderland"! Awesome. I'm saving this quote for inspiration. Absolutely brilliant man!


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 27, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> If a main character had a massive amount of flaws, I think we'd be talking about a very different concept on the story. Maybe the story would be about those flaws, and not the seeming plot, right? I mean, if you give someone that many flaws, it dominates the plot, I think. Would be a funny story though. Imagine.



I'd described my bad guy in that list of flaws. No joke, from the first lines of his dialogue I ever posted online, that dude had fangirls. He's not just a laundry list of disorders--and even those disorders can make him more attractive to some readers. Women are often attracted to psychopaths and narcissists, for instance, because these are confident, charismatic, manipulative people. Lady readers also like that he's pretty, has a pretty voice and graceful movements, that he's witty and likely to break out into rhyme, poetry and song at any moment, that he quotes philosophers and classic literature, that he's fearless and laughs and ties other characters in emotional and philosophical knots... and that under all of that, he's hiding a ton of trauma and needs unconditional love, acceptance, forgiveness, a warm blanket and a hug. 



I've never had a reader complain that a character had too many flaws. I've never heard of any reader ever complaining about a character with too many flaws. Readers complain far more often about characters who have no or too few flaws, actually. Poorly written flaws and poorly written characters are just poor writing, but it's not the number of flaws that turn readers off. 

That said, I've come to the conclusion that it's _literary_ horror. The interactions between the characters have taken center stage and pushed back a goodly chunk of the plot. Plot's still there and cool and full of nifty stuff, but it's not the focus so much because I wound up writing about the characters and their quest for healing. I don't think the takeover of the relationships and character development is necessarily due solely to the character flaws or the number of them. 

I used to get frustrated with how much focus had shifted toward the character development, but it turned out that a ton of trauma survivors are especially hungry for media that portrays their interpersonal and internal struggles, so, while I'd planned to write super cool plot stuff, there are tons of other authors who write super cool plot stuff, and no one else seems willing or able to take on the task of showing trauma survivors realistically healing. Some characters are much more difficult to portray realistically, and I can't recall anyone else being suicidal enough as an author to take on redeeming a psychopath or any of the other gnarlier types of trauma victims. 

Because of the harmful tropes perpetuated in fiction, many child abuse victims grow up with the expectation that they're going to become abusers, and the ones who do become abusers are often taught that they're irredeemable. It's a hopeless battle to heal--it's impossible in media, even. Think about all the traumatized characters you've ever seen in fiction--TV, movies, literature, crime, drama, comic books, all of it. Chances are that you haven't seen one realistically portrayed--let alone throughout the healing process. And chances are that you've primarily seen trauma--especially child abuse--as a means of making a _villain_ seem more realistic. This does an enormous disservice to trauma victims by unintentionally telling them that they're doomed to become villains if they're boys, and that they're supposed to be mystically healed as soon as some handsome white guy rescues them if they're girls. Another awful abuse trope is that male rape is played for laughs to the extent that jokes about dropping the soap show up in children's cartoons like Spongebob. There's a lot of victim blaming out there, too.  

So, as much as I'd planned on doing cool action sci-fi shenanigans, showing such damaged characters healing is actually the far more difficult path as a writer--and the one some readers are far hungrier for anyway.



> It's like character development in the land of bedlam! Title the book "Insane World". It'd be a modern day "Alice In Wonderland"!



Yup and whoa-you-don't-realize-how-close-that-is. 

In their early childhood, their dad told them a lot of fairytales, so said tales became a source of comfort and nicknames after the dad passed away. They typically don't have much in common with said characters, but they acquired said nicknames in early childhood.  Most also go by David Surrey, which is the body's legal first name. As a group, they're "The Lost Boys," which is likely to be the name of the series, and each book is likely to be named for one of the Boys. Typical of dissociative systems, there are actually quite a few alters which don't have names. Surrey and Tinkerbell are also able to make new alters on demand. 

In the novel I'm currently working on, Surrey's trapped David in a highly literary nightmare which alludes mostly to Dante's _Inferno,_ _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_, and_ The Wizard of Oz._ There's a ton of religious/Biblical allusion too. Surrey and David both process trauma largely through figurative means, which allows them to both distance themselves from their literal past and understand their past better, so by taking this symbolic journey through Hell, Surrey's driving home the message to David that their childhood was Hell on Earth, but also by taking inspiration from children's tales involving protagonists that had adventures in sleep (Alice and Dorothy) and/or imaginary realms (Peter Pan), he's reinforcing that this journey is taking place in a literal nightmare and realm of imagination.


----------



## Newman (Aug 31, 2020)

Rojack79 said:


> Ok so as some of you may know i'm working on a Christian Fantasy story that I'm working on at the moment, currently working on the outline. My big stumbling block right now is the main characters flaws. He's not the kind of guy to indulge in physical pleasures or most of them at any rate so when I try to depict his flaws I'm thinking of going with some spiritual, mental, and emotional ones. My question is will this seem to cheap or will the character come off as to perfect for people to relate to? I ask because I've seen very few examples of this kind of character done in any kind of media. In fact I really can't remember the last time I've seen this character done in both book or movie form.



Flaws are not only physical, and commonly are not. Usually the physical is a manifestation of the psychological and is an arc which progresses alongside the change.


----------

