Are You Writing Serious Fantasy? II

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Blood and gore is quite good. I usually like to write about that from the perspective of a horrified onlooker. I don't think I've ever glorified it.

[Nurumaiel]

I'll agree that nobody wants to write (well, maybe they do, but they oughtn't to want to) a perfect character. But you have to be careful of how you're defining perfect and how you're defining flawed.

I've stumbled across a few people who seem to think if a heroine has anything even similar to good looks, it means she's perfect, and the author is under obligation to counter-act that good point by making her selfish, or some other flaw. If the main character is talented at something, then she (the poor young women are mostly picked on, but mostly by young women, so the gentlemen still retain their gallantry ) must certainly be perfect. If she is unusual she must be a Mary-Sue (but if everyone else were as unusual as she, she wouldn't be unusual anymore).

I'm not in any way saying that you have these ideas, but some people truly do.

The word 'flaw' is often misinterpreted, as well. I've stumbled across people who think a person must have a flaw for every virtue they have, which is most realistic. I know many people, in fact and fiction, who have only one or two flaws against their many virtues... but these few flaws spoil everything else to a certain extent. I've heard that if your main character is selfish enough to not want to help her (again... it's always the females who are picked on) family and friends with something but not so selfish as to watch her friend die so she won't have to, she isn't selfish enough.

I once read a book about a fellow who had quite a few flaws... he was obstinately stubborn, he was accustomed to use slang, etc., etc. But even these flaws weren't actual flaws. They were un-refined virtues. Near the end his stubbornness was refined into determination to stand for what is right, and his use of slang developed into a real grasp of humour. This character didn't have any flaws, but only un-refined virtues. And yet almost every young lad I know who knows him adores him.

I'd be interested in hearing how others on this thread define 'perfect' and 'flawed.' How bad does a person have to be to be flawed? And when is it that they're pushing the limits and becoming perfect?

And here's something to think about...

If you have a good character, without many serious and wicked flaws, and perhaps only un-refined virtues, don't make everyone else around him really bad, to show up his goodness. Surround him by characters who are just as good as he is, and maybe even a character whose better.

And if you have a bad character that you really want to show up as mean and selfish, put at least one very good character alongside him who will show, just by being the opposite, how bad this character really is. It worked in Gone with the Wind with Scarlett O'Hara and Melly.... or at least it worked for me.

[Encaitare]

When I think of a flawed character, I think of most characters, since most are not perfect in every single way. They can be good people and still have a few things about them that are not ideal: little idiosyncrasies or problems that may arise and sometimes get in their way.

Or perhaps I used the word "flawed" incorrectly in the first place...

You were talking about Mary-Sues, Nuru, and in the fanfiction realm we see the same story time and time again. A beautiful, talented-at-everything young woman who just isn't appreciated by anyone at home and leads a tragic life magically meets handsome hero from a fandom of the author's choice. Extra points if she's got naturally purple hair in a world where everyone else has brown. This does not necessarily mean that a beautiful female lead is this type of character, or that there aren't quintessential sorts of people in the world on which she could be based. The character, in the end, is what the author makes of it. The seemingly perfect woman can either be annoying in her perfection, or a deep and genuinely good person.

Now about being flawed or not, I think that maybe "flawed" is not always the best word for what I meant. What I meant was more along the lines of a character not always having all the answers, or not always being sure of exactly what to do, or not always getting along with certain other characters, or being a bit snappish at times, etc. The characters I would prefer to write about would be more realistic (except if they are purposely meant to be a personification or embodiment of something, some virtue, vice, or what have you). We all have things about ourselves that we wouldn't mind changing but sometimes can't help. Maybe we'd like to be nicer or more sure of ourselves. Still, this doesn't make us bad people.

Hope this made some sense!

And if you have a bad character that you really want to show up as mean and selfish, put at least one very good character alongside him who will show, just by being the opposite, how bad this character really is.

An interesting concept... must think about that one!

[Kitanna]

Mmm, I don't know how I would explina my idea of flawed. So I'll have to think about how I want to say it and still make sense, but I can say what I think a perfect character is.
When I say perfect I mean they have nothing wrong with them. Such as their physical form is top notch. They're fit, they're strong, they can do anything. Pretty face, and never a hair out of place. But also I mean personailtywise, everyone loves them except the bad guys of the story. They never get angry, they never falter and they never question their own motives. They're nice, funny, and smart and always have the answer to every question.
I want to say a "flawed" person is on the opposite end of that. But not quite. I'm just gonna stick with this as my definition of flawed (though after reading what Nurumaiel said I'm going to change my word choice.) Every person is flawed in some way. Maybe they're not smart, maybe their not fit, they can't answer every question, and they're not always nice and they get angry. Stuff like that. That's at least what I think.

[Nurumaiel]

Enca,

The seemingly perfect woman can either be annoying in her perfection, or a deep and genuinely good person.

Very good point. On the one hand you have a character who is rather like Elsie Dinsmore... she's very good, very pretty, etc. Why did I dislike her so much when I read the book? Why would I dislike a girl who is good, as Elsie is? The conclusion I came up with was this: it's because of the author's overwhelming presence. I don't exactly like Elsie just in herself... but the way the author uses all the other characters as puppets to make Elsie look better, and the way she obviously presents Elsie as an ideal character that everyone else isn't and should be living up to.

On the other hand, you have a character like, as one example, one of the saints. They're very good, and often reach the highest point of goodness that anyone can reach, but so very often they're surrounded by people who are also good and saintly, and rather than standing there to 'set an example' for everyone, they concern themselves with being good, and the example comes with it. Though I have read some stories of saints where the author portrayed them as the annoying kind of good person.

We could take another example from Tolkien's books. Frodo is a very good person, that cannot be denied. He even has that oddness that can be found in many Mary-Sues. He's an Elf-friend and all that, when a typical hobbit is nothing of the sort. But I haven't yet met a person who will complain that Frodo is 'too perfect.' And again I think it's because of the author. Frodo exists along with many other good characters, and that helps greatly. But I think the greatest thing that makes him a realistic character rather than the absolutely perfect character is that he is in the story as a character, existing in his own way. Whilst Tolkien is writing of him he doesn't pause every few moments to sigh: "Ah! how ideal Frodo is! I have personified the ideal hobbit. I must show him to the world and try to show these immoral people how they really should behave. Ah, precious, precious, holy, saintly Frodo!"

From what I gather from your posts, Enca and Kitanna, we're much in agreement of what 'flawed' actually is. 'Flawed' doesn't mean they have to be murderers, or be at the extreme of any vice. But they still have places to go. There's a possibility of becoming better. They still have something to fight for, even if it's merely inside of themselves.

Thanks for all your interesting input so far.

[Atarah]

I've always loved writing, and a few years ago (two years ago on Feb 14th in fact) I decided I'd write a book and go about it properly. I started by coming up with a rough idea for a plot, then drew a map. Strangly the next thing I did was come up with a language for one of the races to speak. I was really into writing the book and so far it's 49 pages of A4 long, font size 12 (i think). I have so many ideas for it, and even ideas for other books set at different points along the time line of the wolrd I created, but unfortunately I'm too lazy to add to it. I also think that the style I've written it in needs to be changed. I put in too much dialogue and not enough description. I also think my main character is a bit Mary Sue... Oh well. I'm sure I'll get round to finishing it one day. I think I mentioned this book on the old thread when I used to be active a few years ago under a different name. I've called it "Eidu Are" which is the name of the "country" the book is set in. I really want to finish it and start work on the sequels. Plus I really want to know if it's good enough to publish

[Aiwendil]

Some very interesting discussion of perfect and flawed characters. I quite agree with Nurumaiel that it is a mistake to overcompensate and, in an effort to avoid perfection, to pile all kinds of flaws upon a character. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there really is nothing disastrously wrong with a perfect character. That is, the mere fact that a character is perfect is not itself detrimental to a work. However I think that there are three dangers with such a character:

1. The work will suffer if the character is annoyingly perfect. There is a natural human tendency to simultaneously admire and dislike those that we perceive as better than us. To an extent, you may be able to inspire admiration for the character in the reader. However, if the perfection of the character is dwelt upon, this can easily turn to dislike.

2. A perfect character is less likely to be believable. Now there are people who are incredibly talented at a wide range of things and who have no discernible flaws. But there are not many of them. Populating one's story with such characters is therefore simply not realistic. There are exceptions - if you provide some reasonable explanation for the fact that your world is filled with this kind of person, you may make it believable. For example, Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars dealt with an incredibly advanced and incredibly stable society the inhabitants of which had long ago eliminated most flaws. To take perhaps a better known example, look at the characters in Star Trek's semi-Utopian future (particularly in The Next Generation).

3. Perhaps most importantly, a perfect character is less interesting than a flawed character. Now this is not necessarily a problem unless your story relies on its characterization to provide interest. A strongly plot-based story can get by with less interesting characters than a character-based story (obviously). Minor characters also need not be profoundly fascinating if that burden is shouldered by the major characters. But all too often, I think, inexperienced writers rely too much on uninteresting characters to provide interest. Worse, some actually expect that the reader will be interested in a character precisely because that character has a long list of talents and virtues and no flaws (though it does occur to me that one might generate an interesting character by taking perfection to the extreme - that would be a special, and curious, case).

I also don't think that it is necessarily flaws that make a character interesting. Flaws can be just as boring as talents if they are simply facts. My theory is that what makes a character interesting is complication. A character who is an incredibly good swimmer and has a fear of heights is not particularly interesting. But a character who is an incredibly good swimmer and has a fear of water is. The interest, then, is not generated by the mere fact that the character is flawed; it is generated by the complexity of a character with two apparently contradictory features. Complexity need not involve flaws. A character can also be made interesting by giving him or her complex views on some important subject, complex or contradictory desires, disparate conscious and subconscious opinions, and so forth.

[Imladris]

I believe that one of the most important qualities of a character is that the reader be able to relate to him. A good or perfect character can be either excrutiatingly annoying in the hands of an inadept writer or loveable and relatable in the hands of a good one.

Now that I have grown older, I don't look for faults or flaws, I look for how a character acts in certain situations. I look for struggles. Example: Frodo in the Barrow Downs. He could have left. He was tempted to leave. He knew that it would be justified. But did he? No he didn't.

Ender in Ender's Game is, in a sense, perfect (at least I think he was). He's a military genius. But I adored him, and sympathisized with him. It was because along with his perfection, he was also human. He was still a boy placed in adult circumstances.

If a character is perfect, it must not be unrealistically so. He must have struggles. If a character has faults, they must also be realistic. Because if you give a heap of perfections to one or a heap of faults to another, it is still the same coin, only a different side.

And, as Aiwendil said, characters must also be complex.