Character flaws...

[Darth Angelus]

This is a topic which is brought up time and time again as central to character development. Without flaws, characters don't feel real and/or become Mary Sues, it is said.
I accept all this. Struggling with things is what creates drama and makes characters interesting, after all, and internal struggles with personal flaws/quirks is certainly one major piece of this in fiction.

Here is one thing that has occured to me, however. A lot of articles emphasize the need for character flaws, but few seem to delve into how to make suitable flaws for your characters. It seems that all aspects of a character (including the negative) must be thought out by the author, and the flaws should not be added just to check off some character development checkbox.

This is a short (not necessarily exhaustive) list of things that I do think a character flaw must fulfill...
1. It must bring some actual disadvantage to the character within the given narrative, by putting the character in a situation where he or she confronts it. This is fairly obvious. Otherwise, the flaw might as well not be. If a person who is particularly bothered by severely cold weather resides in and never leaves tropical regions (in the real or a fictional world), the flaw seems to have little point.
2. It must not be too severely crippling for the character's supposed occupation. By this, I mean a pilot or vehicle driver being blind, for instance. A flaw can certainly make what a character wants or needs to do a difficult, uphill battle, but the disadvantage shouldn't be so severe that it is (all but) impossible.
3. It should generally fit into the character's nature, social background etc. This may be a bit more subjective. However, avoid flaws which contradict what the character is. A pure, good-hearted hero (this does not apply to anti-heroes) should probably not have any sadistic tendencies whatsoever. A person of "finer" social background shouldn't have poor table manners (as deemed by their culture, anyway), unless there is very special reason for it (disabilities that interfere with table manners). Would it not look odd if some noble in Westeros ate with their bare hands, after all?

Anyway, a flaw that violates point 1 above is unlikely to damage believability, as it is unlikely to be noticed by the reader/viewer at all. For all narrative intents and purposes, it may as well not exist.
Flaws that violate 2 or 3 can be damaging to believability, I think, and as such, they probably do more harm than good and should be avoided, imo. The exception is comedy, obviously.

Feel free to add what you think! Are there more criteria character flaws must fulfill, other than these three (which came off the top of my head)? How do you pick flaws that are suitable and appropriate?

 

[sknox]

I think a good flaw is one that can be overcome. Not all flaws would be, of course, but often the character's arc is mainly about overcoming some flaw or limitation in himself.

Does the antagonist have flaws? Would a flaw in your Evil Genius be some good trait? Do antagonists evolve and overcome? Dang, I have a hard enough time getting just my MC through his story arc! Damn you Darth Angelus for making me think on a Monday....

-= Skip =-

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm reading Million Dollar Outlines by David McFarlane (as recommended by Anne Lyle), and the section I'm on right now deals specifically with the issue of flaws and conflicts. Would recommend checking that out.

Also, I know I don't personally like Gary/Mary Stu's as characters, but recently I've come to realise that using them to draw a reader in can be a clever intentional device. Development characters take more work but can be more rewarding for a reader, but the Stu's offer instant accessibility that can work really really well. Stephanie Meir and Neil Gaiman come to mind for that.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think a good flaw is one that can be overcome. Not all flaws would be, of course, but often the character's arc is mainly about overcoming some flaw or limitation in himself.

Does the antagonist have flaws? Would a flaw in your Evil Genius be some good trait? Do antagonists evolve and overcome? Dang, I have a hard enough time getting just my MC through his story arc! Damn you Darth Angelus for making me think on a Monday....

-= Skip =-

I guess an antagonist's "flaw" could very well be a good trait (if it is a personality flaw, anyway), because it conflicts with their main way of being and thus adds complexity.

I'm reading Million Dollar Outlines by David McFarlane (as recommended by Anne Lyle), and the section I'm on right now deals specifically with the issue of flaws and conflicts. Would recommend checking that out.

Yes, I will be sure to check it out. Thanks, Brian!

 

[wulfsbane]

About number two, I'd say you can make it as crippling as you want as long as it's believable. Maybe you've got a blind guy who used to be an airplane pilot and is forced into a situation where he is the only one who knows how to fly a plane.

Basically, you can bend any rules you want as long as you can make it believable.

For me, I don't really ask myself "What's this character's flaw going to be?" I dunno. I guess I just write them like real people and they come out with flaws.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I don't there needs to be one big flaw sometimes lots of little flaws add up to a flawed character. Like with Wulfsbane I just write mine they tend to throw up flaws.

My main fantasy in the first chapter my character lying on his bed in his boxer shorts reading a banned book.(He should be in school) His room is messy, he's covered in bruises and mud from a fight, he sniffs his clothes before dressing then he swears and is sulky with his father. Finding the things to love were harder lol

With my new one again the MC calmly steps over her mother's body, opens the door to a burly man and informs him her whore of a mother has her bleed. She threatens to curse him to get rid of him then digs up a bag of treasures she has stolen and blackmailed from her mother's clients. I'm struggling to like her right now.

Both are goodies.

 

[thaddeus6th]

In the comedy I'm writing the main character is very flawed. The difficulty was trying to find some virtues for him. In the end I went for liking horses (he's a knight and quite wealthy so he's got a lot) and occasionally being heroic (his preference is running away, but if that's more dangerous than fighting he's capable of the latter). Oh, and he's clever, in a sly, devious sort of way.

To broaden it out, I dislike the token flaw approach where the flaw's so tiny in an otherwise perfect character it really might as well not exist.

 

[Darth Angelus]

About number two, I'd say you can make it as crippling as you want as long as it's believable. Maybe you've got a blind guy who used to be an airplane pilot and is forced into a situation where he is the only one who knows how to fly a plane.

Basically, you can bend any rules you want as long as you can make it believable.

Clearly, this is always the case. I think we are on the same page here.

However, for clarification, I did write "occupation", which does not really refer to emergency situations like the one you mention. I meant what the character would typically be doing. You are not going to be employed as a pilot or driver if you are blind.
Even in an emergency situation, a blind pilot is pushing it. He or she may know how to fly a plane, but the blindness will still greatly interfere with the ability to actually do it. They could contribute to the flying of the plane, but they would need assistance, really (and it would be risky, even then, if maybe less so than the alternative).

Anyway, as I said, I don't think we really disagree.

 

[alex_riveiro]

About number two, I'd say you can make it as crippling as you want as long as it's believable. Maybe you've got a blind guy who used to be an airplane pilot and is forced into a situation where he is the only one who knows how to fly a plane.

Basically, you can bend any rules you want as long as you can make it believable.

For me, I don't really ask myself "What's this character's flaw going to be?" I dunno. I guess I just write them like real people and they come out with flaws.

I definitely go with this reasoning too. As I create each character's personality, their flaws come up naturally. For example, I have this scientist that trusts science so blindly that he discards the notion of not being able to explain something through it.

 

[Gordian Knot]

sknox makes a really good point, as it has been my experience that it is the "bad guy" that is most often going to be very generic, even when the good guys are more well rounded realistically.

Too much of the time the bad guy is evil; well, because he is evil. I am so much more impressed when I get to delve into the mind of the bad guy to see he has reasons for his motivations.

I'm not suggesting that "the bad guy is bad because he had a brutal childhood" cop-out. Gawds forbid! Not what I mean at all. People are sometimes born evil. But even then they still have motivations that they see as the reasons for their choice of actions.

 

[hopewrites]

I like story arcs where the "good" and "bad" guys have the same or a similar core flaw but deal with it differently which leads to their divergence on the good/bad sliding scale of life. So I don't necessarily think the villain's "flaw" need be a good thing.

Though a people murdering puppy lover who thinks nothing of blowing up skyscrapers but will decapitate any henchman who would dare to hurt an animal would be interesting.
Probably suffering under the delusion that humans are wrecking the planet and must be removed as the most invasive species of all.
If I were writing it (I'm not so feel free to snatch and run with this if it inspires you) id have the hero also striving to aid the planet's balance of life, but they'd probably be more sympathetic to humans as part of that balance. Not above or removed from it.
K so in that case I gave them similar good points with different applications. But if they had similar flaws it would still hold true.

 

[TheTomG]

I think the other thing about a flaw is that it often lets the reader identify with the character. I can't identify with an out-and-out hero, because I'm not one. Having someone with flaws can give the reader the self-satisfaction that someone as flawed as them can still affect the world for good, which works best if it's the kind of flaw the reader already has or may be prone to.

Ties in to, say, self-preservation as brought up in another thread. It's easy to think of selflessly defending a poor innocent, but would it really be so easy to risk death in a given situation? Most of us, in a non-immediate situation, would be in two minds about it, wondering whether to risk ourselves at all. Most of us would not just up and do it, and even once we'd started doing it, would still question it, and perhaps seek or be tempted by other alternatives. Boromir makes a fine example of a flaw, thinking that there is an alternative that might be even better, and not realizing that this thought is the kind of thing that the ring breeds in order to lead people astray and down the path of "power corrupts."

The other thing with a flaw is not just self-satisfaction for the reader, but the opportunity to stop crucifying themselves for it. By seeing a character with similar flaws, they can walk down the path of realizing that no-one is perfect, and that is perfectly ok. This is a good thing, as I think so many messages in society are all about being perfect that it's easy to fall into the beating-yourself-up trap. I think this is the reason for the popularity of some books.

I do think the best flaws are flaws of personality, so I'd say things like fear of heights, spiders, aversion to cold, etc, while flaws, are not very interesting, as no-one blames themselves for being that way. The flaw, in general, should have a negative value judgment attached to it, that people may be struggling with themselves - laziness, procrastination, the desire to avoid pain, the desire to avoid death, etc, are all good in that regard, things that generally most people have and often feel bad about themselves for having.

 

[alex_riveiro]

sknox makes a really good point, as it has been my experience that it is the "bad guy" that is most often going to be very generic, even when the good guys are more well rounded realistically.

Too much of the time the bad guy is evil; well, because he is evil. I am so much more impressed when I get to delve into the mind of the bad guy to see he has reasons for his motivations.

I'm not suggesting that "the bad guy is bad because he had a brutal childhood" cop-out. Gawds forbid! Not what I mean at all. People are sometimes born evil. But even then they still have motivations that they see as the reasons for their choice of actions.

I think a bad guy that is evil because he's evil can work if it makes sense why he's that way.

My main villain is beyond any redemption. He is never been a good guy and he'll never be. You may agree with him or not (probably not) but he does have a reason to be evil.

So, yeah, a bad guy that is pure evil but has reasons and motivations for it can be a compelling villain, imo.

 

[Glitch]

I think a bad guy that is evil because he's evil can work if it makes sense why he's that way.

They always get the best lines! A bad guy being evil still needs motivations that are consistent with his character. (as has been said).

I have a story on the cards (which could be years away). Where I have two opposing characters, but which one is good/evil will remain ambiguous. Leaving the reader to decide if good or evil prevailed... Muahahaha evil laugh

 

[AMB]

Glitch: the one wearing black is the bad guy.

 

[thaddeus6th]

The police are bad guys?!

 

[Glitch]

Glitch: the one wearing black is the bad guy.

So it will be a short story then!

 

[alex_riveiro]

They always get the best lines! A bad guy being evil still needs motivations that are consistent with his character. (as has been said).

I have a story on the cards (which could be years away). Where I have two opposing characters, but which one is good/evil will remain ambiguous. Leaving the reader to decide if good or evil prevailed... Muahahaha evil laugh

In my case I have two characters that are complete opposites. While one is the paragon of virtue, the other is of chaos (so to speak). They both have their reasons to act as they do. The good guy is troubled and hints he knows things that may not be morally correct will happen if he's to pursue his path, whilst the bad guy looks insane to most people, but his words hold true despite it.

I don't feel like spoiling it too much, though. Unlike your potential story (hopefully you'll write it some day!) mine is from my book, that I'm currently translating into English

And yeah, bad guys always get the best lines!

 

[Gumboot]

The ultimate flaw is, of course, a character's achilles heel, which is their undoing. Particularly poignant when their fatal character flaw is a trait that is generally viewed as a positive trait, such as King Arthur's fatal flaw of trusting people.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I have been thinking about why the evil characters seem to get the best lines, be the most interesting etc.

It probably has something to do with them being less restrained, which allows for more drama. A good character must have some kind of moderatation, out of various kinds of considerations towards others, which evil characters care little about. This takes an edge out of their message. Evil characters, by contrast, can deliver an unmitigated and more powerful message coming from a more extreme position. Being this way is more satisfying (in the short term, at least) but also more destructive. No wonder it is easier to make it exciting to watch.

I think flaws in evil characters could be things that make it harder for them to carry out their evil plans, but not necessarily. There are quirks that just are human flaws, that aren't really about good or evil, and would just remain flaws, regardless of whether the character is good or evil.

Anyway, I would actually like to discuss strategies for designing good character flaws, as was the purpose when I started this thread. Thanks for all the replies, but I'd rather the discussion went in that direction.