what is your philosophy regarding charecter flaws?

[hopewrites]

I've been thinking tonight about what it is about characters that I find so captivating, why I study them at every opportunity, etc.

I find I believe in character flaws as deeply as I believe in character strengths, but for diametrically different reasons. A character's strengths will see them through hard times. Hard times that that character's flaws may have landed them in. Flaws humanize the character they belong to, and by observing how the character themselves, as well as the characters around them, deal with said flaws can become something of a textbook for how to deal (or how NOT to deal) with said flaws.

They can also work like a combination lock, for only by navigating the maze of strengths and flaws of a character do we truly get to know them. And it fascinates me to see which flaws work in tandem, which play off each other, which fight for supremacy... why, when, and how the flaws demand the spotlight so to speak... as well as the consequences of all of that.

Flaws enable characters to grow, and can be turned into strengths. The ability of characteristics to flip back and forth between flaw and strength status is amazing to me. No matter how many times I encounter such a flip, the fact of its possibly never ceases to amaze me.


I wonder if anyone else has similar thoughts on the subject, and if so, what are they? What else is there about characters that fascinates you?
Do you find you have favorite flaws? If so what are they? Are they frequently to be found in the people close to you as well as the characters you write/enjoy reading? If not, why and what draws you to them?
How many flaws can a character have? of what severity? and how does one decide such things?
Which flaws are only acceptable when counterbalanced with a redeeming strength? How strong does the strength have to be to redeem the flaw?

I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions on the subject. I think this could be a really fun topic to discuss.

 

[thaddeus6th]

All men are flawed, and his flaws are usually the most interesting thing about him [I forget who said that, but it's a handy quote].

And, as Oscar Wilde said, it's ridiculous to divide men into good and evil. Men are either charming or tedious.

You're spot on about flaws humanising a character, making them both more realistic and sympathetic. In a book of dragons, magic and a virtue-laden flawless hero, the least believable is the hero (and the most jarring, as suspension of disbelief is easier for the obviously fantastical than it is for a real thing [a human, in this case] that is being portrayed in a literally incredible way).

Another interesting aspect is when what should be a virtue becomes a vice. Do we applaud the loyalty of a man who's 100% behind someone who doesn't deserve it?

Generally I do take the balanced approach, or just have the odd flaw. For certain characters (Sir Edric, Roger the Goat) I gave them heaps of flaws and the odd virtue.

 

[Dan Jones]

I once read - or was told; the memory banks are a little hazy sometimes - that in a job interview situation it's good to be aware of your flaws or limitations, but also how you use your strengths to compensate or overcome those weaknesses. I've always felt it was good advice, and try to stick to it.

I think the model also holds up when applying it to fictional characters; as you say, Hope, a character may get into hot water because of their flaws, but their strengths may enable them to get out of it - or vice versa.

 

[James118]

Well, I try to give all my characters notable flaws, not only to steer clear of Mary Sues and... Manly Sams, if that's the equivalent, but also to make them interesting to take on journeys. Their flaws are almost always (I can't currently think of an exception) connected to their arc and backstory, because it's through experience that everyone makes mistakes but then learns from them. Might not even learn, ultimately.

Another interesting aspect is when what should be a virtue becomes a vice. Do we applaud the loyalty of a man who's 100% behind someone who doesn't deserve it?

I think this is also a fascinating topic, and is an interesting guide for character interactions as well as individual arcs. For example, in my recently published 'The Earthfault', the main character is super dedicated to her quest to find her childhood sweetheart. But this ultimately leads her to single-mindedness and hurting several of her friends.

 

[Toby Frost]

In a book of dragons, magic and a virtue-laden flawless hero, the least believable is the hero

Really good point. Flaws certainly make a character more interesting. I think in fantasy in particular, you used to see flawless Heroic Guy and his team of eccentric assistants, each with their own defining trait/virtue/flaw (nerdy wizard, lovable rogue, woman, etc). That may have gone now, and I don't think I'd miss it much.

Personally, the more I write, the less I feel that I'm writing about people with a set of flaws and virtues like a plus and minus scorecard, and the more they just seem to be themselves for better or worse. Often characteristics are in themselves neutral: loyalty, for instance, depends very much on what you're loyal to. Also, they don't necessarily have to have an obvious flip side to become vices. The man who is protective of his people may become a villain when his protectiveness prevents them doing what they want, and so on. It's a smooth progression.

That said, there are some outright good guys and villains in the things that I write. Occasionally, villains are just an evil - which may just mean unkind - version of something that could be good. Both Suruk the Slayer and the lemming men regard themselves as noble warriors following an ancient code: the difference is that everything else that the lemmings do is vicious and spiteful.

 

[Ihe]

I still don't know what's sadder: someone with all flaws and a single small virtue that cannot overshadow the bad, or a nigh perfect character with one big flaw that taints all other virtues.

 

[hopewrites]

I find I'm mostly of @Toby Frost and @thaddeus6th 's mind in that I see characteristics and traits; not really strengths v weaknesses. Especially after doing as many interviews this year as I have! As @DG Jones points out, they ALWAYS ask "What do you conceder your greatest weakness?" sometimes accompanied with "Also what is your greatest strength?" I'm stumped by these questions because I know I'm a biased answerer, and even if I answer unbiasedly they will assume I'm biased... so what do they want to know really? I can see them wanting to actually find out what my weaknesses are, to make sure they wont endanger the company in any way, but why ask me? To see how self aware I am? or how honest when asked to confess to something I'd probably rather hide? Because the things I conceder my deepest flaws are also my greatest strengths.
Too kind, too forgiving, too much margin for the errors of others. "oh you killed me? well, that's alright, I was probably in the way or something. Sorry you had to kill me, I hope your day gets better." Employers don't want to know that! Ok, next? go for something they can actually use, like my dyslexia... yeah that's a good weakness. "I have dyslexia, but don't worry, I only have flare ups when I'm under a lot of emotional duress, and I know to double and triple check what I'm doing incase mistakes sneak through." -So I over came this mental hurdle and all the social stigma that went with it? yeah that sounds like a real weak point, oh don't trust me, I might write your message backwards and you'll have to take them to the bathroom mirror to read them, probably wake up a ghost or something... Fine fine I'll think up a better one. Uh, I suck at keeping track of time and am likely to work though my breaks! no. hmmm I like to wear feathers in my hair? I am super enthusiastic! Yeah that's a good solid flaw! All those pessimists out there get real affronted when li'l miss sunshine comes tripping through the office, humming like some kind of wood sprite, sparkling and ****.
*giggle*
and if those are my flaws... *gasp* EGO! I have an ego? that's a good flaw right? 'cause my strengths are all of the loyalty dedication perfectionist stripe. Well that and I can ignore an indecent amount of pain. But I hate having that strength and never bring it up unless I have to. A) people want to test it and I don't want it tested more than it has been, B) just because I'm ignoring the pain doesn't mean I'm not feeling it C) it could make me look like someone I'm not to go bragging about how much I can chose not to feel. I like to feel things. I respect the limitations pain demarcates. I'm not about to disrespect pain by putting myself through a bunch of it that I don't need to. Certainly not just to prove I can.

 

[NbDawn]

I find character strengths can be very interesting when their strengths are used against them - that is, turned into flaws. For example, one of my characters has a very even temper. He deals with situations calmly and rationally and doesn't give in to strong emotions like anger (or even joy). But his temper is sometimes so even that others see him as cold-hearted. Other examples: an intelligent person might have the flaw of believing they are always right; a person with an amicable personality might have the flaw of getting walked on; a person who stands up for others might have the flaw of butting in when they're not really needed; a person who is very good at logic and/or diplomacy might have trouble dealing with children who tend to respond emotionally rather than rationally.

 

[Ajid]

Oddly enough my character development has changed since I switched my wroting software. I often develop characters now and keep them in a bank. For example I'll sit on a train and think of a character and jot the idea down in my journal. I'll then get home and write up a history of that as yet nameless character, often thinking what situations and flaws they may have and why they have them. I'll then think of a story or plot and look through the Bank of characters and imagine what would they do with their history and flaws in the situation. Since I've used scriv it's been easier to do this but I wish I'd done it all along. However I do often come ubstuck as every character becomes major in my head but can't be in a story.

 

[hopewrites]

@Ajid I think that's what makes a story great!
In the world we are all major characters in our own lives, but in any one given story take major or minor roles as the perspective of the narrative dictates.

 

[Tim Murray]

I've been thinking tonight about what it is about characters that I find so captivating, why I study them at every opportunity, etc.

I find I believe in character flaws as deeply as I believe in character strengths, but for diametrically different reasons. A character's strengths will see them through hard times. Hard times that that character's flaws may have landed them in. Flaws humanize the character they belong to, and by observing how the character themselves, as well as the characters around them, deal with said flaws can become something of a textbook for how to deal (or how NOT to deal) with said flaws.

They can also work like a combination lock, for only by navigating the maze of strengths and flaws of a character do we truly get to know them. And it fascinates me to see which flaws work in tandem, which play off each other, which fight for supremacy... why, when, and how the flaws demand the spotlight so to speak... as well as the consequences of all of that.

Flaws enable characters to grow, and can be turned into strengths. The ability of characteristics to flip back and forth between flaw and strength status is amazing to me. No matter how many times I encounter such a flip, the fact of its possibly never ceases to amaze me.


I wonder if anyone else has similar thoughts on the subject, and if so, what are they? What else is there about characters that fascinates you?
Do you find you have favorite flaws? If so what are they? Are they frequently to be found in the people close to you as well as the characters you write/enjoy reading? If not, why and what draws you to them?
How many flaws can a character have? of what severity? and how does one decide such things?
Which flaws are only acceptable when counterbalanced with a redeeming strength? How strong does the strength have to be to redeem the flaw?

I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions on the subject. I think this could be a really fun topic to discuss.

It is the flaws that frame the strong points of characters. It sometimes turns a good person into a great one. Sometimes at great costs.

 

[Pentagon]

Couple of thoughts,

Borrowing from the romance genre- often these are very good at taking a character who is very likeable, charming, attractive etc- but then they don't get the girl (at least at the beginning). The good ones here, use the flaws to portray why despite all these attractions, some-one might not want to date/marry the character. Whilst these are often very cliché they work.

As someone else has commented protagonists/villains who capture our attention, very rarely are ones that we'd personally want to be friends with. Who would want to have Vader as a drinking buddy, but he as the 'dragon' makes the films better. What the romance stories often do well, is break down that message of 'sure X character is awesome cool- but I wouldn't want to be friends with them.' Which almost makes the reader empathise with the love interest or character dumping the protagonist. It is poorly done, if the love interest is an aloof poorly thought out character, as the viewer should be able to empathise with why they're dumping the protagonist, which reflects solely on the protagonists flaws.

From an RPG perspective, having ran numerous D&D/other RPG's etc. I often try and tell players that they should embrace a low intelligence or strength etc. as much as a high one, as it makes for a more interesting story. I relatively recently had someone trying to play a very intellectual character with no common sense, which made for a very interesting story.

Finally, in my own stories, with multiple POV (4), the majority of flaws are personality/tied in with their ambitions/fanatism. I have tried to come to some natural conclusion with an inner battle with themselves. So a character who has spent a life in turmoil, might find peace- or they might not. But this all ties in with the flaws, which almost dictate what that characters goals and accordingly journey is.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

Honestly. I don't really know what constitutes as being a flaw.

Is a flaw something that could make them fail? like arrogance or short-sightedness?

are flaws related to morality? like compassion, greed or lack of empathy?

 

[hopewrites]

Honestly. I don't really know what constitutes as being a flaw.

Is a flaw something that could make them fail? like arrogance or short-sightedness?

are flaws related to morality? like compassion, greed or lack of empathy?

*double like*
Excellent questions!! When people talk about character flaws, the reading I got was they are the characteristics that they(character's) have that make their life hard. IE Pentagon's friend's character who has to deal with the pitfalls of lacking common sense while (in all likelihood) blinded to this lack by an awareness of their higher than normal intellect. Jane Bennett's quiet manner, which makes it difficult for Bingly (or Darcy) to detect her true feelings and rob her of nearly a years worth of bliss. (Nearly all Tbh! If Elizabeth and Darcy hadn't quarreled and Elizabeth scathingly accused him, if Fitzwillem had kept his trap shut like Darcy told him to, where would Jane and Bingly be but regretting each other the rest of their lives!)

A character who suffers from their morality (loyal to the 'wrong' cause) can have their virtuous nature be treated as a character flaw.

What really makes a character trait a strength? How the character uses it?
What makes a character trait a flaw? How it's used against them?

 

[Zebra Wizard]

Having a serious or care-free attitude can both be "bad" in certain situations. Superman's compassion can be seen as a flaw (because he can be tricked).

In the end I just focus on giving characters interesting traits. rather than coming up with flaws.

I've seen some authors make flawed characters which in-turn made them unlikable. I don't care if its realistic, if they are unlikable I won't want to read about them. I think everyone has those POVs when reading that you just want to skip over and get to the next one.

 

[Pentagon]

I think the confusion comes from different genre's.

In the discussed superhero genre, there is an assumption that if you get awesome powers, you also get a weakness- be it Kryptonite, can't take your glasses off, can't walk. These are weaknesses, though are also mentioned as flaws. Whilst not always, these are often physical or problems manifesting from their powers. Though, undoubtedly many heroes have their own mental concerns too.

In a political Sci Fi story, a flaw could as easily be they slept with the an intergalactic call girl, and would have to resign if it was widely known. This is a physical issue, but reflects on the character. Does the character feel entitled to what he wants? Are they lonely?

Being in a wheel chair is a fairly crippling draw back in the first genre, in the 2nd it's probably only irritating when the space ship lifts not working! Therefore, don't insult readers by creating effectively a Genre-Specific Mary-Sue and then giving them an obvious pretense of a weakness that doesn't restrict them in the slightest. Boromir the hero of Gondor blablabla, but he's terrible at maths. Whilst, I admit it would be interesting to see a popular hero forced into a logistics position and having to overcome their appalling arithmetic for the good of the realm!

But, I think that because what a superhero considers a flaw is often very different to what a romance character would, that it gets very messy with terminology. Equally, I prefer flaws which allow to show progression and develop the character. But that's personal preference.

 

[Ihe]

don't insult readers by creating effectively a Genre-Specific Mary-Sue and then giving them an obvious pretense of a weakness that doesn't restrict them in the slightest. Boromir the hero of Gondor blablabla, but he's terrible at maths.

Spot on.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Maybe it was being terrible at maths that meant he tried fighting a thousand Uruk-Hai by himself.

Noble heart, innumerate head.