So, I saw the thread about 'Mary-Sue' characters and I know all about that. While I can say with confidence that none of my characters qualify as a 'Mary-Sue'...is it possible to create a character that's too flawed? How do you avoid either situation?
-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
Another thread got me wondering... characters too flawed?
- Thread starter MoonlitSonata
- Start date
- Status
Maybe you can balance the character? Find an equally compelling other side to the character. Remember that the bad part and the good part should also be in conflict.
I think the truth of it is that all people think that they are right and justified in what they do. They all think that the story is their story and that they are the hero of the story. If you point the camera at them even the bad guys smile and wave. Because maybe bad and good are perspectives.
Simple example of conflict in character: The character is a wonderful loving mother, or girlfriend but she is also a drug addict. She might be great when she is not on her binges...but.... This creates conflict within the character.
Another: The character is a soldier of fortune who kills for money, but also believes that the people who are paying him are corrupt and are killing innocent people. Conflict here too. He might find out that he has been ordered to kill a whole school house full of children. (Something like this happened a few years ago in one of the former Soviet Union countries, about 300 men women and children (mostly children) were killed by poison gas in a school gym). Were the bad guys who did it devils? Did they fly off with bat wings and pitch forks? No, they collected their pay and went home and are probably watching TV with their kids right now. End of (real) story.
Often people give the really good Mary Sue a partner who is not as good to create the conflict. A film that comes to mind is Galipollii. A perfect, cute, blond, blue eyed, angelic, athletic, idealistic and perfect in every way boy of 18 (forget the actor's name) teams up with rebellious, anti-social, system-bucker Mel Gibson. In this case the writer wanted the character to stand in for "all that was good and wonderful in the young men of the ANZAC" (Australian and New Zealand troops who fought in that battle) so he was "Symbolic." I could see how that would work in film not so sure how to write it.
There are a thousand stories in the city... this is just one of them
I think the truth of it is that all people think that they are right and justified in what they do. They all think that the story is their story and that they are the hero of the story. If you point the camera at them even the bad guys smile and wave. Because maybe bad and good are perspectives.
Simple example of conflict in character: The character is a wonderful loving mother, or girlfriend but she is also a drug addict. She might be great when she is not on her binges...but.... This creates conflict within the character.
Another: The character is a soldier of fortune who kills for money, but also believes that the people who are paying him are corrupt and are killing innocent people. Conflict here too. He might find out that he has been ordered to kill a whole school house full of children. (Something like this happened a few years ago in one of the former Soviet Union countries, about 300 men women and children (mostly children) were killed by poison gas in a school gym). Were the bad guys who did it devils? Did they fly off with bat wings and pitch forks? No, they collected their pay and went home and are probably watching TV with their kids right now. End of (real) story.
Often people give the really good Mary Sue a partner who is not as good to create the conflict. A film that comes to mind is Galipollii. A perfect, cute, blond, blue eyed, angelic, athletic, idealistic and perfect in every way boy of 18 (forget the actor's name) teams up with rebellious, anti-social, system-bucker Mel Gibson. In this case the writer wanted the character to stand in for "all that was good and wonderful in the young men of the ANZAC" (Australian and New Zealand troops who fought in that battle) so he was "Symbolic." I could see how that would work in film not so sure how to write it.
There are a thousand stories in the city... this is just one of them
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Personally I don't think "too flawed" is a problem -- obviously, it depends on your story. A "too flawed" hero would not be very good for a romance, for example. But a minor character in a drama -- why not? Anyway, as long as you give the readers something empathize/sympathize with the character, and as long as you stay away from flat characterization or cliches, I think you'll be fine.
Many villains are too flawed. You will know when yours is when he or she emits a sudden, uncontrollable "Muhahahahaha." This is the primary diagnostic criterion, followed by stomping on kittens and/or puppies and/or baby bunnies, followed by speaking in a more formal style than everyone else, followed by Alan Rickman turning down the part in the movie because, please, hasn't he suffered enough?
Too flawed would be a problem if you couldn't manage it. I'd think we like flawed characters because we want to see them "fixed" (Not like pomerainians, mind you). We want to see them over the course of the book fix or at least try to fix their flaws. ADD: Also, since as humans we're inherently flawed, we want to compare our skeletons to what the author comes up with to see if we rate a "phew, not me" or "wow, mine suck worse."
Another axiom is that people with "flaws" are "dangerous." So, we like to hang around dangerous people because we're too scared to do these things ourselves. Living vicariously through them. So, that makes sense. We live through the characters in the book, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
That said, alluding to a flaw means you need to substantiate and explore it at some point. The more flaws, the more substantiation. All the flaws are tied together in the human machine, so, you'd have to interconnect them. So, it becomes a management issue: how do you manage all these things within your character and still carry off your plot?
I'd recommend if you're just starting to keep the flaw count low.
Then, as you gain grasp and control of working through the processes, add more in future characters.
Another axiom is that people with "flaws" are "dangerous." So, we like to hang around dangerous people because we're too scared to do these things ourselves. Living vicariously through them. So, that makes sense. We live through the characters in the book, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to say that.
That said, alluding to a flaw means you need to substantiate and explore it at some point. The more flaws, the more substantiation. All the flaws are tied together in the human machine, so, you'd have to interconnect them. So, it becomes a management issue: how do you manage all these things within your character and still carry off your plot?
I'd recommend if you're just starting to keep the flaw count low.
Then, as you gain grasp and control of working through the processes, add more in future characters.
Last edited:
- Status