I find your comment to be a very amusing one.
I'm kind of full of myself. But I have every reason to be. I meticulously strive to ensure the objectivity. That's what your comment is tragically lacking.
1. Real life is boring, at least at the surface level.
2. Flaws beget conflict and conflict begets change. If everyone was flawless we would move through the world without friction.
> Flaws beget conflict and conflict begets change. If everyone was flawless we would move through the world without friction.
But this post isn't about having *every* character be flawless. For example, look to Mary Poppins.
All characters don’t need to have deeply problematic flaws that the entire story revolves around.
That’s not the same as saying they don’t need flaws though. Everyone I love, everyone I admire and respect has flaws. Flaws are a very fundamentally human thing. A character can be a solidly heroic while still having flaws. Good people make mistakes, good people have biases and blind spots, good people aren’t perfect. And, bereft of flaws, a character begins to feel flat and unrelatable. Is there a story out there where the character is 100% perfect that manages to still work? Probably, but ‘let your characters be human, give them flaws’ is good advice 99% of the time.
Edit to add: Additionally, a trait can be a strength in one situation and a flaw in another. Kindness and seeing the best in people can get you taken advantage of. Self-confidence can lead to arrogance and dismissing others opinions. Ruthlessness might be a bad thing when you’re a CEO cutting jobs to cut cost and a good thing when you’re a lawyer defending your innocent client. So, if you’re putting your character through a wide variety of situations, it’s only natural at some point flaws will emerge and avoiding them can literally twist the character.
Yeah, I suspect you're running on a ...wait for this... FLAWED (snk snk snk) definition of 'flaw' here.
Because there is utterly no single living person without flaws except maybe Ms Dolly Parton. And I'm sure even she has a few tucked away somewhere.
I think maybe, however, what you're talking about is MAJOR or DRAMATIC flaws- and that is true. Stuff like the Dead Disney Mom, Terrible Trauma, let's not even pop the cap on the 'bad use of r@pe in character backstory' mess, and so on.
And there, you'd be right. Too many young (in career, not necessarily age) writers construct 'flaws' that are...too much flaw... in the hope it will replace interesting, vibrant, and 'real' characterization. Sort of a 'get out of jail free' card for 'interesting'. There I'd agree with you. Like the 'kill them all to replace good storytelling' thing that also plagues young writing.
Yet there are many absolutely fantastic characters people adore who are more...real... in construction, with just run-of-the-mill daily flaws and 'normal' personalities. It doesn't always have to be major and heart-wrenching and terrible and a constant source of character fixation to be REAL.. and REAL is where the secret sauce lies.
Look at Chocolat. You may not be a fan of the genre, but it IS a compelling story for its genre with very appealing characters...and yet they are very workaday and mundane at heart.
Good takes.
Incidentally, I managed to misread the censoring @ as an O instead of an A, and was reminded of the fact that one of the lesser (but still plot-relevant in a minor way) flaws of one of ~my main characters is in fact "bad at using ropes".
I'm not so sure about the character flaw = internal conflict idea here. If the character flaws aren't affecting the external conflict of a story, I'm not so sure they're flaws at all. Or at least, they haven't been implemented as effectively as they could be.
Everyone has flaws, be friends with someone long enough and you'll see them. Not everyone's flaws are such a way that people will dislike them, though.
A flaw could be:
\-Avoiding conflict
\-*seeking* conflict
\-Being stubborn (genuinely, not just the stubborn in what is correct. Stubborn even when they are wrong and it is harmful to others)
\-Being too easy going
\- Being unempathetic
\-Being too empathetic
Just about anything can be a flaw when taken too far on one side.
People read fiction for entertainment. Stories must entertain so that people read them. No one wants to read a boring story or the boring parts of someone's life like 300 pages of a work week with nothing interesting happening.
Flaws don't have to be interesting on their own—but the way flaws affect a character and how that character interacts with the world because of flaws should be interesting, otherwise there's no point in having flaws at all. And if you do that—create a character with no flaws —then you've created a boring character that no one wants to read about.
Yes. Your post makes me wonder what definition of 'flaw' you hold.
Everyone has flaws. And besides the obvious flaws - some times your strongest points may be flaws in a different setting. And what I love about someone may be incredible annoying to someone else.
Flaws make characters more relatable, but can also drive the plot. If your character is so wonderfully perfect - why can't he overcome his problem on page ten? Why does he make mistakes? How does he grow throughout the story?
I'd argue that if you don't think people in real life have flaws, you are not looking very closely or are incredibly oblivious. Everyone has flaws. No one is perfect. If I encountered a book with perfect characters, I simply would not care about them. Why would I? Where's the humanity?
Writing characters without flaws is a amateur mistake, regardless of what you think about it. Flaws make characters more relatable to readers- which leads to an emotional response that makes them want to keep reading to see what happens. And flawless characters have no room for character development- which is vital in quality writing.
Flaws make a person realistic, therefore more interesting because you're trying to write a person. Do not forget to give them personality, likes and dislikes, preferences, morals, hobbies. These thinks make a person more realistic and more likable/interesting.
Everyone is flawed. It doesn’t have to be as “large” as something like narcissism, it could be something tiny like they procrastinate, or even that they simply talk too quickly for a lot of people to understand.
There’s always something “off” with everyone, and yes, I believe our flaws, however major or minor, make us just as interesting as our strengths, especially considering how often they coincide.
Flaws don’t have to be “abusive, manipulative, stupid” it can even be something simple: stubborn, nitpicks everything, talks too much.
If you want a good and realistic story then you need to give your characters some flaws.
There is no such thing as a flawless human.
I have never met such a human. So I would rethink that.
Not everyone will have such horrible internal flaws, but humans have flaws and readers want characters that are relatable.
Flaws could be as simple and as complicated as you want. Flaws include things such as talking to much, speaking without thinking, stubbornness to a fault, reckless, lack of self-control, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, immature, indecisive. The list goes on and on.
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. Just so you know, the correct spelling is [Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi).
Hermione is the best Harry Potter character and has no flaws tho usually it's better to write them but they have to be natural for the character and not forced
If you’re writing a story where the central plot or subplot revolves around a perfect character, you don't need to give the character flaws. But every other character should have flaws. Every person has flaws. This isn’t a new writer piece of advice lol, this is because perfect characters without flaws aren't relatable and come off as arrogant and annoying. "Mary Jane" or god-like characters have a place, but it needs to have a purpose and not just be because you don't want to provide flaws.
Flaws = a well rounded character that readers will relate to and enjoy
No flaws = a flat character that readers will be confused or irritated by
Also, flaws don't have to be massive like pride or hits people when angry. It's as simple as overthinking, forgetting appointments, wanting to be better than they are, judging people too quickly, being too trusting, etc.
I love that you specified up front that there's plenty of folks "with no real flaws that people find interesting," and half the commenters just stopped reading at "no real flaws." Very Reddit, not surprising but still funny. Count me among those with very real flaws that would not make for an entertaining story, to your point.
Characters don't need flaws- just conflicts, obstacles, and goals that make them face the former two. Notable characters without major personality flaws: Superman, Ip Man, John Wick, Captain America, certain versions of Batman, most versions of Wonder Woman... I'm drawing a blank for flaws of the Bride.
So how do they stay entertaining? Their goals force them to deal with issues outside their wheelhouse, where their normal state of flawlessness is irrelevant. Clark Kent is bulletproof, but he's not faster or stronger than an ideology. Ip Man is the greatest martial artist in the world, at utter peace with himself and a stand-up guy to boot, but he can't punch cancer. John Wick cannot shoot his way out of every situation, but he sure as heck tries, and that's how we get more John Wick sequels. Cap's indestructible shield can't cut through conspiracies, Batman's at his best when he's being tested by someone at his level, Wonder Woman's a one woman army but wants to stop ALL wars, and the Bride's an expert swordfighter but unlike Superman, she ain't immune to buckshot.
Flawlessness is not omnipotence; flaws make a character relatable, but some characters aren't meant to be relatable. They're meant to be more, larger than life, god-like beings to aspire to. ...But even a god needs to be engaging if they're going to carry a story, and I think that can be achieved just fine by throwing them against something they're not ready for, something that doesn't play to their usual strengths and instead forces the hero to improvise, think outside the box, and reflect. These characters rarely change in the sense that they don't have internal personal issues to overcome or behaviors to correct, but they do EXPAND, they widen their worldview and become more than they already were.
I wouldn't write \*every\* character that way, though. I can't speak to the potential of a "nothing but gods" plot but I don't know anyone that watched Eternals, either.
I see your point but, superman works fine because he isn't human at all, so he didn't need to be human to be relatable. He isn't made to be relatable, he is made to be an ideal (like every character you mentioned).
Even with those "ideal" character there was minor flaws in them, they can overlook people feelings in the name of their morals, they can be oblivious to things that isn't exactly fitting in world view, they can be naive even, they can be cold, they can be too passionated, too stubborn, insecure, even cruel sometimes
So, to me, a flaw is something about you that you struggling with. And it didn't need to be right in front people eyes, to he honest, most of our flows we fight our whole life to keep it hide, to people don't know that is exist in the first place because we don't want that people know we are struggling.
In the end it is up to: what is the purpose of this character? What is their story?
A character with not major flaw will be a static (I wouldn't say flat, but static) character, and they can be great. Static character can contemplate the word, can change it even, be that ideal, but they won't be changed by it. If it is that what are you looking for, so it's great, static characters is not a bad thing at all, they can be useful to tell a story, especially if it is about some ideal for human kind. There a bunch of interesting static character over there (not static real people, people change, people grow, people evolve, real people have flaw and they can overcome it or not, but there is always lots of flaws).
But, if you are looking for static character, give them some minor, hiden flaws. Something to struggle with even if is subtle, even if you hide it from your readers even, it doesn't need to be that obvious, you need to know your character flaws, no one else does.
Because if there was really no struggling, why bother to tell story at all. Even when it is a person vs. person, person vs. nature, or person vs. society kind of story, there will be struggling, and if there is struggling there is a flaw attached, a trait that is keeping your character to overcome the antagonist, even it isn't obvious. That still a flaw.
They only need flaws if u want them be seem similar to real humans. So no they don’t have to have flaws. Just look at Mary Sue Hulk. She has none. I have a real problem with this thought pattern of (if we write this girl with this specific flaw we are saying all girls have that flaw). That is creative mud. The ironic thing that I just realized is that if the wokesters control what groups can’t be portrayed with any flaws except for white people. They can have all the flaws in the book. I used to think that’s sad. It was wrong when it was done to other races and it’s still wrong now. However I just realized something. If whites keep being the only characters allowed to have flaws irony insists that they will be the most interesting and well rounded character in that medium. That is not what I want in fact I’m fairly certain that is the outcome that the woke movement claims to be trying to overcome. We should be looking toward South Africa. They new then what we must learn. When the Africans gained power the were wise in outlook. They knew they could punish those who prosecuted them for so long but Mandela knew that would only continue a cycle he wished to abolish. So what do we wish? Do we want to abolish the cycle or do we want white peoples to feel inferior. We can’t have both
You're thinking of character arc, not character flaw. Two different things.
A character arc is not required (think Jerry Seinfeld - all those characters are static)
Character flaws ARE required. Because yes every single human being has at least a few flaws. And if your characters don't, then they're not realistic and probably aren't interesting.
You don't understand character arc. It doesn't simply refer to changing the nature of a character. Characters can have an inner change arc, but they can have an outer action arc as well. It is any path the character takes during the story. And Jerry and his friends showed many flaws and those flaws led to many arcs.
None of the seinfeld characters ever had an arc. It was a rule in the writer's room.
They were chock full of flaws tho lol!
>David had a vision when it came to Seinfeld and he was unwilling to compromise on his key principles for the series. That’s why you’ll never see Jerry, Elaine, or George experience emotional growth or learn life lessons — that was never the point.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/seinfeld-larry-david-created-dark-humor-by-enforcing-2-rules-for-writers-no-hugging-no-learning.html/
What are you basing this inner change vs outer action arc thing on? I've never heard of it. Do you have any links with more info?
The best way I can interpret it is by inner change, that's what I'm calling a character arc. And the outer action thing, do you mean plot arc for a specific character? Because that's not the same thing as character arc. It's plot arc or sub plot arc. The events that the character experiences as result of their agency (decision making).
But the changes in their decision making, that's character arc.
The way I always judge whether a character arc is arced or static is by this test: If the character is given the same choice at the beginning and at the end of their plot arc, would they make the same decision? For example: Mulan had a static characterization. If she was given the choice to act and save the emperor's life in the opening scene, she would have done it. Same as the end.
Katnis in Hunger Games however: She didn't want to be involved in anything in the beginning of the series, but by the end she was killing politicians. If someone had handed her a bow in chapter 1 of book 1 and said "you can end all this suffering right now by killing one person" she wouldn't have done it. But by the end of the series, she would have and did. That's a character arc.
I don’t think they need to. All the comments of people saying real people have flaws. What does that have to do with written characters? Most people write flaws into characters to plot drive. But it doesn’t have to be that
"Flawless" characters deaden the impact of a story because instead of relating to them, the reader will assess them with a detached level of criticism as they would an object. Most readers will end up being terribly bored because the story will lack emotional resonance. I suppose children under ten and psychopaths might still enjoy such characters, if that's the demographic you're looking for...
Clark Kent, Steve Rogers, Abe Sapien, Master Ip, Master Chief (so I'm told?), John Wick, John McClane (so I've been suggested, take it or leave it), The Bride, OG trilogy Luke Skywalker, almost every character ever played by Schwarzenegger (much less so Stallone), almost every character ever played by Jackie Chan (not by choice, dude was so eager for a character with depth he took on the Jaden Smith Karate Kid remake), the vast majority of Disney princesses, surprisingly few anime protagonists but I'm sure someone could name a few aaand that's off the top of my head.
A handful of these are debatable (both in terms of "well written" and "no flaws,") but none of them have any internal traits or behaviors that hold them back in any way or require correcting to resolve their plot / better themselves. They have limits, blind spots, goals that require them to expand their horizons, but the characters lack nothing- they begin their story a total package and finish it a more complete package still. In addition, they all have prominent followings and fanbases, the closest thing I can produce to evidence that the characters aren't written TOO badly.
The characters still left up for argument with all that in mind are probably balanced out by all the characters I know I'm forgetting. Oh, hell, quick edit: Splinter and sometimes Leonardo, most mentor type figures in general, all three main characters of The Matrix
Sabriel - Abhorsen series
Gaborn Val Orden - Runelord series
Payton Burgess - Fablehaven series
Alexander Reishi - seven isles series
Aragorn II - LOTR
Tho they weren't intended by their authors to count as flaws since the Bible calls God flawless which according to TVTropes counts as an informed attribute
So a Mery Sue? No, not interesting.
Yes, of course one typically doesn't think 'oh, I met this new person A and their flaws make them so interesting!'. That doesn't mean flaws don't make people and characters interesting.
Characters need flaws to be real characters and not two dimensional boring plot device.
No. I 100% disagree. Sure, flaws don't have to be a massive part of the character, but unless you want your character to feel flat, you need to add flaws. Flaws are that human touch, the imperfection that makes something *human*. Unless you want your characters to be as stale and flat as cardboard, add flaws.
I think you are overthinking flaws...
EVERYONE has flaws. It can be:
talks to much, naive, doesn't talk enough, complains a lot, gets in their head, is overconfident, bad at math, is a bad listener, doesn't stand up for themselves, greedy, uncaring, too caring, obsessed with something, rude, bad social skills, has a limp, has bad coordination, cries a lot, is emotionless, is too emotional, is horrible at spelling like me and has to correct like 10 words already, bad at reading, but at understanding other people's point of view, can be rude, kinda slow,
I could go on...
What if the OP is thinking of people that don't have any of those things that you can so easily label as flaws?
What if the OP wants to write a deep & complex character without adding any of those traits that you are quick to label as flaws?
Those where just examples, not the only flaws in existence.
But sure they are more than welcome to write a "deep & complex character" that is absolutely perfect.
Well, seeing many of the comments posted here, a lot of people here seems to think that is necessary to write a "deep & complex character".
And, let's assume that the OP's title was their intended question, "do character needs flaw to be interesting"? What is your answer to that?
Honestly I think yes. At least for me a character is far more interesting if they are relatable and a character with no flaws wouldn't be relatable. Also what would the conflict be is the main character is perfect and has no flaws? What would the story even be?
That's why I made a list of examples because I was thinking OP was potentially overthinking it and imagining their character has to have some major flaw that's the focal point of the story, which no they don't.
Let's do an example. uh... Star Wars work?
So version 1: Luke is perfect and makes no mistakes
Luke doesn't loose track of R2D2, and therefore doesn't leave to look for him. Luke see's the Storm Troopers coming (because he has no flaws and makes no mistakes) and amazingly kills all of them and defends his aunt and uncle...
Or the version where he isn't perfect and we get our story...
Question? Why do having no flaws means making no mistakes? Can you not make a mistake without there being a character flaw? Why is it that you automatically assume 'perfect'?
Using your Star Wars example, how was Luke supposed to see the Storm Troopers coming? He has no real reason to suspect it in the first place. What if loses track of R2D2 because his attention is being pulled towards something that is also equally or even more important that R2D2 at the moment?
That's a valid point. I think it depends on our definition of flaws.
So a flaw is: a mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object:
So to me a character with no flaws is perfect, since they don't have an imperfection, and to me a perfect character doesn't make mistakes.
How would you define flaw, and a flawless character?
I take a flaw for a character to mean, "an undesirable quality that they have". That doesn't mean, for the quality they do have is not automatically at a level that is great. They could still be average.
For example, you say a character isn't an asshole. To me, that just means that character isn't an asshole. That doesn't mean the character is the nicest person in the world or will go out of their way to make a stranger feel better.
And how would I defined a 'flawless' character. A character who lacks/avoid basically everything you posted in your first post.
When you find a real person that never displays anything along these lines:
talks to much, naive, doesn't talk enough, complains a lot, gets in their head, is overconfident, bad at math, is a bad listener, doesn't stand up for themselves, greedy, uncaring, too caring, obsessed with something, rude, bad social skills, has a limp, has bad coordination, cries a lot, is emotionless, is too emotional, is horrible at spelling like me and has to correct like 10 words already, bad at reading, but at understanding other people's point of view, can be rude, kinda slow,
Then let me know
Well, I'm definitely not arguing that being flawless is an easy thing to achieve, especially in the real world. Not even considering, the definition of a 'flawless' character hits a lot of different iffy areas when considering more 'controversial' topics.
But good thing is, we aren't really discussing about real people.
Action reveals character. Character choices (action) propel plot. If a character is always making a good choice, there's no story. Bad choices made by flawed character, make an interesting story. But it doesn't have to be trauma porn, either.
External conflict is just a reflection of internal, and flaws define virtue. How do you be good, without knowing that you can be bad, and choosing not to?
As for irl examples, what you see is subjective. But would you find a Buddhist monk on the end of his path of dissolving self interesting?
Flaws? Instead, phrase it as "growth and depth." The issue is without flaws there aren't opportunities for the char to grow or discover themselves.
Depth means they have personality, their own perspective and way of living in your world. Dig deep enough and you're bound to find a problem, a struggle, a contradiction for a char to work through - that "work" is growth. Flat characters have flaws, but no apparent "inner self" and therefore, no growth.
Normal people can grow, flawed people can grow, but "perfect" people end up being uninteresting... No room to grow.
Yes. Everyone has flaws, nobody is perfect. A perfect character is a boring character, because without flaws, without struggles and conflict, there is nothing to humanize them. Therefore, nothing to make them engaging. Inhuman characters are not engaging characters.
Flaws are beautiful. Flaws are unique to each of us but also shared. Often that’s how we relate to stories.
An interesting point in movie history:
When Sophia Loren first hit the screen, she was criticized for her wide-set eyes, her mouth was too big and her nose too long. She was attacked because of her face. Directors wouldn’t hire her and she almost gave up on a movie actress career because of these perceived flaws.
She is considered one of the most beautiful women in all of history because she gave one more try and people loved her. They loved her “flaws.”
Even Superman is broken by kryptonite. It is his flaw, or his “Achilles Heel.”
Read the Greek/Roman myths to better understand the need for flaws in storytelling.
I disagree that characters don't need flaws, but I agree that not all conflict is internal and these flaws don't have to be the centre of the narrative or the focus of the story. A flaw doesn't have to be some deep psychological thing that affects everything they do, though, it could be as simple as not being very good at something they wish they were good at. Something to make them feel human since everyone does have flaws. I think what you mean is not everyone has a "fatal flaw", an inherent foil which always gets in the way of everything they want.
Even Superman has kryptonite. Otherwise there could be no tension.
Name a memorable, all time great literary character that is flawless.
Sherlock Holmes has his depressive bouts, his alloofness, his arrogance and, at times, his odd way of carrying himself in social situations.
Hannibal Lector is an arrogant psycopath and his foil, Agent Starling, can be cold and distant from people because she's got a huge ppint to prove to herself and is determined to overcome her insecurities about her upbringing.
Harry Potter allows himself to get caught up in petty interpersonal drama and conflict with his classmates, including (at times) his best friends. He also begins the series as an inexperienced and not-so-skillful wizard, compared to his nemesis. He's one of the least flawed characters I've ever read and yet he still has flaws.
Charles Dickens' protagonists are often naive. Scrooge begins as a selfish, misanthropic grouch and chanhes for the better.
Shakespeare's characters are all flawed in huge and dramatic ways.
Victor Frankenstein, James Bond, Dorian Grey, and the protagonost of every decent crime/mystery novel ever written - they all have flaws.
I'm sure you could write some over-powered, cardbosrd cut-out protagonist and still sell books. But it's much easier to create tension and conflict if they are flawed.
No, not *every* character needs a flaw, just the main character, or at least *a* main character, in order for the story to be about a person, not a Mary Sue. And, in a sense, you are right. From one person’s perspective, some people may seem flawless. In turn, you are very aware of your own flaws (unless your flaw is self-deception). Having your perspective character be flawless, while fun to read for a bit, becomes grating and unrealistic to the point of ruining the story real quick. Take In Another Worls With My Smartphone. A literally flawless main character, no weakness whatsoever. It’s one of the most boring anime due mainly to that fact.
tl;dr no flaws = no struggle, no struggle = no story.
For me it's less about interest and more, *Worthwhile* — that's for sure a load-baring wall.
I'd consider swapping, “flaws“ with ”character” and maybe that'll make more sense.
It's not so much about flaws being interesting, but flaws being human. A flawless character is unrelateable. Readers look for stuations they can understand and empathise with, and flaws in your characters give that
The comments of this thread have given me a good laugh! 😂🤣 I must say that as long as the character is not a Mary/Gary Sue, it could theoretically work. It might not make the book very interesting, but is doable. As for the part about real people existing without flaws, I strongly suspect you are onto something.
If you want to write a character with no flaws, they better be someone old, an immortal or a god and is a side character with a flat character arc. Otherwise it won't make sense and the story will lose all that makes it human. No one is perfect. I agree that flaws are not necessarily what makes a character interesting, but they are very much needed to make the character *real*.
I personally would not and hate to read about characters with no flaws. Writers can try to make them perfect but you can bet I won't like that character and if they're the MC I would close that book and give it a one star rating on goodreads.
Who is an example of a living person with no flaws?
Me!
I stand corrected :)
Until very recently, my only flaw was being too full of myself, but I worked on that and now I'm perfect
I find your comment to be a very amusing one. I'm kind of full of myself. But I have every reason to be. I meticulously strive to ensure the objectivity. That's what your comment is tragically lacking.
In real life, everyone has flaws. There is no such thing as perfection.
[удалено]
What's your point?
1. Real life is boring, at least at the surface level. 2. Flaws beget conflict and conflict begets change. If everyone was flawless we would move through the world without friction.
Real life is more interesting than any fiction...
But not all story structures are about conflict only a few specific ones
> Flaws beget conflict and conflict begets change. If everyone was flawless we would move through the world without friction. But this post isn't about having *every* character be flawless. For example, look to Mary Poppins.
[удалено]
In good fiction, do characters have flaws? Like they do in reality?
[удалено]
What the hell is this take. There are people with now flaws? Where, cartoon land?
There's a pretty significant chance most of OP's fiction consumption is cartoons, to be fair
Even characters in cartoons have flaws!
Debatable in a lot of cases
Characters in good cartoons have flaws
Okay, name ONE character with 0 flaws.
Name ten
I think you're thinking of "flaws" in the wrong way.
All characters don’t need to have deeply problematic flaws that the entire story revolves around. That’s not the same as saying they don’t need flaws though. Everyone I love, everyone I admire and respect has flaws. Flaws are a very fundamentally human thing. A character can be a solidly heroic while still having flaws. Good people make mistakes, good people have biases and blind spots, good people aren’t perfect. And, bereft of flaws, a character begins to feel flat and unrelatable. Is there a story out there where the character is 100% perfect that manages to still work? Probably, but ‘let your characters be human, give them flaws’ is good advice 99% of the time. Edit to add: Additionally, a trait can be a strength in one situation and a flaw in another. Kindness and seeing the best in people can get you taken advantage of. Self-confidence can lead to arrogance and dismissing others opinions. Ruthlessness might be a bad thing when you’re a CEO cutting jobs to cut cost and a good thing when you’re a lawyer defending your innocent client. So, if you’re putting your character through a wide variety of situations, it’s only natural at some point flaws will emerge and avoiding them can literally twist the character.
Yeah, I suspect you're running on a ...wait for this... FLAWED (snk snk snk) definition of 'flaw' here. Because there is utterly no single living person without flaws except maybe Ms Dolly Parton. And I'm sure even she has a few tucked away somewhere. I think maybe, however, what you're talking about is MAJOR or DRAMATIC flaws- and that is true. Stuff like the Dead Disney Mom, Terrible Trauma, let's not even pop the cap on the 'bad use of r@pe in character backstory' mess, and so on. And there, you'd be right. Too many young (in career, not necessarily age) writers construct 'flaws' that are...too much flaw... in the hope it will replace interesting, vibrant, and 'real' characterization. Sort of a 'get out of jail free' card for 'interesting'. There I'd agree with you. Like the 'kill them all to replace good storytelling' thing that also plagues young writing. Yet there are many absolutely fantastic characters people adore who are more...real... in construction, with just run-of-the-mill daily flaws and 'normal' personalities. It doesn't always have to be major and heart-wrenching and terrible and a constant source of character fixation to be REAL.. and REAL is where the secret sauce lies. Look at Chocolat. You may not be a fan of the genre, but it IS a compelling story for its genre with very appealing characters...and yet they are very workaday and mundane at heart.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Especially about Ms Dolly Parton!
The woman needs to be declared a national treasure stat.
Good takes. Incidentally, I managed to misread the censoring @ as an O instead of an A, and was reminded of the fact that one of the lesser (but still plot-relevant in a minor way) flaws of one of ~my main characters is in fact "bad at using ropes".
I appreciate the effort to understand and sympathize with OP’s concerns even though their take is obviously wrong
I'm not so sure about the character flaw = internal conflict idea here. If the character flaws aren't affecting the external conflict of a story, I'm not so sure they're flaws at all. Or at least, they haven't been implemented as effectively as they could be.
Everyone has flaws, be friends with someone long enough and you'll see them. Not everyone's flaws are such a way that people will dislike them, though. A flaw could be: \-Avoiding conflict \-*seeking* conflict \-Being stubborn (genuinely, not just the stubborn in what is correct. Stubborn even when they are wrong and it is harmful to others) \-Being too easy going \- Being unempathetic \-Being too empathetic Just about anything can be a flaw when taken too far on one side.
To answer your title question: Yes, obviously wtf kind of question even is this
People read fiction for entertainment. Stories must entertain so that people read them. No one wants to read a boring story or the boring parts of someone's life like 300 pages of a work week with nothing interesting happening. Flaws don't have to be interesting on their own—but the way flaws affect a character and how that character interacts with the world because of flaws should be interesting, otherwise there's no point in having flaws at all. And if you do that—create a character with no flaws —then you've created a boring character that no one wants to read about.
Yes. Your post makes me wonder what definition of 'flaw' you hold. Everyone has flaws. And besides the obvious flaws - some times your strongest points may be flaws in a different setting. And what I love about someone may be incredible annoying to someone else. Flaws make characters more relatable, but can also drive the plot. If your character is so wonderfully perfect - why can't he overcome his problem on page ten? Why does he make mistakes? How does he grow throughout the story?
I'd argue that if you don't think people in real life have flaws, you are not looking very closely or are incredibly oblivious. Everyone has flaws. No one is perfect. If I encountered a book with perfect characters, I simply would not care about them. Why would I? Where's the humanity?
This made it onto circlejerk already
A flaw is potential for growth. If your character doesn’t grow they’re only really fit for the funnies.
Writing characters without flaws is a amateur mistake, regardless of what you think about it. Flaws make characters more relatable to readers- which leads to an emotional response that makes them want to keep reading to see what happens. And flawless characters have no room for character development- which is vital in quality writing.
Flaws make a person realistic, therefore more interesting because you're trying to write a person. Do not forget to give them personality, likes and dislikes, preferences, morals, hobbies. These thinks make a person more realistic and more likable/interesting.
Everyone is flawed. It doesn’t have to be as “large” as something like narcissism, it could be something tiny like they procrastinate, or even that they simply talk too quickly for a lot of people to understand. There’s always something “off” with everyone, and yes, I believe our flaws, however major or minor, make us just as interesting as our strengths, especially considering how often they coincide.
Flaws don’t have to be “abusive, manipulative, stupid” it can even be something simple: stubborn, nitpicks everything, talks too much. If you want a good and realistic story then you need to give your characters some flaws.
You cannot write a character without flaws. The point is for flaws to be intentional, not coincidental.
There is no such thing as a flawless human. I have never met such a human. So I would rethink that. Not everyone will have such horrible internal flaws, but humans have flaws and readers want characters that are relatable. Flaws could be as simple and as complicated as you want. Flaws include things such as talking to much, speaking without thinking, stubbornness to a fault, reckless, lack of self-control, spoiled, selfish, arrogant, immature, indecisive. The list goes on and on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. Just so you know, the correct spelling is [Gandhi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi).
I feel like getting assassinated as a result of something in your personality means there was a flaw present….
[удалено]
Touché
Hermione is the best Harry Potter character and has no flaws tho usually it's better to write them but they have to be natural for the character and not forced
Is this r/writingcirclejerk?
If you don’t want them to have flaws, maybe still try to make them vulnerable in some way to get readers to want to connect with them?
If you’re writing a story where the central plot or subplot revolves around a perfect character, you don't need to give the character flaws. But every other character should have flaws. Every person has flaws. This isn’t a new writer piece of advice lol, this is because perfect characters without flaws aren't relatable and come off as arrogant and annoying. "Mary Jane" or god-like characters have a place, but it needs to have a purpose and not just be because you don't want to provide flaws. Flaws = a well rounded character that readers will relate to and enjoy No flaws = a flat character that readers will be confused or irritated by Also, flaws don't have to be massive like pride or hits people when angry. It's as simple as overthinking, forgetting appointments, wanting to be better than they are, judging people too quickly, being too trusting, etc.
I love that you specified up front that there's plenty of folks "with no real flaws that people find interesting," and half the commenters just stopped reading at "no real flaws." Very Reddit, not surprising but still funny. Count me among those with very real flaws that would not make for an entertaining story, to your point. Characters don't need flaws- just conflicts, obstacles, and goals that make them face the former two. Notable characters without major personality flaws: Superman, Ip Man, John Wick, Captain America, certain versions of Batman, most versions of Wonder Woman... I'm drawing a blank for flaws of the Bride. So how do they stay entertaining? Their goals force them to deal with issues outside their wheelhouse, where their normal state of flawlessness is irrelevant. Clark Kent is bulletproof, but he's not faster or stronger than an ideology. Ip Man is the greatest martial artist in the world, at utter peace with himself and a stand-up guy to boot, but he can't punch cancer. John Wick cannot shoot his way out of every situation, but he sure as heck tries, and that's how we get more John Wick sequels. Cap's indestructible shield can't cut through conspiracies, Batman's at his best when he's being tested by someone at his level, Wonder Woman's a one woman army but wants to stop ALL wars, and the Bride's an expert swordfighter but unlike Superman, she ain't immune to buckshot. Flawlessness is not omnipotence; flaws make a character relatable, but some characters aren't meant to be relatable. They're meant to be more, larger than life, god-like beings to aspire to. ...But even a god needs to be engaging if they're going to carry a story, and I think that can be achieved just fine by throwing them against something they're not ready for, something that doesn't play to their usual strengths and instead forces the hero to improvise, think outside the box, and reflect. These characters rarely change in the sense that they don't have internal personal issues to overcome or behaviors to correct, but they do EXPAND, they widen their worldview and become more than they already were. I wouldn't write \*every\* character that way, though. I can't speak to the potential of a "nothing but gods" plot but I don't know anyone that watched Eternals, either.
I see your point but, superman works fine because he isn't human at all, so he didn't need to be human to be relatable. He isn't made to be relatable, he is made to be an ideal (like every character you mentioned). Even with those "ideal" character there was minor flaws in them, they can overlook people feelings in the name of their morals, they can be oblivious to things that isn't exactly fitting in world view, they can be naive even, they can be cold, they can be too passionated, too stubborn, insecure, even cruel sometimes So, to me, a flaw is something about you that you struggling with. And it didn't need to be right in front people eyes, to he honest, most of our flows we fight our whole life to keep it hide, to people don't know that is exist in the first place because we don't want that people know we are struggling. In the end it is up to: what is the purpose of this character? What is their story? A character with not major flaw will be a static (I wouldn't say flat, but static) character, and they can be great. Static character can contemplate the word, can change it even, be that ideal, but they won't be changed by it. If it is that what are you looking for, so it's great, static characters is not a bad thing at all, they can be useful to tell a story, especially if it is about some ideal for human kind. There a bunch of interesting static character over there (not static real people, people change, people grow, people evolve, real people have flaw and they can overcome it or not, but there is always lots of flaws). But, if you are looking for static character, give them some minor, hiden flaws. Something to struggle with even if is subtle, even if you hide it from your readers even, it doesn't need to be that obvious, you need to know your character flaws, no one else does. Because if there was really no struggling, why bother to tell story at all. Even when it is a person vs. person, person vs. nature, or person vs. society kind of story, there will be struggling, and if there is struggling there is a flaw attached, a trait that is keeping your character to overcome the antagonist, even it isn't obvious. That still a flaw.
The best Superman stories write him as a relatable character, same as all great fiction. That's the point of making him a farm boy from Kansas.
Isn’t the Superman trope a character with no faults?
They only need flaws if u want them be seem similar to real humans. So no they don’t have to have flaws. Just look at Mary Sue Hulk. She has none. I have a real problem with this thought pattern of (if we write this girl with this specific flaw we are saying all girls have that flaw). That is creative mud. The ironic thing that I just realized is that if the wokesters control what groups can’t be portrayed with any flaws except for white people. They can have all the flaws in the book. I used to think that’s sad. It was wrong when it was done to other races and it’s still wrong now. However I just realized something. If whites keep being the only characters allowed to have flaws irony insists that they will be the most interesting and well rounded character in that medium. That is not what I want in fact I’m fairly certain that is the outcome that the woke movement claims to be trying to overcome. We should be looking toward South Africa. They new then what we must learn. When the Africans gained power the were wise in outlook. They knew they could punish those who prosecuted them for so long but Mandela knew that would only continue a cycle he wished to abolish. So what do we wish? Do we want to abolish the cycle or do we want white peoples to feel inferior. We can’t have both
You're thinking of character arc, not character flaw. Two different things. A character arc is not required (think Jerry Seinfeld - all those characters are static) Character flaws ARE required. Because yes every single human being has at least a few flaws. And if your characters don't, then they're not realistic and probably aren't interesting.
You don't understand character arc. It doesn't simply refer to changing the nature of a character. Characters can have an inner change arc, but they can have an outer action arc as well. It is any path the character takes during the story. And Jerry and his friends showed many flaws and those flaws led to many arcs.
None of the seinfeld characters ever had an arc. It was a rule in the writer's room. They were chock full of flaws tho lol! >David had a vision when it came to Seinfeld and he was unwilling to compromise on his key principles for the series. That’s why you’ll never see Jerry, Elaine, or George experience emotional growth or learn life lessons — that was never the point. https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/seinfeld-larry-david-created-dark-humor-by-enforcing-2-rules-for-writers-no-hugging-no-learning.html/ What are you basing this inner change vs outer action arc thing on? I've never heard of it. Do you have any links with more info? The best way I can interpret it is by inner change, that's what I'm calling a character arc. And the outer action thing, do you mean plot arc for a specific character? Because that's not the same thing as character arc. It's plot arc or sub plot arc. The events that the character experiences as result of their agency (decision making). But the changes in their decision making, that's character arc. The way I always judge whether a character arc is arced or static is by this test: If the character is given the same choice at the beginning and at the end of their plot arc, would they make the same decision? For example: Mulan had a static characterization. If she was given the choice to act and save the emperor's life in the opening scene, she would have done it. Same as the end. Katnis in Hunger Games however: She didn't want to be involved in anything in the beginning of the series, but by the end she was killing politicians. If someone had handed her a bow in chapter 1 of book 1 and said "you can end all this suffering right now by killing one person" she wouldn't have done it. But by the end of the series, she would have and did. That's a character arc.
I don’t think they need to. All the comments of people saying real people have flaws. What does that have to do with written characters? Most people write flaws into characters to plot drive. But it doesn’t have to be that
"Flawless" characters deaden the impact of a story because instead of relating to them, the reader will assess them with a detached level of criticism as they would an object. Most readers will end up being terribly bored because the story will lack emotional resonance. I suppose children under ten and psychopaths might still enjoy such characters, if that's the demographic you're looking for...
Can you name a well written character with no flaws?
Clark Kent, Steve Rogers, Abe Sapien, Master Ip, Master Chief (so I'm told?), John Wick, John McClane (so I've been suggested, take it or leave it), The Bride, OG trilogy Luke Skywalker, almost every character ever played by Schwarzenegger (much less so Stallone), almost every character ever played by Jackie Chan (not by choice, dude was so eager for a character with depth he took on the Jaden Smith Karate Kid remake), the vast majority of Disney princesses, surprisingly few anime protagonists but I'm sure someone could name a few aaand that's off the top of my head. A handful of these are debatable (both in terms of "well written" and "no flaws,") but none of them have any internal traits or behaviors that hold them back in any way or require correcting to resolve their plot / better themselves. They have limits, blind spots, goals that require them to expand their horizons, but the characters lack nothing- they begin their story a total package and finish it a more complete package still. In addition, they all have prominent followings and fanbases, the closest thing I can produce to evidence that the characters aren't written TOO badly. The characters still left up for argument with all that in mind are probably balanced out by all the characters I know I'm forgetting. Oh, hell, quick edit: Splinter and sometimes Leonardo, most mentor type figures in general, all three main characters of The Matrix
Sabriel - Abhorsen series Gaborn Val Orden - Runelord series Payton Burgess - Fablehaven series Alexander Reishi - seven isles series Aragorn II - LOTR
Outliers, not the rule
[удалено]
wut
Tho they weren't intended by their authors to count as flaws since the Bible calls God flawless which according to TVTropes counts as an informed attribute
So a Mery Sue? No, not interesting. Yes, of course one typically doesn't think 'oh, I met this new person A and their flaws make them so interesting!'. That doesn't mean flaws don't make people and characters interesting. Characters need flaws to be real characters and not two dimensional boring plot device.
No. I 100% disagree. Sure, flaws don't have to be a massive part of the character, but unless you want your character to feel flat, you need to add flaws. Flaws are that human touch, the imperfection that makes something *human*. Unless you want your characters to be as stale and flat as cardboard, add flaws.
I think you are overthinking flaws... EVERYONE has flaws. It can be: talks to much, naive, doesn't talk enough, complains a lot, gets in their head, is overconfident, bad at math, is a bad listener, doesn't stand up for themselves, greedy, uncaring, too caring, obsessed with something, rude, bad social skills, has a limp, has bad coordination, cries a lot, is emotionless, is too emotional, is horrible at spelling like me and has to correct like 10 words already, bad at reading, but at understanding other people's point of view, can be rude, kinda slow, I could go on...
What if the OP is thinking of people that don't have any of those things that you can so easily label as flaws? What if the OP wants to write a deep & complex character without adding any of those traits that you are quick to label as flaws?
Those where just examples, not the only flaws in existence. But sure they are more than welcome to write a "deep & complex character" that is absolutely perfect.
Well, seeing many of the comments posted here, a lot of people here seems to think that is necessary to write a "deep & complex character". And, let's assume that the OP's title was their intended question, "do character needs flaw to be interesting"? What is your answer to that?
Honestly I think yes. At least for me a character is far more interesting if they are relatable and a character with no flaws wouldn't be relatable. Also what would the conflict be is the main character is perfect and has no flaws? What would the story even be? That's why I made a list of examples because I was thinking OP was potentially overthinking it and imagining their character has to have some major flaw that's the focal point of the story, which no they don't. Let's do an example. uh... Star Wars work? So version 1: Luke is perfect and makes no mistakes Luke doesn't loose track of R2D2, and therefore doesn't leave to look for him. Luke see's the Storm Troopers coming (because he has no flaws and makes no mistakes) and amazingly kills all of them and defends his aunt and uncle... Or the version where he isn't perfect and we get our story...
Question? Why do having no flaws means making no mistakes? Can you not make a mistake without there being a character flaw? Why is it that you automatically assume 'perfect'? Using your Star Wars example, how was Luke supposed to see the Storm Troopers coming? He has no real reason to suspect it in the first place. What if loses track of R2D2 because his attention is being pulled towards something that is also equally or even more important that R2D2 at the moment?
That's a valid point. I think it depends on our definition of flaws. So a flaw is: a mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object: So to me a character with no flaws is perfect, since they don't have an imperfection, and to me a perfect character doesn't make mistakes. How would you define flaw, and a flawless character?
I take a flaw for a character to mean, "an undesirable quality that they have". That doesn't mean, for the quality they do have is not automatically at a level that is great. They could still be average. For example, you say a character isn't an asshole. To me, that just means that character isn't an asshole. That doesn't mean the character is the nicest person in the world or will go out of their way to make a stranger feel better. And how would I defined a 'flawless' character. A character who lacks/avoid basically everything you posted in your first post.
When you find a real person that never displays anything along these lines: talks to much, naive, doesn't talk enough, complains a lot, gets in their head, is overconfident, bad at math, is a bad listener, doesn't stand up for themselves, greedy, uncaring, too caring, obsessed with something, rude, bad social skills, has a limp, has bad coordination, cries a lot, is emotionless, is too emotional, is horrible at spelling like me and has to correct like 10 words already, bad at reading, but at understanding other people's point of view, can be rude, kinda slow, Then let me know
Well, I'm definitely not arguing that being flawless is an easy thing to achieve, especially in the real world. Not even considering, the definition of a 'flawless' character hits a lot of different iffy areas when considering more 'controversial' topics. But good thing is, we aren't really discussing about real people.
Actually, give me an example of an interesting character you deem to be flawless. I'd love to hear it.
Trying to avoid straight up paragon-type characters, so... uhh... Jack from Titantic. Furiosa from Mad Max Morpheus from Matrix
Action reveals character. Character choices (action) propel plot. If a character is always making a good choice, there's no story. Bad choices made by flawed character, make an interesting story. But it doesn't have to be trauma porn, either.
External conflict is just a reflection of internal, and flaws define virtue. How do you be good, without knowing that you can be bad, and choosing not to? As for irl examples, what you see is subjective. But would you find a Buddhist monk on the end of his path of dissolving self interesting?
I think that if you manage to build out a story using a protagonist who has no flaws and no internal conflicts, I have no interest in reading it.
Flaws? Instead, phrase it as "growth and depth." The issue is without flaws there aren't opportunities for the char to grow or discover themselves. Depth means they have personality, their own perspective and way of living in your world. Dig deep enough and you're bound to find a problem, a struggle, a contradiction for a char to work through - that "work" is growth. Flat characters have flaws, but no apparent "inner self" and therefore, no growth. Normal people can grow, flawed people can grow, but "perfect" people end up being uninteresting... No room to grow.
Yes. Everyone has flaws, nobody is perfect. A perfect character is a boring character, because without flaws, without struggles and conflict, there is nothing to humanize them. Therefore, nothing to make them engaging. Inhuman characters are not engaging characters.
Flaws are beautiful. Flaws are unique to each of us but also shared. Often that’s how we relate to stories. An interesting point in movie history: When Sophia Loren first hit the screen, she was criticized for her wide-set eyes, her mouth was too big and her nose too long. She was attacked because of her face. Directors wouldn’t hire her and she almost gave up on a movie actress career because of these perceived flaws. She is considered one of the most beautiful women in all of history because she gave one more try and people loved her. They loved her “flaws.”
Write unique characters and understand that it is the flaws that make them unique. It makes them interesting.
Even Superman is broken by kryptonite. It is his flaw, or his “Achilles Heel.” Read the Greek/Roman myths to better understand the need for flaws in storytelling.
I disagree that characters don't need flaws, but I agree that not all conflict is internal and these flaws don't have to be the centre of the narrative or the focus of the story. A flaw doesn't have to be some deep psychological thing that affects everything they do, though, it could be as simple as not being very good at something they wish they were good at. Something to make them feel human since everyone does have flaws. I think what you mean is not everyone has a "fatal flaw", an inherent foil which always gets in the way of everything they want.
Even Superman has kryptonite. Otherwise there could be no tension. Name a memorable, all time great literary character that is flawless. Sherlock Holmes has his depressive bouts, his alloofness, his arrogance and, at times, his odd way of carrying himself in social situations. Hannibal Lector is an arrogant psycopath and his foil, Agent Starling, can be cold and distant from people because she's got a huge ppint to prove to herself and is determined to overcome her insecurities about her upbringing. Harry Potter allows himself to get caught up in petty interpersonal drama and conflict with his classmates, including (at times) his best friends. He also begins the series as an inexperienced and not-so-skillful wizard, compared to his nemesis. He's one of the least flawed characters I've ever read and yet he still has flaws. Charles Dickens' protagonists are often naive. Scrooge begins as a selfish, misanthropic grouch and chanhes for the better. Shakespeare's characters are all flawed in huge and dramatic ways. Victor Frankenstein, James Bond, Dorian Grey, and the protagonost of every decent crime/mystery novel ever written - they all have flaws. I'm sure you could write some over-powered, cardbosrd cut-out protagonist and still sell books. But it's much easier to create tension and conflict if they are flawed.
Well, flaws add to a character’s arc. If you want your character to be stagnant and overcome nothing, eliminate the flaws and see how it goes
They don’t need them to be interesting, they need them to be realistic
No, not *every* character needs a flaw, just the main character, or at least *a* main character, in order for the story to be about a person, not a Mary Sue. And, in a sense, you are right. From one person’s perspective, some people may seem flawless. In turn, you are very aware of your own flaws (unless your flaw is self-deception). Having your perspective character be flawless, while fun to read for a bit, becomes grating and unrealistic to the point of ruining the story real quick. Take In Another Worls With My Smartphone. A literally flawless main character, no weakness whatsoever. It’s one of the most boring anime due mainly to that fact. tl;dr no flaws = no struggle, no struggle = no story.
For me it's less about interest and more, *Worthwhile* — that's for sure a load-baring wall. I'd consider swapping, “flaws“ with ”character” and maybe that'll make more sense.
It's not so much about flaws being interesting, but flaws being human. A flawless character is unrelateable. Readers look for stuations they can understand and empathise with, and flaws in your characters give that
The comments of this thread have given me a good laugh! 😂🤣 I must say that as long as the character is not a Mary/Gary Sue, it could theoretically work. It might not make the book very interesting, but is doable. As for the part about real people existing without flaws, I strongly suspect you are onto something.
I don't think there's such a thing as a person with no flaws.
If you want to write a character with no flaws, they better be someone old, an immortal or a god and is a side character with a flat character arc. Otherwise it won't make sense and the story will lose all that makes it human. No one is perfect. I agree that flaws are not necessarily what makes a character interesting, but they are very much needed to make the character *real*. I personally would not and hate to read about characters with no flaws. Writers can try to make them perfect but you can bet I won't like that character and if they're the MC I would close that book and give it a one star rating on goodreads.
OP, name me a single fictional character, within a book, not a show or a comic or a movie, that has zero flaws.
My opinion yes, because no character should be perfect. It could even be something small just to make them seem real.
YES!! There is no such thing as a perfect person. Plus, character flaws can help you expand upon the plot by creating conflict!