Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6008144" data-attributes="member: 4937">I have nothing against having a flawed protagonist; I just don't think it is the only way to go if you want to have good characters or a good story. I think that there are many examples of beloved fiction where the protagonist doesn't have obvious flaws, and I think its easy to imagine a character who - despite lacking flaws - still has to struggle through various hardships to succeed.  Not giving a protagonist obvious flaws is an obvious gambit in storytelling.  When you give a protagonist a flaw, you risk reducing the sympathy of your audience with the character on account of the flaw.  When your protagonist is obviously flawed, you have to work harder to gain the audiences sympathies - particularly if the flaw is not one that the audience is universally going to empathize with.  That's part of why I resist descriptions of Benjamin January's black skin being a flaw.  First of all, it's not a flaw.  His black skin is part of the conflict with society he must overcome.  It's the context of his adversity, which will set up the narrative.  Indeed, to the modern reader, his black skin serves to increase our sympathy for him.  He'd be more flawed as a member of the white community whose social conditions we now detest, and the author would then have to work hard to regain our sympathy by showing the character in a positive light.  Benjamin January's paragon like skills - gifted physician, genius intelligence, charisma, savoire-faire, excellent piano player - are like those of Lord Peter Whimsey, the means by which he will overcome adversity and triumph (to our pleasure).  But Benjamin January is no more flawed because he is black in 19th century New Orleans, than a shipwrecked man is flawed because he finds himself in harsh environment or the crew of Apollo XIII is flawed because their command capsule explodes.  Being without obvious flaws in no way means our protagonist will have it easy.  If a protagonist is heavily outnumbered or surprised by the enemy, we don't count that as a reader as a flaw.  Being overcome by odds we'd expect no one to overcome doesn't create a flaw.  Indeed, the hero is expected to triumph anyway.  Flaws are when the hero has difficulties of their own making, or faces challenges as a result of their own disabilities.  A lot of authors are like this as well, taking the notion that a character has to have a flaw to be well-rounded, and presenting the reader with a protagonist that is a consumate self-centered jerk with few or no redeeming features.  Personally, I can't stand books of this sort.  For one thing, giving a character a flaw in no way gaurantees that the character is now more well-rounded and interesting.  Instead, a flawed character can be at least as much a one dimensional creation as one without obvious flaws.  The supposedly more realistic character often ends up being simply a charactiture of thier flaw, or else, so well compensated in their other gifts that the flaw is too obviously just a trope drawback added out of reflexive adherence to some literary or comic book convention that says everyone has to have an Achilles heel.The notion that protagonists need flaws - that the anti-heroic is invariably more interesting than the heroic - is a relatively new construction.  It's something in vogue now, and which, in 50 more years may be dated and out of fashion.   Then eventually perhaps people will tire of heros without obvious flaw, and suddenly it will be fresh and interesting again to give your hero a glaring weakness in his character.</blockquote>

Verification