DO CHARACTERS NEED MORTAL FLAWS?
Four Writers tell us whether character's need mortal flaws.
(THIS IS A DRAft) |
| So you guys give me the link to the profile photo you want. BUT MAKE SURE THE PHOTO IS NOT OF YOU! |
Albsbuy McRion:
Character have to have mortal flaws. If the writer created a character that was perfect and sinless, then the readers would be bored of the story or book very fast. Readers don’t like to read about people that are inhuman but they like to read about people with problems. As an example, celebrity magazines is such a success because the readers like to look at popular celebrities and know that there are worse people out there then them. The writer have to write about characters that have flaws because readers find it entertaining to read about how other people go through their struggles.
Another reason why characters have to have mortal flaw is readers like to compare themselves to the characters. If readers can’t relate to the characters life or mistakes because they don’t have flaws then how can the reader feel good about themselves? At the end of the book, readers should be able to relate and learn something that might help them with their personal life. Examples of those lessons might be happily ever after endings and hope that everything will be okay. Without being able to relate to the characters, readers wouldn’t be able to learn anything from the story except that this character has it all made.
Lanai McDealthes:
Flawless Characters
When working to develop a successful plot for a story, one must consider first the practical question of how they are to properly construct supporting and pro/an-tagonistic characters. To do this, it is essential that the author realize the importance of developing character profiles from every possible angle. For instance, “What is this character’s main role in this story?” “How is this character an influence on the outcome and preceding events of the story’s plot, or is he/she influential at all?” (That is not to say that minor characters are redundant, as they usually are not).
A commonly disregarded question (or perhaps it is underestimated in worth, rather than disregarded) is simply this: “Is it necessary that every book character be morally or physically flawed?” Or as put in simpler terms, “Is it bad to have a perfect character?” From a standard viewpoint, I say yes: it is absolutely necessary when building a good story plot to give every character some sort of a flaw, whether it be physical or moral, minor or extreme. To elucidate upon my choice of the word “standard,” the viewpoint that I stand by is one that is quite simple, as I believe this to be a simple answer to a simple question with easy logic as a buffer. If even one remotely influential character was entirely flawless, then what chance would the antagonist stand against him or her? Or vice versa, considering the possibility of a flawlessly physical (obviously not flawlessly moral, given the name) antagonist, what chance would any protagonist stand against him or her? Even in fairytales, if the story is at all explicable, wit and reason cannot defeat ideal physicality, unless the character possessing the quality chooses to disregard it (in which case this entire defense would be pointless, but this is not the viewpoint upon which I stand, is it?). If John is entirely untouchable, then what chance does the physically defenseless Brody stand against him, no matter what moral awareness he possesses? Even if Brody bests his enemy and succeeds in containing him temporarily, could a physically unbound man be held for long if he decides to forcefully leave?
In the same sense, assuming that a character is morally flawless could be a theoretically harmless prospect of a successful storyline, however it does put the author in the awkward position of having to create what is realistically improbable. Unlike legendary creatures or love at first sight, a morally flawless human is even Biblically denied to be doable. Creating a morally flawless character sets an entirely new standard for human ethics of any story, while at the same time giving the character a translucent profile, because even an entranced reader will feel the man or woman’s detachment from reality.
Generally, the usage of either moral or physical faultlessness in any character is one or both of two influences upon a story, both of which are negative.
When working to develop a successful plot for a story, one must consider first the practical question of how they are to properly construct supporting and pro/an-tagonistic characters. To do this, it is essential that the author realize the importance of developing character profiles from every possible angle. For instance, “What is this character’s main role in this story?” “How is this character an influence on the outcome and preceding events of the story’s plot, or is he/she influential at all?” (That is not to say that minor characters are redundant, as they usually are not).
A commonly disregarded question (or perhaps it is underestimated in worth, rather than disregarded) is simply this: “Is it necessary that every book character be morally or physically flawed?” Or as put in simpler terms, “Is it bad to have a perfect character?” From a standard viewpoint, I say yes: it is absolutely necessary when building a good story plot to give every character some sort of a flaw, whether it be physical or moral, minor or extreme. To elucidate upon my choice of the word “standard,” the viewpoint that I stand by is one that is quite simple, as I believe this to be a simple answer to a simple question with easy logic as a buffer. If even one remotely influential character was entirely flawless, then what chance would the antagonist stand against him or her? Or vice versa, considering the possibility of a flawlessly physical (obviously not flawlessly moral, given the name) antagonist, what chance would any protagonist stand against him or her? Even in fairytales, if the story is at all explicable, wit and reason cannot defeat ideal physicality, unless the character possessing the quality chooses to disregard it (in which case this entire defense would be pointless, but this is not the viewpoint upon which I stand, is it?). If John is entirely untouchable, then what chance does the physically defenseless Brody stand against him, no matter what moral awareness he possesses? Even if Brody bests his enemy and succeeds in containing him temporarily, could a physically unbound man be held for long if he decides to forcefully leave?
In the same sense, assuming that a character is morally flawless could be a theoretically harmless prospect of a successful storyline, however it does put the author in the awkward position of having to create what is realistically improbable. Unlike legendary creatures or love at first sight, a morally flawless human is even Biblically denied to be doable. Creating a morally flawless character sets an entirely new standard for human ethics of any story, while at the same time giving the character a translucent profile, because even an entranced reader will feel the man or woman’s detachment from reality.
Generally, the usage of either moral or physical faultlessness in any character is one or both of two influences upon a story, both of which are negative.
Maria McGritHavoc:A Captivating Mixture
Tess of the D’Urbervilles, the prominent character, Tess, has the mortal flaw of carelessness. While she tries to mend her ways by not encouraging the romantic intentions of mister Angel Clare because of her past afflictions, she still falters and caves into the only man that ever loved her and the only man she ever loved. In the end her carelessness brought about much woe and tragedy even though she fought to be otherwise. People should not shun her for possessing flaws that many young adults have because those flaws make her more human and less of a fictionally fantasized character.
If an author is aiming to create a story with worthwhile characters, it is imperative that he conjures up characters that have human flaws. Thomas Hardy, the gentleman who wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles, did a wonderful job exhibiting those certain flaws through Tess. Throughout the novel the reader glimpses moments where Tess desperately desires to conquer and control her flaw of carelessness and at moments, she does conquer it. In those moments of victory, the reader witnesses that overcoming a flaw is possible. Now, one must keep in mind that this is just a story and perhaps not entirely true, but a writer an excellent writer will pursue to write a story that people can relate to. By inflicting a character with a flaw, such as carelessness, the audience is more inclined to sympathize with the character and her woes in trying to overcome her flaw. Flaws create conflict within a character, and this conflict with self produces a motive to resolve and overcome this inner conflict. There in lies the mixture for enduring and human characters and a captivating story.
If an author is aiming to create a story with worthwhile characters, it is imperative that he conjures up characters that have human flaws. Thomas Hardy, the gentleman who wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles, did a wonderful job exhibiting those certain flaws through Tess. Throughout the novel the reader glimpses moments where Tess desperately desires to conquer and control her flaw of carelessness and at moments, she does conquer it. In those moments of victory, the reader witnesses that overcoming a flaw is possible. Now, one must keep in mind that this is just a story and perhaps not entirely true, but a writer an excellent writer will pursue to write a story that people can relate to. By inflicting a character with a flaw, such as carelessness, the audience is more inclined to sympathize with the character and her woes in trying to overcome her flaw. Flaws create conflict within a character, and this conflict with self produces a motive to resolve and overcome this inner conflict. There in lies the mixture for enduring and human characters and a captivating story.
Kraal Egoum:All good characters must have mortal flaws. Plainly, let us see, characters who is perfect are unrelatable--that is why the Brady Bunch and it’s kin have been long killed off. In Reader’s Digest, a quip of E.L Doctorow was placed in Quotable Quotes section: “The test of a book’s quality is not if it reflects my life, but if it reflects yours [everyone else]” When a reader sees a book, he must have flaws, temptations something that parallels--realism, even in Romanticized works, are carried in these flaws. Mortal flaws are things that make us human. For example:
Flaws are vital.
Ray Bradbury stated in his book Zen in the Art of Writing to create a character based of you. In others words, relateable. Personally, I wrote a 187 page manuscript about a character based off me and told a story about what I would love to see; even in Age of Innocence the story is a mirror of the author’s life of what if--a flaw that happened in her life (divorce) and now, she imagines a world of what if, in fact, all the characters in there have flaws, deceitful, two faced, uncouth, however using this she fools innocence; using real life flaws to further it.
RPGs in modern culture: people love them because they are absorbed by the characterization. By being “you”--unstoppable, trying to obtain and to fix something that is missing in them--anyone can be anything and thus fix and become unflawed via virtuality. (Lv3 Mythril blade, or completing a story, or being pretty)
Flaws are weakness. In Hayao Miyazaki’s film, Howl’s Moving Castle the character Sophia is by no means a majorly flawed character, she is not even suicidal, murderous or even venomous; she is naturally kind, hardworking and very lady like. However, her flaws is what she lacks--excitement, love adventure of the sorts. She lives in a magical world, and she is stuck in a linear life. The flaws are interchangeable with what is missing. Pete Docter, who dubbed the movie for English, said about Sophia:
“Starting with Sophia, its a really unexpected, but it makes total sense this woman whose trapped in her whole life only really becomes a full person by becoming a 90 year old omwan. Its a strange idea but ,alot of sense.”
Jame Frey, who authored many how to write books, quips that they move, “polar to polar” without mortal flaws there is no flexibility to further the story.
A good character needs flaws. For one, to keep relation to reader (and it is much easier to write about) and for two so the character can move from polar to polar.
Though I am not proud to list this, but from How to Write Fiction for Dummies using their ideas of having multiple-values and a single ambition, having multiple flaws in a story will create a fine weave of emotion, internal conflict.Flaws are vital.
No comments:
Post a Comment