Flaws, Virtues, and the Cereal bowl theory (not necessarily in that order)

It's been a while since I've posted, so here's a little something...or a lot of somethings.

We all have flaws. It's a fact. We're human, we make mistakes.

So why should written characters be any different?

First off, let's define a flaw, courtesy of dictionary.com

flaw

¹    [flaw]  Show IPA

noun

1.

a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect;fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.

2.

a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.

3.

a crack, break, breach, or rent.

verb (used with object)

4.

to produce a flaw in.

verb (used without object)

5.

to contract a flaw; become cracked or defective.

Origin: 
1275–1325; Middle English flaw ( e ), flage,  perhaps < Old Norseflaga  sliver, flake

People need flaws.  Else we'd just be perfect, and that'd just be creepy, not to mention it'd make for a rather boring story.

But keep in mind that if you make a character too flawed, you'll have some problems making the plot progress in the way you want.

To me picking a character and then remolding them into something else that makes a plot and/or fits a plot is fairly easy.  Possibly too easy.  But to me, an author is not a creator of a story, merely an observer.

That there exist a infinite amount of possibilities for a situation, and that for each of the infinite outcomes there exists an infinite amount of worlds because the result is different.  For example, I tripped going up the stairs today, but I didn't fall.  But in another universe (let's call it), I did fall.  In another, I stubbed my toe. And in yet another I didn't even trip.  There are infinite variations in each depending on the type of injury or which step I tripped on, why I tripped, etc.  And while the differences might be so minuscule that it doesn't really matter on the specifics of how I tripped, it might make for a different story, so therefore there exists a different timeline.


Now say for example that my life is a story (it'd be a boring one, but whatever), it's up to the author to even bother including that I tripped.  So if all the timelines are threads, and there are a group bunched together with the event of me tripping in them, and the author deems it important, the author will look only at those threads.  They have the option to then pick among the threads as to which works best.  Perhaps the one where I twist my ankle, or where I crash headlong into another person, or fall down the stairs.  Or the author could just completely ignore the fact that I tripped (because it's not all that interesting or important usually), so they'd look at the threads where I tripped and nothing of significance happened: where I trip, laugh at how I fail, then continue up the stairs.


It's all rather confusing, but to me it makes sense.


I don't start off with a fully fleshed out plot, or fully fleshed out characters.  I select them, searching for the right thread where the plot and the characters do what I need and want them to do.


But sometimes it's impossible.  That once I start putting in restrictions because of what I have chosen, it becomes very difficult to find that right thread.  Whether it exists or not is neither here nor there.  What does matter is authorial power.  


With my power as an author I can figuratively cut two strings and tie them together when I need them to.  If they reach each other in terms of plausibility, then I have the necessary information (or slack in the thread) to connect them.  


But in the end I'm still left with a knot and the ends of the thread sticking out.  This is something that I find undesirable.  So you must find the two strings that will make the smallest knot possible while keeping the string taut.  Even better would be to find the actual string (or events/characters etc.) that make the story plausible.  But alas we're only human so it's difficult.


Then again sometimes (and I'm most definitely guilty of this myself), I try to tie two strings together that just won't reach.  I'm not a good enough writer or thinker to use a third string to connect the two because it's difficult and then you end up with two inconsistencies instead of just one.  So what do I do when the two ideas don't connect? I pretend that they do and hope nobody notices that they don't.


I'm such a terrible person...


Everybody does this, because tying two threads (worlds) together is a very difficult thing to do. There are the greats who are able to sort through all of the possibilities and find the perfect (or near perfect) thread that leads to their masterpiece.


I'm not one of those people.  I'm working on it. 


But this is why I'm able to find worlds/situations in which characters can be changed, as well as plot to yield the same result.  

Again this is only my perception of stories and how I work.  If this works for you great. If you have another method that's even better.  And if you thought of something like this, then we're on the same page and I just wasted your time with my digression. (Sorry!)

Anyway back to flawed characters now that my rant is done.

Find/make/give birth to (whatever) the characters that will be interesting, real, human, and flawed that make your story work.

Punish them for their flaws.  Is your character prone to anger? Well that's easy, make him say or do something he'll regret almost instantly with serious repercussions (mental, physical, emotional).  They can even be irreversible.  


A character who is very friendly, may be too friendly.  She might be on really good terms with her best friend's boyfriend.  While she's only acting as she normally does, this won't stop her friend from being jealous.  The main character can't just stop being friendly all of a sudden, and it's not who she is.  The best friend does value their friendship, but she should also value her boyfriend; which she prioritizes is another issue that adds to this.  Then you've got arguments, passive aggressive behavior, insults, peaceful confrontation, or a discussion.  And if your main character simply cannot help being too friendly, no more friendship.  


Being too friendly is very difficult to see as a flaw.  It's all based on the situation in this case.  In a way, it's masquerading as a potential flaw.  


A true flaw should be something that is always a flaw (whether they can change or not is a different matter that I'm not going to go into).  Something that grounds your character into doing things that are wrong.  The reader knows it's wrong, the people of the story world knows it's wrong, and even your character might know it's wrong, but they do it anyway.


They know they shouldn't enjoy fighting, but they have an unquenchable thirst for killing.  This doesn't have to mean that they're a bad person, or depicted as a crazed serial killer psychopath. Perhaps they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the power that they feel as they cut down their opponent.  But afterwards they realize the looks of horror and shock of the people around them and they feel bad.  Or maybe they don't.  Maybe they do enjoy killing, but they also enjoy baking and giving food out to the poor and homeless.  Maybe this character tries not to kill, but can't help enjoying the act.  So he only kills when his life is threatened.  He still enjoys it, but he's not about to go on a killing spree.  He's well liked in the community, has a family, but whenever raiders come around or the village is threatened, he doesn't hesitate to kill the other people with ruthless vengeance because he enjoys it.


Not a very good example, but an example of how a flawed person doesn't mean that they have to necessarily be a bad person.  And in reverse having a good person doesn't mean that they don't have flaws.


There are so many examples in history of people that we idolize and turn into saint-like figures who can do no wrong.  That's just silly.  If they are perfect they can't be human.  You can find them for yourselves. You're smart, I believe in you.

But don't forget to reward your flawed characters.  Rewarding (I feel) is just as important as punishing them.  If you constantly get punished for doing something, you're going to want to change it.  The reason that some people don't change is because they don't perceive it as a big enough flaw to do something about it.  

For example, let's say you have a boyfriend.  And he's a jerk.  But every time you think, "Wow he really is a poo head," he does something really sweet that reminds you why you picked him in the first place.  It's a lot harder to leave someone who isn't a poo head all the time.  If he was it'd be easy, but people are more complex than that, so it's harder to change him or the situation.  

Another reason it's good to reward flaws is so that it doesn't set your reader's expectations for your character to always fail whenever they get impulsive or angry or scared or what have you.

Virtues are the exact same as flaws, just the 180 degree opposite.  Punish and reward the character respectively.  It's easy to reward, but punishing is a little trickier.  But punishment make for interesting conflicts.

Is she too honorable?  Punish her like a certain main character in a wonderfully amazing series that I cannot name for fear of spoiling it for those of you who haven't read it.  It's like the politicians who hide scary truths from the people so that mass panic doesn't ensue.  They are lying, but it's for the best.  Like how most people want to hear a lie when asked if a dress makes them look fat. (Personally I'd like to know, but hey maybe I'm just weird)

I think that's about it...