What is your MC's flaw?

Hear, hear!

I intentionally write all my MCs with a flaw. That's my 2nd thought after the "idea". I'm not great at secondary characters' flaws - yet - because I'm just getting back to having secondary characters. Been doing the short story thing for a while now. ? 

In my upcoming story, the MC's flaw was his selfishness. Forget you and you, this is what I want and I'm going to get it no matter what. This isn't a complex flaw, but it sufficed in this story because it did burn him. He buried it and soldiered on, but the plot, or the man vs. nature aspect of the story (antagonist) forced him to face it repeatedly - just like Kent says.

Posted by: @kent

↑

So, when you think up a cool character and decide on their goal, your next step is to screw up their personality in such a way that it interferes with achieving the goal. Then (I can feel stomachs tightening), let your antagonist know what the MC's flaw is.

I want to spin that on its head. Think up a cool character, give them a flaw, and then find a goal that will give them opportunities to clash against that flaw, and eventually overcome it/succumb to it.

Disclaimer: that's the plan for the next story. I haven't actually tried this process, yet.

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

the MC's flaw was his selfishness

I find it interesting that one of the main lessons David Farland taught was to make your character likeable. Selfishness (and most flaws, to be honest) is inherently an unlikeable trait. I would imagine that you consequently need to be pretty subtle with the flaw (but not too subtle, because the reader has to notice it). Quite the balancing act!

@ease Among popular tropes about dogs, petting the dog has become metaphor. A character who is too hard-edged for most audience members has often been made to pet a dog, kiss a dog, get licked by a dog ("As Good as it Gets" is a great movie example.). As a metaphor, it can be any helpless, at risk, or other character, cause, or thing that pulls at the audience's heart strings. Beyond all serious failings, the horribly flawed character can endear themselves to the audience with an act of kindness.

I'm glad that Dustin mentioned his character because "likeable" is not necessarily what a story needs in a main character. What we do enjoy is the struggle with the flaw after it becomes apparent to the MC that he must change. I mentioned Wolverine not because he is likeable (He drinks, he smokes, he tries to snake another man's girl, and generally acts like a jerk.) but because he is not. Yet, he is one of the most popular single movie characters ever grace the screen. We see his flaws. He's proud of them. And then the story rubs his face in them.

BTW: in "X2: X-Men United" a cat licks Wolverine's claws in a classic example of...? Pet the dog.

Right. The character has to want or need to change - to struggle against what is keeping them "down."

A great example (if memory serves) is the movie Mr. 3000. The character starts out as a jerk. In his past he made a dick move and he's not apologizing to anyone. The plot appears to force him to need to change, to be humble to get his heart's desire. Instead, he relies on his current character traits to try to achieve his goal.

The problem I had was, I didn't want to watch a jerk being a jerk the entire movie!

Again, if I remember correctly, when he was faced with a choice around minute 70 to be humble and become a changed man, he doesn't, and goes back to his old ways. A. This was too early for such a choice, so fault the writers for that, but more importantly, B. He wasn't changing in incremental ways. He wasn't trying to change.

So by the end, I literally hated this guy and when he finally achieved his goal. I did not give a crap.

If you want to see how to do what we're talking about wrong - find this movie and watch it. Highly, uh, recommended. ? 

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

A great example (if memory serves) is the movie Mr. 3000.

...

If you want to see how to do what we're talking about wrong - find this movie and watch it. Highly, uh, recommended. ?

I remember the trailer for that one. It did not make me want to watch it. Thank you for confirming my decision.

If there is no flaw for the character to overcome — nothing for him/her to learn — then I'd argue there is no story.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

If there is no flaw for the character to overcome — nothing for him/her to learn — then I'd argue there is no story.

I wish I'd read this when I first started writing. Literally only learned this in the last four months and it makes such a difference.

Echoing all of the above. It is crucial to have a flawed character, even if it is a simple one. Your character can be good, moral, and in general a heroic person, but there has to be something wrong that, if ignored, will make things spiral out of control - a metaphorical dragon within that has to be slain. Likewise if you have an antihero who has many faults, there should be something about them that is awesome and good in a way - balance. I have read stories, for example, where the main character has no flaws and succeeds. That's bland. Even worse, in some ways, is a character who has an obvious flaw that the writer either does not notice or decides not to rectify - this also sucks, in my opinion, because when I see a flawed character I yearn to see them improve by the end of the story, or at least recognize their flaws (if this is a series, for example) to signal to me that they will change, or at least try to change, in the future. I remember reading a story and feeling tense about the latter, waiting for the character to signal that awareness and change, but it never came, and the worst thing of all happened: the character at the end of the story was the SAME as the person who was at the start. People need to change. Can't help but be changed. That's life. Without that, something feels wrong (in my opinion, I'm sure there are exceptions).

For my winning story, I wouldn't say my character was an "bad" person, but he was flawed in his self-destructive desire for revenge, his lack of standing up to the corrupt forces that were manipulating him, and his lack of closure / ongoing wound over his past tragedy. He becomes self-aware of these, and I think all were rectified by the end of the story.

Group activity time! Let's have some fun with this. I'll start with an obvious one:

Luke Skywalker — Changes from whiny farm boy to rebel hero

Next...?

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Group activity time! Let's have some fun with this. I'll start with an obvious one:

Luke Skywalker — Changes from whiny farm boy to rebel hero

Next...?

I'm not the biggest Star Wars buff, but I think there's more to Luke. He's an idealist to a fault, he has shining knight syndrome (assumes his sister is going to make out with him just because he rescued her), and he's so set on glory that he's tempted by the dark side.

What about Gaborn Val Orden? I think his flaw was that he believed enemies were to be beaten, and that perfection could be achieved. I think that if he'd faced The Trolley Problem in the first chapter he might have driven himself mad. He also sucked at delegating.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Group activity time! Let's have some fun with this. I'll start with an obvious one:

Luke Skywalker — Changes from whiny farm boy to rebel hero

Next...?

Katniss Everdeen, from unknown sister saver to face of a rebellion.

@storysinger 

I believe that Katniss' overwhelming flaw is her non-judgmental (naïve) nature. She accepts everyone and everything virtually at face value. This runs counter to her goal of saving those she loves. Her hero's arc only ends when she opens her eyes to the corrupt betrayal that ended in Primrose's death. She has always had the ability to put herself in harm's way, but now she has the ability to see every antagonist for who they are.

@spencer_s I love anti-heroes!  I'm thinking of The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson.  Such awesome, twisted characters.  Love! Love!   Han Solo has a bit of anti-hero in him too. He keeps trying to be cynical and bad, but goodness has its way with him.

Hubris and Selfishness are Victor Frankenstein's major flaws. Hubris sees him remain near the university, but refuse to attend classes in order to complete his work on the monster. He never receives a degree. His selfishness blinds him to the plight of his loved ones who suffer at the hands of the monster. Hubris and Selfishness cause Victor to lose everything he holds dear and when he finally recognizes the fact that it is all his doing, he becomes a tragic hero who quests to destroy the monster, and dies in the attempt.

@pegeen I agree.  

I would consider Spawn, Deadpool, The Punisher, and catwoman (even Batman) among some of those 'heroes' that break the law for the greater good. Batman, although, falls into the rinse and repeat issue by never actually coming up with a long-term solution to villians. The law fails, so Batman is born, yet Batman relies on the law after he has solved an immediate issue ... rinse ... repeat. That does make for a good series after you have set your villians, since they never disappear. Spawn, Deadpool, and The Punisher kind of solve the issue for the most part by not allowing the villian to come back.

In regards to novels, Brian Lumley with "Blood Brothers" and "The Last Aerie" have some good characters that are evil, but the better of evils (so they are good to root for).

@pegeen Oh man, Abercrombie's books are filled with those, everything is morally grey and no one really seems like the "good guy", which is very interesting to me. Recently finished his Age of Madness trilogy. Verrrrrrry gritty stories.

I don't care for horror because I have summarized it thusly: Bad things happen to good people for no reason.

Good characters with no flaw face trials and die. Uh...

That said, Frankenstein is still brilliant to this day because the bad things that happen to good people, Victor's family, et al, are because of him. I might argue he changes - in the wrong direction. He puts his foot down when the monster asks for him to create a mate. This is what makes it such a good horror story - because even when faced with what should be the right call - it's the wrong call. The roots are poisoned. Past mistakes, they haunt. More bad things happen - to loved ones...

So gooood.

And yeah, it destroys him - as it should, but not until he is completely ruined.

Freekin love Frankenstein. (Not to mention the language which makes me giddily light headed)

In "Ender's Game," Ender's major flaw is fear, and he has a whole host of them: of becoming Peter, of losing Valentine's love, of failure, of success that will irrevocably take him away from family and friends. Fear jades his decisions in fights and his success in fights informs his win-at-all-cost battle tactics. Fear causes him to withdraw from the program because he knows that genocide is the only course of action. Fear of failing the Human race brings him back to command the final stage of "Battle School."

Ender's fatal flaw, though, is his incredible naiveté, carefully woven into the narrative so that the reader is aware, but the children are not, that the final stage is real command of the Earth fleet. With this flaw, he becomes a tragic hero. When he finally realizes that he has been used, he is utterly crushed. He is saved when he figures out the sub plot of the Buggers telepathic link pointing him to the last queen. But it is only in overcoming fear and naiveté that allows him to see the truth.

Two epic flaws mashed together for greatness. Thanks OSC.

Watched D&D this weekend. Great flaw and moral choice for Ed.

His selfish quest for the Tablet of Reawakening sets him up for failure and lands him in prison - and separated from his daughter. He continues his quest for the tablet nearly to his ruin. Only when he faces his flaw and makes (a moral choice) does he overcome his flaw and become the person he was meant to be. (Character growth, A to B.)

I feel like sometimes a movie is good or sticks with us and we don't necessarily know why. Or conversely, a movie fails despite great action or dialog or special effects.

The flaw and the moral choice executed well are two things that can elevate a story/movie.

Find a way to get them in your stories - every time.

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

The flaw and the moral choice executed well are two things that can elevate a story/movie.

Find a way to get them in your stories - every time.

I really need to work on this flaw thing. 

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

Watched D&D this weekend. Great flaw and moral choice for Ed.

[...]

I feel like sometimes a movie is good or sticks with us and we don't necessarily know why.

I completely understand how some people, especially non-D&D players, would hate this film, but I freaking loved it. I'm of the opinion that when you love a movie and don't know why, it's because the character arc was subtle/subliminal and appealed to your sub-concious while your concious may have missed it. At least, as a not-overly-intelligent person, that's how it seems to work for me. Maybe smarter/more insightful people can always detect the character arc and it's something else that works for them.

Also, I'm returning to this thread because the more I study the craft the more I'm convinced that the MC's flaw is the most important part of a story. I believe it's integral to the rest of their personality, the conflict, the resolution, and the theme. I think in most great stories it also informs the setting and the tone. Is there anything else to a story? Anything untouched by the flaw? I can't think of anything!

Posted by: @ease

↑

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

Watched D&D this weekend. Great flaw and moral choice for Ed.

[...]

I feel like sometimes a movie is good or sticks with us and we don't necessarily know why.

 

I'm convinced that the MC's flaw is the most important part of a story. I believe it's integral to the rest of their personality, the conflict, the resolution, and the theme. I think in most great stories it also informs the setting and the tone. Is there anything else to a story? Anything untouched by the flaw? I can't think of anything!

Speaking personally, I often find the character's flaws can be reflective of the authors flaws and fears - so yes, the characters flaws literally touch everything   

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

Right. The character has to want or need to change - to struggle against what is keeping them "down."

A great example (if memory serves) is the movie Mr. 3000. The character starts out as a jerk. In his past he made a dick move and he's not apologizing to anyone. The plot appears to force him to need to change, to be humble to get his heart's desire. Instead, he relies on his current character traits to try to achieve his goal.

The problem I had was, I didn't want to watch a jerk being a jerk the entire movie!

Again, if I remember correctly, when he was faced with a choice around minute 70 to be humble and become a changed man, he doesn't, and goes back to his old ways. A. This was too early for such a choice, so fault the writers for that, but more importantly, B. He wasn't changing in incremental ways. He wasn't trying to change.

So by the end, I literally hated this guy and when he finally achieved his goal. I did not give a crap.

If you want to see how to do what we're talking about wrong - find this movie and watch it. Highly, uh, recommended. ? 

It's funny you mentioned Mr. 3000, as I recently started watching Eastbound and Down, the series about a retired baseball player who wants to make a comeback. I laugh at times, but the main character is an ignorant jerk, and 3 episodes in I'm wondering why the series is so highly rated and whether I should keep watching.

In comparison, I love Always Sunny in Philadelphia despite the main characters being jerks, and from what I've seen so far, they do far worse things than Kenny Powers in E&D. It's a while since I watched it (and I've only seen the first 5 series), but apart from being complete jerks, I think they all have another flaw that in some way makes them endearing enough to feel invested and keep watching. There is hope they can be better people.