I distinctly recall someone saying that Jarred, who is serious, can’t be sarcastic as well (bollocks, I say). But there are good intentions in that; for example, you don’t want someone being immensely complicated from page 1. The more complicated someone is, the more flaws they have, the less they can slide – for fairly mainstream fair, you don’t really want that, do you? Point is, you should start simple and work from the beginning. Start small, simple, and develop – be it growing to overcome flaws or devolving into something monstrous. Complexity should build up, not be overpowering from the start (9 times out of 10, anyway – the difference being deliberately depressing, fatalistic or high-brow fiction).
With this in mind I gave my characters one or two basic strengths, and I’m thinking a lot on what kind of flaws they’d have. I think starting with one strength and one flaw is perfectly fine; the actual number isn’t important, just as long as it isn’t double digits, at least for mainstream fiction. Too flawed and it A) won’t be a best seller (unless we really are a sick, sad bunch) and B) will come off being an Anit-Mary-Sue – the flaws will just be too much to handle, the ‘realism’ will be too much to handle, it’ll just end up looking like artifice wherein the flaws are transparent plot devices, and you’d have to be a genius to pull it off at all.
So, anyone familiar with my characters: what flaws do they seem like they’d have? I think they’d have these:
Jarred: irritable, uncaring (result of irritable + members getting on his nerves one too many times, thus a later-book flaw), and resentful of other’s happiness. And maybe develops a bad case of It’s Someone Else’s Problem.
David: lazy, procrastinator, cannot make decisions.
Sarah: cannot spit it out, cannot appreciate her own work (deaf composer), doesn’t like being looked at.
Jessica: greedy, materialistic, angry, proud.
Rachel: she might be a bad liar. So bad that her convoluted responses make no sense and don’t fool anybody. Or maybe not. Nor would she know her own strength. Probably has no sense of direction, either.
I think you have a good point, its best to develop the characters within the story and not start them out as over-complicated not just for the realism but for the relatability, people like the feeling of watching characters grow. I like some of the flaws you have suggested but I think that with Jarred he shouldn’t come off as strongly uncaring so much as trying to beleive its someone elses problem and definately irritable. I like what you’ve suggested for David completely. I like deaf composer and dislike at being looked at for Sarah though I have to say its predictable, I don’t know about ‘cannot spit it out’ its an irritating trait to read particularly paired with the first 2, I don’t think that the 3 would be a good combo. Definately proud for Jessica and I think thats something that can be played off of a trait like materialistic. I feel that for Rachel her flaw could be one of her traits, shes so soft and at times thats something to be appreciated but at other times (especially in the world they’re in) it would be her biggest weakness. Characters flaws don’t always have to be obviously black and white, it could just be the different sides of the same coin- what is their biggest strength is their biggest weakness. Like Jessicas pride or anger would lend her strength in a fight and give her the strength to overcome emotional situations at times but those things all have to be dealt with eventually. If one character is reading a bit predictably instead of finding an obvious flaw why not give them a tic or something else that would give them that extra level of depth but in an unexpected way. It’d be an interesting flaw and the possible web of underlying story as to why they are the way they are could be as simple or intricate as would fit. hmm I read over this and I’m not sure if it all makes as much sense as I mean it to but this is what comes from typing as you speak and I don’t know how to make it sound better /-:
That’s a pretty awesome response anyway. It could use an editor’s touch, but I got most of that.
At least you write in clear-ish sentences
(you should read some of what a certain Malaysian friend says… English is clearly not her first language).
Only thing I really need clarified is Jessica: her anger, pride etc make her a good fighter, I understand that; just, could you clarify about overcoming emotional stuff? I’d figure that’d get in the way regarding interaction – she’d be hotheaded and brash, and fights arguments with emotion, not reason (and instead of persuading the other person through emotional reaction, she just reacts emotionally and immaturely).
PS: you basically only needed a few more full-stops and apostrophes.
I don’t see much improvement happening with how I write any time soon but luckily I’m not trying to be a writer
Anyway what I meant about Jessica using her anger is that most naturally angry people don’t always fights arguements in an openly aggresive and obvious way. I have a few freinds that are like this and have always found it to be an interesting thing about them, one in particular is the worst for this. When hes in any kind of physical fight his anger gives him the strength to endure alot more then he normally would be able to and when hes in any kind of verbal arguement he tends to bottle the anger and it seems like it squashes his emotions into something he can manage til the fight is over. So while those who know him best can see this kind of lidded rage in him he argues very level-headedly. The flaw to this system he has is there are a few things that will make him snap and because hes bottled up all this excess emotion it will all come out at once and he’d probably be capable of killing someone. It seems to run in the family cause his sister is very similar (they’re good freinds of mine) but she has a boyfreind who shes been with for years and he gets her to let some of her anger go instead of just leaving it bottled up to all come out at once. Its a weird thing, cause they can get angry at little unimportant things, like a pot hole in the road- you’d think that the way they go on that it was purposely put there to piss them off, but they just don’t aggressively argue with other people like you’d expect angry people to do. Theres all different types of angry people I guess so its a good flaw to pick because you can choose how they respond to different situations. My brother is the hot-headed and brash kind of guy who is quick to anger but he always sees where to stop so its different from the others who have the capacity for blinding rage. If you go with making her the hot-headed and brash type of angry that dosen’t have to mean she reacts immaturely, alot of people react emotionally but its just how they are. Anyway pride seems to go hand in hand with anger so I think it’ll be a good match of flaws. Also another kind of anger is the proud, self righteous kind which might also be something to think about.
Is it experience or wisdom that they know where to stop? Anger is such a destructive force, and if you don’t know how to let it out, it bottles up and you explode. And if you can’t control it in the first place, that’s worse. And if everything makes you angry… well, I guess that just makes you goth :p (just kidding).