[Fung Koo]

I'm hoping for some advice on constructing flawed characters.

We all know the stereotypical stock SFF characters who are Masters of Everything -- and when they're not, they're Masters of Figuring Everything Out (and really, what, then, is the difference?). While these characters will often have their personal issues/demons, they more-or-less unflawed. And then there's the opposite sort, where a character's flaw ends up becoming their undoing -- the Tragic Flaw. Between them, these two extremes account for a good many characters in SFF, typically split between Heroes and Villains, respectively. What I'm wondering about are the characters in the middle of these two extremes.

Oftentimes, the typical construction of a flawed character seems to take the same route as a prospective employee in a job interview answering the question "what would you consider your most significant flaw?" The prospective employee almost universally answers by selecting a strength that, when pushed to the extreme, becomes a comparative weakness. "Well, I'm sometimes overly dedicated to a task," for example. Which is kinda like saying, "sometimes I'm too good at my job." Not really a flaw -- for the sake of argument, let's call these weak flaws.

A quick flip-through of the books on my shelf indicates that a good many SFF characters are constructed with precisely this model (and it's certainly not a criticism new to SFF). Start with a desirable character attribute then push it into the negative to create a flaw. (These are often categorized as minor flaws, though I think of them more as simply character attributes.)

So on the one hand, you have your Paul Atreides, Luke Skywalker, Aragorn types. They have personal backgrounds that give them certain emotional shortcomings, but those shortcomings almost always are part of how that character matures (gods with daddy issues, anyone?). These aren't always flaws so much as they're foils for character development.

(Note: there's absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of characters -- it's just not the point of my question. Forgive me if my simplification of them rankles :))

Then, on the other hand, you have your Lannister, Anakin Skywalker, Boromir, Thomas Covenant, Roland Deschain, Cheradenine Zakalwe types. These guys have real, significant flaws -- actual cracks in their characters -- that lead them into sticky situations, often requiring others to step in for them. They tend not to have an abundance of control, or even awareness, of their flaws. Which is to say, their character flaws will often come to affect and shape the master-plot, and aren't primarily there for character development sub-plots. These aren't so much Anti-Heroes, either (though I wouldn't consider that a flaw-exclusive [or even flaw-dependent] character type).

I find I can construct a weakly-flawed character (the extreme-attribute-as-flaw type) with comparative ease. Tragically Flawed characters and Anti-Heroes, likewise. But the actually flawed character is much harder for me to do. I find that they're especially difficult in longer works -- suddenly one flawed character ends up doing something that makes sense for that character, but throws the whole story plan off. These characters seem to have a tendency to become the focus of the story (characters gaining agency in directing your story seems to be an irritating, but essential, side effect of flawed characters). This situation often gets out of hand, to the point that I'll lose the thread and have to walk away. I've tried to plan for moments where the character's flaw comes into the plot, but then the whole thing feels contrived. Or I end up with a plot that relies on flaws becoming relevant at key moments (like in the movie Cube, for example) -- which also comes off as contrived.

So...

Does anyone have any advice on how to go about constructing a good, flawed character? How do you make your own flawed characters, how do you use them, how do you introduce them and their flaws to your story, and why why why?

Any help, whether it be pointed advice or pointless musing, is greatly appreciated. :)

[kmtolan]

While this is certainly a widely interpretable subject, my one thought is consistency with the flaw. The character should be expected to react in the same manner when given the usual stimuli to set this flaw off. I love flawed main characters - Julian May's "Felice" in her "Many Colored Land" series was the best example - the girl made a psychotic murderess look tame, yet she had a perfectly stable reason for why she acted like she did.

When I served up a flaw in my MC, I quickly ran into an issue with my Third Person, Limited point of view. My character simply couldn't see the flaw in themselves, hence the reader was in danger of not noticing it either. The best I could do was to have this flaw pointed out to her by other characters, allowing the reader, should they choose to, review what they knew of the MC so far and realize...yeah, there's a flaw.

I can't stress, though, how you must stay on top of your MC concerning any flaw. Until something deep and meaningful steps in, they are going to continue doing the wrong thing, and more often than not it will be a subtle thing.

Kerry

[jordanlanni]

Excellent question. We need flawed characters because flaws make us human and thus easier to relate to than the "gods" characters you named (though some SW fans would argue that Luke's whining is a tragic flaw ;)).

When I write a flawed character, I strive to make them well-rounded - he or she must be shown to have good points along with bad (but I think that goes for "flawed" vs. "perfect" in general). If I'm going to use a flawed character, I will try to design a story arc around those flaws to show growth even if they don't realize their mistake or their flaw until it's too late.

[KatG]

All characters are flawed. You're not talking about doing a flawed character but about how to use flaws in characters in relation to story roles. And this sentence: "They tend not to have an abundance of control, or even awareness, of their flaws. Which is to say, their character flaws will often come to affect and shape the master-plot, and aren't primarily there for character development sub-plots." is incorrect when it comes to Lannister, Boromir, Thomas Covenant, etc.

So my advice first off is same as I always do -- stop trying to put them all in little boxes: simple flaw, tragically flawed, anti-hero, etc., and then complaining when they don't stay in them. Essentially, forget that big ball of lit knowledge you have with all those lovely terms, because you're so busy dividing things up into categories that it is not productive and tends to cause giant generalizations.

Your first issue is that you're wrestling between character logic and story logic. You have your story logic planned out (psychologist,) but you're trying to do your characters at least partly organically (detective,) which for you provides a disconnect. You may find some of the flawed characters you're coming up with are just far more interesting to you than others. So your right brain says, "I'm going this way," and your left brain says, "No, we're supposed to be going that way," and your right brain says, "Well then he's boring," and your Editor's Hat comes in too early and fears everything proposed is contrived, which is another way of saying, "it doesn't feel right to me."

So you may need to assess what story you want to tell, first off, even if it is one with a plot structure you don't consider as daring. You may be planning too much in advance for your process, which is usually what it means when you have characters who are able to send you off track a lot. You maybe are supposed to go off track and go write that story. Or more than one version of a story. Characters are intimately connected to plot and action -- one does not move without the other for the most part. The decision of how much one shapes the other and vice versa is one of the main juggling acts of fiction writing. So if your flawed characters are shaping your plot, maybe they are supposed to. Alternatively, you could approach it as picking character flaws to match your plot -- the what do I need process, rather than trying to come up with an interesting plot on one hand and an interesting character flaw on the other.

Every character operates by an interactive, dependent triangle: reaction to what's happening or other data, motivation for that particular character and decision-making, which together lead to action. So your flawed characters' triangles are not leading to the actions you want. So you can either change the aspects of the character, and his or her triangle, or you can change the action, or both. That way character logic and story logic line up. The harder part is deciding which aspect is most important to you for that story.

As for contrived, you know that word shouldn't even come up in your mind during the first draft.

[Jon Sprunk]

The types of flaws you are talking about are extremely difficult to carry through novel-size projects for several reasons. You already hit on one of them: they can hijack the plot.

Another is reader identification. Few people want to identify closely with a sociopath. Whatever flaws a main character has, they must be outweighed by that character's strengths and admirable qualities.

[MuchAdoAboutSFF]

Be careful. Flaws can make character repulsive too. Many writers seem to think *any* flaw makes the character intresting.

Also, seek complexity. Real world example: I have a friend who is a veritable genius. He would be good template for this SFF hero in that sense. But he's terribly antisocial, no people skills whatsoever. Complexity.

Sympathetic characters are hard to build.

[Hereford Eye]

There are flaws that characters are aware they possess and flaws they have no clue they possess. Take prejudice. There are too many people who are unaware of their prejudices though the prejudices do, in fact, exist. I suspect that every person alive carries some prejudices around and most of us aren’t aware we do. The awareness of the flaw dictates how the character responds to instances of its applicability. If aware, they react one way; unaware, another.
An annoying laugh is a flaw that most people will be unaware they possess. A favorite phrase that seems to be the limit of their vocabulary. A need to touch or a need for space.
Human things, not heroic in any sense. These are the flaws that make people interesting, even necessary to being able to appreciate them.

[Sparrow]

I would say "be brave" when creating a flawed protagonist. Make him or her unattractive, even unlikeable. I'm currently reading a historical crime novel set in Henry VIII's England. The novel is Dissolution, and the main character is Matthew Shardlake, a hunchbacked lawyer investigating a series of murders under the watchful eye of his boss, Lord Thomas Cromwell.

Aside from Shardlake's obvious physical flaws, a hunchback who even if you discount his birth defect is short and slightly ugly, he is a man given to quick temper and jealousy, and at times a coward. He is part of a fundamentally corrupt political movement which has one end in mind, dissolution of the Catholic Church in England. That he knows what he does is oftentimes morally suspect yet is able to continue by telling himself, essentially, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs", makes it all the more strange that you can still feel for him, and hope he survives.

I'm noticing characters from StarWars listed as examples?.. these are not characters in any real sense, and should not be used as a template. In fact if as a reader you find yourself identifying with such characters, you may want to do some soul-searching.;)

[keatskeatskeats]

Aside from Shardlake's obvious physical flaws, a hunchback who even if you discount his birth defect is short and slightly ugly, he is a man given to quick temper and jealousy, and at times a coward. He is part of a fundamentally corrupt political movement which has one end in mind, dissolution of the Catholic Church in England. That he knows what he does is oftentimes morally suspect yet is able to continue by telling himself, essentially, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs", makes it all the more strange that you can still feel for him, and hope he survives.

Just think, if he was born a couple hundred years later, Shardlake would have made a good agent.

but rilly, there should be more novels about agents being devious and seeking out The Next Big Thing (good title for a beach read~~~)

[ShellyS]

First, I think you need to decide what "flaw" means to you. For me, an abundance or limited amount of nearly any personality trait can be a flaw. Too much pride or too little can lead a character into trouble. Same for stubbornness. Some can be good, your character won't give up easily and will likely succeed. Too little and he gives up. Too much and he keeps going even when everyone else would retreat and he could end up hurt, dead, in jail, whatever.

Physical flaws can have a similar effect. Take someone who has a physical disability, or perhaps a mental or developmental deficiency. Some characters will let that rule them, keep them from accomplishing things and the plot can help prod them out of their complacency. Others will defy their disabilities and push onward toward success, perhaps due to stubbornness or perhaps due to being very goal oriented.

Personality traits don't exist independently. Each feeds into and off the others. My protag in my WIR originally didn't work because I made him too complacent, too willing to follow along and not make waves due to a big failure in his past. So, I backtracked and retooled him, just a bit, making him a bit more stubborn. Also more curious and resentful of people trying to tell him what to do. He snapped out of his complacency and started moving ahead, forging through scenes and plot points to climax and conclusion.

And what was most fun, was that once I did this, I realized other characters were using his stubbornness and curiosity and inner need to do the right thing to manipulate him into doing what he normally would do if he hadn't been feeling a bit sorry for himself. Everything came together.