14

I mean, what exactly defines a flaw for a character? I know that the character's flaws should have at least some impact in the story, instead of being just a mere detail, but what makes flaw X better than flaw Y? Is it how much it impacts the story or how interesting it is? Diseases or personal problems are considered flaws? Can a character have only one main flaw or should they have multiple? What are the characteristics of a good flaw?

Yuuza
  • 4,619
  • 3
  • 32
  • 52
  • 5
    " I know that the character's flaws should have at least some impact in the story, instead of being just a mere detail" -- there's no "must". If your intention is to sketch realistic people, then you'll also give them some character flaws that do not have any impact in the story. Not everything that characterizes us, including our flows, has to have an impact to each and every life story or adventure we have. – Hejazzman May 15 '17 at 12:12
  • 2
    @Hejazzman There is indeed a must. A story is a lense, not a window. It should focus our attention on a particular crisis in the life of a character, and every detail it includes should point towards that crisis is some way or another. Irrelevant detail is the enemy. It is the telling detail that we want, the detail that in some way leads us towards the crisis and deepens our awareness, experience, and understanding of it. Our lives are not like that, but story lives are like that. –  May 15 '17 at 15:01
  • Have a look at "Hubris" (Wikipedia has an adequate, but small, article). That's one type of character flaw, widely used in the classics. It appears even nowadays, in real life. –  May 15 '17 at 18:13
  • Pride and Prejudice is a good example of different example of the varying importance of character flaws. Darcy's pride is made more evident and more crucial to the story than say, Lydia's naïveté, but both lead to a crisis. – Kys May 15 '17 at 18:48
  • @Mark Baker Those are dictums in 19th century style storytelling. We have come a long way since then, including having award winning and best selling literature that is more like life than like what stories "are supposed to be". The idea of the linear story and the hero, where all details point to some ultimate revelation/crisis/resolution is very formulaic. – Hejazzman May 16 '17 at 08:56
  • 2
    @Hejazzman These structures are the bones of story. A story must also have flesh. You are right that that there are some modern works (and some older ones as well) that are all flesh and no bones. They are not common or popular, but they exist. (Sometimes they charm with ideology.) There are also cheap potboilers that are all bones and no flesh. But durable mainstream literature has both. In some works, the bones are not obvious beneath a flesh, but a closer analysis usually shows that they are indeed there. You can read and write boneless books if you wish, but I think few here want to. –  May 16 '17 at 11:24
  • The reader needs to be able to identify with characters. In addition to the answers below, character flaws make a character "human" and believable. Without them, characters are boring and stereotypical. You just don't want to draw too much attention to anything that doesn't contribute to the story in some more direct way. – Joe May 16 '17 at 20:56

4 Answers4

19

The word "character" is used in two different senses. There is "character" in the sense of "characteristics" -- the way that a person does things that is different from how others do things. If someone whistles while they work, that is a characteristic.

The second meaning is moral character. A moral character is not a collection of distinguishing features, since we want everyone to have the same set of moral principles and behavior. Everyone's moral character should be the same.

The usual sense of the word character flaw relates to the second meaning. Another word for it is besetting sin. It is the sin or sins that the person is liable to make over and over again. Lady Mary's constant sniping at Edith in Downton Abbey is a character flaw (or the result of one). Of course, a character flaw in this sense of the word is also a characteristic in the first sense of the word: a piece of typical behavior.

A character trait in the first, non-moral, sense might also conceivably be considered a flaw in a particular situation. Someone of nervous disposition might not be best suited to the job of commando. Someone boisterous and clumsy might not make a good china shop assistant. Their character, in other words, may make them unsuitable for a task, even though it is not a moral failure. It is a flaw only in the context of the task.

In a sense, though, these two meanings converge, because in story terms a protagonist is faced with a challenge, something that they must do to gain a desire or avoid a loss, and the crux of the story is that trial they must face, that decision they must make, in order to succeed (or which will be the cause of their failure).

And so the character must come to some point, some task, some decision, for which they are in some important way unsuited. If they were well suited, the task would be easily accomplished without drama and we would have no story. Superman can rescue cats out of trees all day long, since it is a task for which he is eminently well suited, but by the time we have seen him do it the third time, we start to find it tedious. It is the task for which he is in some way unsuited that makes for an interesting story.

So, a good flaw is precisely the kind of flaw that makes it difficult, achingly and fundamentally difficult, for the protagonist to achieve whatever end they are compelled to pursue by the events of the story. Any flaw can be a good one if it plays this role, and any flaw can be a bad one if it does not.

So finish the following sentence:

My protagonist must ________________________ and this is extremely difficult for them because they are ______________________________________.

The second blank is your protagonist's character flaw.

  • 1
  • 1 for yet another fine answer with a good example. I have a question however: With this answer, it seems that a character flaw will be a crucial part of the main 'issue'. Can it not simply be part of creating a realistic character, in the sense of not being 'perfect'? What if the story places our character in such a critical situation (perhaps choosing someone's life over another's) where said character's issue is simply 'being human'?
  • – storbror May 15 '17 at 07:03
  • "we want everyone to have the same set of moral principles and behavior. Everyone's moral character should be the same." Can you clarify that? – Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum May 15 '17 at 09:36
  • 2
    @LaurenIpsum I mean whatever our moral code, we think it applies equally to everyone. Otherwise the concept of a moral flaw would be meaningless. A flaw is a deviation from design intent. There has to be a consistent design intent in order to identify a flaw. –  May 15 '17 at 11:37
  • 3
    @storbror, you mean a character flaw as a bit of color? Well, a characteristic isn't a flaw except in relation to a task, so it would not come across as a flaw unless it was material to the arc. A moral flaw is always present -- the predilection is always there -- but how is is manifest except in action? If it comes out in action, presumably it is story relevant. If not, why are you bringing it up? I'm all for grace notes in character descriptions but I'm not certain how much random moral failures contribute. Don't we expect a revealed moral failure to matter in the story somehow? –  May 15 '17 at 11:47
  • "Lady Mary's constant sniping at Edith in Downton Abbey is a character flaw"—if anything, it is a behavioral pattern, caused by some flaw (I am guessing irritability), not the flaw itself. – Lew May 15 '17 at 13:13
  • @LaurenIpsum he probably meant that in order to appeal to a majority of the people, a character should strive to comply with a set of moral principles, which are close to the readers' own? – Lew May 15 '17 at 13:23
  • 2
    @Lew No, I mean moral principles are by their nature universal. Whatever your principles are, you think they apply to everyone. Again, a flaw is a deviation from a specification. Unless there is a specification external to the part in question, the word "flaw" is meaningless. A moral flaw or character flaw can only mean deviation from an objective standard of character or morality. Otherwise the term is meaningless. This does not mean that moral standards are or are not objective, It simply means that the term moral flaw is meaningless if they are not. –  May 15 '17 at 13:56
  • The usual sense of a character flaw in the writing of fiction is, IMO, not necessarily that of a moral flaw. For example a villain might have the "flaw" of being too moral in some area, thus undermining his villainy. (I also disagree with the idea that we want everyone to have the same morality or that morality is universal.) – RamblingChicken Sep 05 '18 at 22:48