Comments on: Writing Excuses Episode 6: Flaws vs Handicaps

By: Reece

Reece — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:18:04 +0000

I just recently started listing to Writing Excuses. I loved the episode about killing darlings and now I’ve started thinking. I know that it’s very easy to have the main character become your darling. I’ve done this before and I know it’s a big mistake. My question is this: would giving the character a really good flaw be enough to remedy the situation, or would you have to get rid of the character (and probably the whole premise of the story)?

By: Flaws and Growth « Writing Every Day

Flaws and Growth « Writing Every Day — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:46:24 +0000

[...] to the podcast, Writing Excuses, and an episode that got me thinking is their discussion of Flaws & Handicaps. After defining flaws as internal and handicaps as external, they talked about how flaws can drive [...]

By: Flaws and Handicaps « Writing Every Day

Flaws and Handicaps « Writing Every Day — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:45:42 +0000

By: Fictional Discipline » Blog Archive » Writing Excuses (dot com)

Fictional Discipline » Blog Archive » Writing Excuses (dot com) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:54:18 +0000

[...] give an example. I believe it was in Episode 6: Flaws vs Handicaps where a question came up of how to make a flawed character. This is something I’ve struggled [...]

By: Damien

Damien — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:19:23 +0000

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying these ‘casts, as I am working towards [hopefully!] getting published someday.
That being said, I chose a slightly different road for my character. My main character–a “sociopathic mercenary” to combine the terms used in this ‘cast, is at all times viewed from the eyes of the woman who is slowly falling for the tormented inner him, the person he would be if he could lay down his vengeful quest. It starts out simply, and continually works towards complication. She can’t stand him, then she admires his professionalism, then onward.
That being said, I certainly wouldn’t turn down advice from real, published authors…………

By: Mike Barker

Mike Barker — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:42:54 +0000

I’ve summarized the talk at http://mbarker.livejournal.com/62729.html

Caught up! Just in time for another episode.

By: Speaker

Speaker — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:31:22 +0000

Dan – specifically responding to your earlier response to me but – EXACTLY. I think that’s one of the major appeals of Dexter – he often talks about having to put on a mask to appear normal to everyone else, which is very much a sociopath but… as a geek working in a very old fashioned southern office, it also describes how I feel on a daily basis as well.

Everyone here talks about hunting and football while I keep my opinions on my most recent comic books to myself.

By: Dan Wells

Dan Wells — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:26:55 +0000

Hezekiah and 42, I think you both make some really good points, but I maintain my stance that Valjean is not a main character in the second half of the book–not because I have an over-restrictive definition of a protagonist, but because I just don’t think the book is about him any more. Of course, it’s been 15 or so years since I read it, so I might be remembering wrong.

Howard said it best–don’t get bogged down trying to assign hard definitions to a fluid, artistic medium.

By: Howard Tayler

Howard Tayler — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:17:09 +0000

Let’s be clear on something: while lots of good literature features main characters with flaws, obviously exploitable character flaws are NOT a requirement. If the story works without them, you don’t have to retcon your analysis of the story, or redefine “flaw” so that the theory fits.

This is art we’re talking about. Not mathematics. It is not absolute.

By: 42

42 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:37 +0000

Sorry to keep posting on this discussion.

Dan: So you’re saying that Jean Valjean isn’t the protagonist throughout most of the book? I don’t think I agree with that. It seems like you’ve forced your definition of protagonist on the book. I feel that Jean ValJean remains a protagonist throughout the book. So I guess, I’m not converted to your definition of a protagonist. It feels too constrictive.

Hezekiah: I never really saw Jean Valjean as being overprotective of Cosette in the book. Protective–yes, overprotective–no. It was Cosette’s decision to reject his protectiveness because of what she wanted, not because Jean Valjean’s protection was excessive.

Course, Hezekiah’s response does make me think that perhaps the author doesn’t have complete control over what the reader will deem as a flaw. Readers are free to decide if a character has a flaw even if the author did not intend for that character to have a flaw. Readers are also free to ignore what a author may have intended to be a character flaw.

I still think that for some characters, they have exernal traits that are more than handicaps. The Miracle Worker without a deaf and blind Hellen Keler doesn’t work. Helen Keller may have some internal character flaws, but her external handicaps are driving the conflict of the story. Being deaf and blind are part of her character and drive many of her other character traits, if not all of them. For many characters there are just many external factors that are central to their character.

Course, I’ve heard people argued that Helen Keller is really the antagonist in the Miracle Worker and I can see that as valid.

Also, I guess I’ll always think if Superman as a protagonist even when there are no apparent flaws in him. I don’t know if he needs a flaw.

Antagonist seem like they may need character flaws more than protagonists need them. In fact, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to give flaws to protagonists in stories where there is suppose to be a strong contrast between good an evil.

I’ve probably written too much, I’ll shut up now.