Flaws
You know that job interview question: What's your greatest flaw? If you've been through job interviews before or read about how to sail through them, then you know the correct answer isn't always honesty. Your potential future boss does NOT want to hear: "I alienate everyone around me with my pigheadedness." Instead, you know to finesse the question. "I'm a perfectionist" (a flaw, but yet one that has positive aspects).
Not so in writing.
Sometimes, in the act of making characters well-rounded, it can seem convenient to tack on a few so-called flaws. "Oh, I'll make her butt into her friends' lives--but in a cute way." "I'll make him still so hung up on his ex-wife that he alienates everyone" (usually on the way to winning back said ex-wife). The flaws are designed to keep your character likable--yet relatable and charming.
And while this makes sense, I tend to think it just scratches the surface. When the chick lit market went through a glut, every editor I spoke with said she was sick of seeing the "same old, same old." The slightly frumpy heroine (as if frumpy is a fatal flaw), the insecure heroine, the heroine who is just dying to get married. Whatever. No, I think to stand out, you have to really be bold. Take a chance on some flaws that are very, very, very real.
In nearly every one of my books, I have had editors and readers alike tell me they "almost" gave up on my heroine. She was THAT difficult, THAT pigheaded, THAT independent-to-a-fault. Note . . . to a FAULT. Slightly independent is just another way of saying "spunky." So independent that someone is incapable of letting others in? That's flawed and ready for a shrink.
I tend to think if you cut deep like that, it can elevate your book. I also think it's more real. I know my flaws--and they're not small ones.
Thoughts? It's a risk . . . but I think the end result can be a character that isn't cookie cutter.
Not so in writing.
Sometimes, in the act of making characters well-rounded, it can seem convenient to tack on a few so-called flaws. "Oh, I'll make her butt into her friends' lives--but in a cute way." "I'll make him still so hung up on his ex-wife that he alienates everyone" (usually on the way to winning back said ex-wife). The flaws are designed to keep your character likable--yet relatable and charming.
And while this makes sense, I tend to think it just scratches the surface. When the chick lit market went through a glut, every editor I spoke with said she was sick of seeing the "same old, same old." The slightly frumpy heroine (as if frumpy is a fatal flaw), the insecure heroine, the heroine who is just dying to get married. Whatever. No, I think to stand out, you have to really be bold. Take a chance on some flaws that are very, very, very real.
In nearly every one of my books, I have had editors and readers alike tell me they "almost" gave up on my heroine. She was THAT difficult, THAT pigheaded, THAT independent-to-a-fault. Note . . . to a FAULT. Slightly independent is just another way of saying "spunky." So independent that someone is incapable of letting others in? That's flawed and ready for a shrink.
I tend to think if you cut deep like that, it can elevate your book. I also think it's more real. I know my flaws--and they're not small ones.
Thoughts? It's a risk . . . but I think the end result can be a character that isn't cookie cutter.
Labels: character flaws, chick lit
posted by Erica Orloff at 5:56 PM
8 Comments:
I think that there is a common premise that a character has to overcome their flaws to move forward - such that the villain doesn't and is undone by those flaws.
But if your protagonist doesn't necessarily have to overcome those flaws then making them over-the-top wouldn't become an insurmountable obstacle in the book.
The fact that Eva and Tom in The Roofer come to embrace their flaws really takes that book to a different (and much better I think) place than many other stories out there in that genre.
The act of embracing your flaws is really a place of power since you have to give up the story of right and wrong. It can be a great tool for both the protagonist and the villain.
That said, I think I need to go back and really beef up my characters... this is going to be fun :)
Oh those poor characters... muhahahahahaha
Hi Ewoh:
I agree. It's more realistic to be "as one" with your flaws.
Actually, I think Ava's journey was never about overcoming flaws. She loved the people in her life precisely as they were--murderers, leg-breakers, and all. They were her family and she accepted them. However, she also understood that remaining with them could kill her--the stress of caretaking Tom who grew more volatile as the book went on. She never condemned him even as she realized she had to leave to survive. I consider her a VERY flawed person who was actually quite beautiful in her flaws. They enabled her to live in that world.
I actually think that's pretty realistic. People are usually motivated to change because of pain. No pain and the flaw is just fine. Pain . . . and perhaps you want to change that flaw--the flaw no longer serves the purpose for which it was created.
E
*sigh* I've been feeling so flawed, lately. Worse, I honestly did the very best I could, at the times. Okay, so maybe the purpose of my flaws is for storycrafting, LOL. Now that they've served their purposes, can they disappear?
I think I need to go read the Roofer. I'm done with he** weeks. I get to write again! And read! And even sleep some! Thank God.
I like a character that is flawed to the bone, not just on the surface.
Something that really interests me at the moment is the idea of flaws cutting both ways - the thing that is worst characteristic of someone can also be the best.
spy:
I think you can look at flaws as gifts. I know I am horribly impatient--and work on it through my faith. BUT, on the OTHER hand, what makes me a terrible b*tch, also makes me passionately committed to things I care about. When I worked with at-risk teens, it wasn't enough to read about the problem, I wanted to DO something and get in there and help. So what makes me passionately difficult also propels me at times. So . . . you know it's how you look at it. Like Ewoh says--not right or wrong.
E
P.S. Enjoy reading and writing!!!!!
katherine:
Yes, yes, yes. To the bone. At the end of Spanish Disco, which was my first novel, my character had learned something about herself. She had learned that she was an impossibly angry person--and even more, she learned WHY and it wasn't her mother as she thought for years (her mother was truly horrible), it was an existential angst. People leave. They die. And she was mad. Yes, even with that revelation, while it propelled her to the conclusion, she was still the same difficult, bitchy woman . . . just one with a little more insight. She was still deeply flawed.
E
As a newbie, is it best to tone down those flaws to get ones foot in the door. Or does that equal too vanilla?
Is it best to go for chocolate chunk brownie or peaches and cream and create deeply flawed characters?
Hi Kathy:
It's all about finesse and the execution of it--too much and you have someone eminently not likable . . . just enough and now you stand out, not enough and it's a "meh." I know I "get away" with some things . . . but Spanish Disco was my first sale and reviews called my heroine an "anti-heroine." She was very different.
It also depends on what you're targeting--and even which editor. I have worked with some and met some who definitely are more "old school" romance.
All of which, to me, isn't helpful to a new writer, in a sense that there isn't a hard and fast answer. So when that happens, I always think "go to the writing." I.e., if you aim too much for a sale, to the point that you dilute the passion of your book, I think you still don't end up with a sale. So I think if you can get passionate with the writing . . . at least you stand out.
E
Post a Comment
<< Home