Flawed characters = better story. Fiction ≠ a how-to-live manual.
Brought to you by Let Protagonists Make Mistakes, my global nonprofit.
This was something I once posted on LiveJournal years ago, and it turns out the topic is evergreen. People are still out there saying they hated novels because the protagonists had flaws. So…
I’m sorry, but I wrote a bit of a manifesto. Here goes.
I’m a human who screws up sometimes, and as such, I find it comforting and endearing when characters in books make mistakes too. Characters who are perfect aren’t inspiring to me. They’re usually boring, in fact. Sure, if all the main characters are so obnoxious that I wouldn’t want to hang out with them ever, I might take off one star on my book review for that alone. If they commit truly awful deeds and display unashamed bigoted thinking, and they never seem to realize it’s a problem and aren’t any better by the end of the book, then yeah, that book sucks.
But your basic human flaws—someone saying the wrong thing or making a dumb choice because they’re stressed—those resonate with me, and those are also necessary for a compelling drama. In fiction, a character must go through struggles, and if the struggles are solely external (human or paranormal antagonists, forces of nature, harsh circumstances), that’s going to be less interesting than a story that includes internal conflicts too (characters facing and overcoming their own flaws).
In my books you’re going to find protagonists with flaws, who will sometimes do or say things that make you want to yell, “NO, STOP.” They aren’t perfect. Their insecurities make them screw up now and then. But they do learn, and by the end they acknowledge their mistakes and apologize for them, and end up better people than they were when the story started.
So if you’re reading fiction with the idea that everyone, from the very start of the story, must be the paragon of whatever identity they are—man, woman, parent, teenager, gay, bi, straight, conservative, liberal, American, Chinese, Argentinian, etc.—and never ever make a mistake or else it reflects badly on their “group,” then...I think you and I disagree on the purpose of fiction.
Yes, we all ought to be careful with our representation: e.g., if you only have one Asian character and they’re a sadistic fiend, that might send a negative message about Asian people that you (I hope) didn’t intend. We obviously should also avoid flat stereotypes; all main characters should get to be well-rounded. But that’s a side topic that others have already covered exhaustively and well. I’m here to defend characters who are well-rounded but flawed, no matter their other attributes.
A novel isn’t a straight-up how-to manual. It isn’t a self-help book. It’s a story. Which can have role models, sure, but if it does, they’re likely going to be the type of role models who mess up, go through difficult and interesting trials, and come out stronger for it. Just like we all can. Just like we all do. Even though it’s uncomfortable to admit it.
Well, yes, the main character should have flaws to make them real and relatable. Otherwise, they are just robots. And even they can have flaws!