A Random Word on Writing - The Protagonist (Strength)

[TGRF]

Greetings, fellow writers. As indexer, I have come across a lot of fan fictions that petered out after only a few chapters. Some of them were quite good. It started me wondering why this happened.

It seems that a good number of authors (not just on this site) like to make their protagonists flawed, sometimes even dark. This is an especial problem when writing about a soulborg, as the soulborg in question is often portrayed as emotionless.

A protagonist is hereby defined as the main character, the one the story is about.

The reason for doing this is often simple enough: the author is trying to make the character life-like. The reasoning is that a soulborg probably is emotionless, and that the character therefore should be too. However, making such flawed characters is not always a good idea.

What is a story? It is a tale about an individual. Now, assuming you want people to read your story, they should therefore want to read about the individual the story is about, right? It makes sense. Consider the two examples below:

Example A
Taelord held up a quavering hand. "You've won," he said, his voice rasping through the air. "The battle is over. I surrender."
Thorgrim looked down at Taelord. His orders had been clear: kill all. He grinned a wicked grin, and brought his sword slicing down on Taelord's neck.

Example B
Taelord held up a quavering hand. "You've won," he said, his voice rasping through the air. "The battle is over. I surrender."
Thorgrim looked down at Taelord. His orders had been clear: kill all. But he could not kill Taelord, defenseless, wounded. He sheathed his sword.

Which Thorgrim would you rather read about? Most likely, you'd want to follow the tale of the second version, rather than the first.

So then, making your characters flawed is not always a good idea because the readers may not want to read about them. This usually results in them reading something else.

Now hold on, what happened to making characters life-like? They can't walk around sinlessly perfect, can they? Who would want to read about someone who can do no wrong, who never makes a mistake, who has no qualms about his deeds? Not many.

The problem arises not from making characters flawed. Indeed, characters need to be flawed, in order to provide tension, inner-conflict, a sense of reality, etc. The problem rises from not giving the reader anything to cheer for. The author is often so devoted to making the character flawed that he forgets to give him qualities that the readers want to read about.

A 'cause/quality' is hereby defined as something that you - or anyone else - would want to attain. Determination, cunning, stamina, wisdom, courtesy, discipline, courage, leadership, humor, trust, loyalty; the list is bound only by your imagination.

Take example A, in which Thorgrim kills Taelord. That by itself is not very promising. But if Thorgrim then went on to have second thoughts, to doubt if he had done the right thing, readers might be more inclined to read about him.

The trick is to give the readers something to root for. They need to cheer your protagonist on as he battles his way through the book. And they need to do this shortly after the protagonist is introduced. You can't have the reason for them to read appear half way through the book, otherwise they would have stopped reading long before they got to it.

Even if the setting of the book isn't one that appeals to them, the readers may be drawn into your fiction by the protagonist alone. As long as he gives them something, some reason, some hope, some cause for them to cheer for, they will likely want to read about him.

~TGRF.

All appearances created by this thread that I am a professional writer should be ignored. The above comes from my own limited experience on this site, and from the book Writing the Breakout Novel, by Donald Maass.

[TheAverageFan]

Very helpful, this! Ever since the decline of older, more perfect superheroes, people seem to sometimes overcompensate with their flawed hero/anti-hero. We usually want to relate to the protagonist, and since most of us view ourselves as good, it's wise to have at least a slimmer of goodness or redeemability to even the most evil of protagonists.

I know Mr. Plinkett pointed this out with Anakin in the Star Wars prequels--not much is given the audience to like or relate to him so his downfall doesn't feel very tragic. He just seemed like a bad apple from the start.

Glad you posted this, TGRF

[Tornado]

Nice perspective TGRF. I am not sure I totally agree but your point is solid. I think the key to a flawed character is hope.

[TheAverageFan]

Originally Posted by Tornado

I am not sure I totally agree but your point is solid. I think the key to a flawed character is hope.

Good point. I think the idea is that any flawed character has to have at least something to keep the audience going. Even if they end up being utterly evil by the end, there's gotta be something making the audience root for them up until that point.

[TGRF]

Originally Posted by TheAverageFan

Good point. I think the idea is that any flawed character has to have at least something to keep the audience going. Even if they end up being utterly evil by the end, there's gotta be something making the audience root for them up until that point.

That's how I see it, yes. Although, if the protagonist does turn out completely evil, the reader is still probably going to say, 'wait, why am I rooting for the bad guy?' Despite the 'strength' a reader can still be turned. I find that happening if protagonists do something I disagree with and don't explain why they did it.

@Tornado. A good summary. I agree that the key is hope. As long as the reader has something to hope for, he'll keep reading, keep wanting to find out which side of the protagonist wins out in the end.
What department do you not agree with? More opinions can only strengthen my writing, so fire away.

~TGRF.

[Tornado]

That was pretty much it. Just the hope part for a flawed character. It is difficult to pull off though. I think following your advice is a smart way to go.
It reminds me of my RPG experience. In the beginning everyone wanted an evil, powerful character because of the freedom to do whatever you want. What I found is that it is somewhat stale. Now I try to run the weakest character available and see what I can do it with it.
I think the same applies in writing these types of characters. Going with a character that has morals and weaknesses is what makes them unique and makes the reader identify with the character.
I know Eslo is a challenge at times, as he lacks a lot of positive qualities. He comes across best when trying to help others or trying to lift his curse.

[TGRF]

Originally Posted by Tornado

That was pretty much it. Just the hope part for a flawed character. It is difficult to pull off though. I think following your advice is a smart way to go.
It reminds me of my RPG experience. In the beginning everyone wanted an evil, powerful character because of the freedom to do whatever you want. What I found is that it is somewhat stale. Now I try to run the weakest character available and see what I can do it with it.
I think the same applies in writing these types of characters. Going with a character that has morals and weaknesses is what makes them unique and makes the reader identify with the character.
I know Eslo is a challenge at times, as he lacks a lot of positive qualities. He comes across best when trying to help others or trying to lift his curse.

Well said.
~TGRF.

[Dysole]

I often ask myself about my characters. What are they thinking or feeling right now and why? From this I get further insight into the character. Now when it comes to flaws I think of it like this, "What does this flaw tell me about this character? Why should I care?" If they're a klutz but that doesn't affect the story why do I care? Ultimately, I think stories are built on emotion and the flaw is just another way to make you want to follow the character.

~Dysole, thinking he is probably mostly repeating what's already been said