Good guys are boring. How do you get excited about writing them?

I'm not sure if I'm on the right track here, but maybe this relates to what you consider a "good" person. A lot of authors get really into specific rules, with "good guys" as characters who follow those rules and "bad guys" as characters who break some or all of them. This often means that "good guys" in those stories are very similar due to following all the same rules, whereas "bad guys" get to be different according to their different moral values and the different rules they accept or break. Even if you're not a moral relativist, accepting a bit of relativism into your fiction can help to write well-intentioned characters who have different beliefs and act in different ways.

 

Eh. They don't have to be exactly tempted. But certainly somewhere in them should be the potential to be worse than they are. Even if it's deep down, never explored and barely noticeable.

 

I think this is an example of what I call Main Character Syndrome; where the main character is so relatable that nothing you can do makes them feel interesting enough, because the base foundation is almost vague in it's lack of interesting features. I find the character Percy Jackson gives me this feel. It feels like he's essentially there for the reader to imagine themselves in his situation.I'ts all circumstance with him. So I would advise based on that that they probably just need a more detailed and vivid personality.

 

All your comments have been very helpful!

I've been mulling them over all day and can hopefully continue to do so with some of the newer ones in my sleep. This conversation has actually brought some interesting new possibilities to my mind.

I mentioned that the two main characters are involved in a rivalry and I know that the "good guy" will be murdered by the "bad guy" (btw, I'm using these terms deliberately because I feel like the bad guy is more the MC right now and so terms like protagonist and antagonist don't feel right).

I want readers to feel both an intense sense of pity and loss for the murdered character but at the same time understand the murderer's motivations and be sympathetic to him as well. He's not a monster and so his "victim" can't be a saint. Readers need to see both sides clearly and feel conflicted. Though one is clearly "good"and the other "bad" no one is 100% a hero or villain and so it's imperative that readers see the potential in themselves to become either character. That's the horror and the hope of my story.

Any great books you can think of with powerful moral ambiguity (I think of Of Mice and Men, Hamlet, East of Eden)? Or other possible examples (be it in whatever medium) that may inspire?

What are your thoughts on great rivalries?

 

The comic/movie Watchmen is really good at complex morality and a slightly ambigous hero/villain dynamic. Another example would be the tv series Firefly. Both of these are also exceptional stories in general. Btw complex morality is not horrifying, it's just real.

 

By putting myself in her shoes, seeing the world through her eyes, and getting excited about the things that get her excited.

 

Maybe google "Villain Protagonist" and see what people have done with the idea?

Trust me, I've written one too. So did Shakespeare (Brutus, MacBeth), Puzo (the Corleone Family), Burgess (Alex "deLarge"), Ellis (Patrick Bateman)... You're in good company

 

Personally, I decided on the sort of arc I wanted for my main good POV character very early on. Since I settled on her being part way through a redemption arc when the story picks up, I already had some extra dimension due to the troubled events of her past. So deciding on the sort of arc you want to unfold can be helpful in fleshing out the sort of person they are.

Also, minor little details can help a character come to life. Likes, dislikes, mannerisms, and so on give a human edge when they're blended into the story.

 

I know this might come off as..bookish or something you might read on a magazine but I write my characters as people not as good or bad really. Unless the story I am writing would seem odd if I didn't point this out from the beginning I kinda enjoy allowing the reader to choose who is the villain and to what degree. For the protagonist it's just as easy to write as the villain for me because I think of who they are and what they want. They won't be charming to everyone, they won't be annoying to everyone, and they won't be likable to everyone. I just tell myself this is who they are and this is what they want and write that.

 

You could give your character a back story that defines them, something that shaped them to be as good as they are now. Or a quirk which makes them loveable. This is what Charles Dickens did in Great Expectations with Joe Gargery, he is the sweetest character in the book and in one scene talks about his father abusing him and his mother when they were young. His quirk is his dialect, he doesn't speak academically, for example he says 'what I meantersay' and 'wot larx'.

Do what makes you feel comfortable about the character.

 

I think if your 'good guy' is boring, you haven't dug deep enough yet.

People who are good and normal aren't always boring. Nor are they annoying. Nor is an interesting nature necessarily based on tacked-on character 'flaws.' The good guys often discover that doing the 'good thing' just isn't possible, or it causes something else not-so-good to happen.

You really can't separate your character from the story. If he starts out being somebody who never knowingly does harm, that in itself is going to pose problems as he navigates the world. You need to get a very basic idea of character, throw him into your story and see how he develops. It's a myth that 'good guys finish last.' They are sometimes the ones left standing when everything else is gone.

Just don't make your story's problems too easy for your good guy to solve. Give him a hard time and he'll be interesting enough. There is a difference between being 'good' and being invincible.

 

I don't think many people were suggesting "tacked-on" character flaws. Just flaws that make sense. We're all flawed. even if it''s a subtle as being a little too pointed when you're annoyed or making a bit of a silly decision now and then.

 

The OP did say "I know that he needs a flaw and I think I have some good ones in mind." That sounds a bit tacked-on to me.

A character doesn't 'need' a 'flaw.' What a character needs is to develop into a believeable person. One way to do this is to recognise that a strength can also be a weakness.

A person who never argues with anybody either gets passed over or taken advantage of, from time to time. A person who devotes their lives to rescuing animals can become despondent because the task is never-ending, and it might take over their lives and living space to the extent that they can't maintain human relationships very well. A person who always tries to see both sides of a question can get bogged down in indecision (because each side may well have good points as well as bad ones.) A person who always gets to work on time and does their work diligently can become a figure of jealousy if the boss prefers them to other, less dedicated workers—who might well see the character as a goodie-two-shoes, which is a flaw in THEIR eyes. This can mean the character needs to dig deep and be able to cope with unpleasantness and bullying in a way that leaves him still holding his job.

The best way to develop a character is to write a story with them in it. Flaws and strengths will emerge, as will the character's personality. There is sometimes a notion among new writers that nice people aren't popular or interesting, so they need to be given a 'flaw' or a 'quirk' from the outset. I, for one, am very interested and attracted to nice people in real life. I don't know why I wouldn't like them in a story. It's what happens to them and how they cope with life that's interesting, isn't it?

 

Yes and no. The story makes the character interesting because of watching to see how they deal with it and how they feel. But the character still needs to be interesting in a void in my opinion.

 

Fair enough. But another way to make a character interesting is to let the reader in on the character's thought processes. The character doesn't necessarily need a definable 'flaw' to start with, or be blessed with bags of charisma. The character becomes interesting (both to the writer and the reader) as we get to know him better. What does he struggle with? What are his unfulfilled wishes and hopes? What scares him most, and why? Who does he love, and why?

I think the trick is always to make things difficult for any character. That's how character gets built in real life, and is how it gets built in a story as well.

 

Flaw in what sense? Again, nobody's perfect. At all. Flaws are easy to come by, they don't have to be obvious stuff like a drug addiction that can feel clumsily stuck on if they don't fit. They can be little bits and pieces. Would you say a character doesn't need that?

 

Maybe you need to stop thinking of him as the 'good guy' and just see him as 'the guy' with his own needs, his own set of morals and values and his own strengths and weaknesses and how that is conflicted, how that is challenged. Everything we do all comes down why we want do it and how it makes us feel. If you're able to draw that out onto a page then maybe you'll appreciate him more.

I don't even know who this generic good guy is to be honest, must be a mythical creature. And just because I consider someone a 'good' person doesn't mean I like them and why is that? Yes, the do gooders can be extremely annoying and so can be occasionally killed off.

 

No. I think I'm trying to say that the flaws (or whatever you call them) will emerge with the character (along with strengths), if you dig deep enough as you write a story, and concentrate on the difficulty the character will experience during the story. If there is not much difficulty, the story will be dull and predictible, whether the character has been given a few flaws at the start or not. If there is a lot of difficulty in the story, the character will become stronger 'in the sense of more personality' and any flaws will show up in neon lights.

I guess I'm knocking against the notion of artificially-assigned flaws, not flaws that emerge with the development of the character within the story. But that's how I write and create characters. I admit that other people work differently and achieve success. I don't think we're actually too far apart on this issue. Maybe just the semantics?

 

I'm not disagreeing with that approach exactly. More representing the idea that flaws are important because it seemed like you might be dissing their importance.

 

No not at all. But I think people need to think hard about what a flaw actually is.

I don't believe some superficial flaw should be tacked on, so the character will have a 'flaw'—in the mistaken idea that this will make a boring character interesting. That's too much like write-by-numbers. Where's the passion in that kind of writing?

However, for folks who like a how-to list, this one isn't bad:

http://www.writingeekery.com/flaw/

 

Make the good guy have a very unique quality that will make him stand out. First thing that pops into my head is give him a bad background. Sure he's a good guy now, but was he always?

I always encourage writers to develop an interesting backstory to each of their character. This way, you don't need to think of ways to make them interesting or intriguing to readers. Give them a thorough background, and you won't even need to think about how they speak in their dialogue. The more in depth your character is, the easier it will be to write them in your story, even if you don't mention 80% of their backstory to the readers. As long as YOU know why your character is the way he is, then it will naturally show in their behaviour.

First things that pop into my head:

1. Your good guy was once a bad guy, and he is on a road to redemption. This could be very interesting because he can always be challenged and tempted to sway back the other way (and if you cast a shadow of doubt in your readers, this 'good guy' will automatically be more interesting). Even if he never ends up reverting to his old ways, readers will be on their toes the whole time because you've allowed them to believe there is a chance he might go 'dark'.

2. Don't make him 'normal'. Normal is boring and no one wants to read about it. Make him quirky, or have a particular quality that stands out. He could secretly be a mathematical genius, and he can predict things to the exact minute, for example. This could give him an edge. OR, the opposite, he is slipping from his once great skills, no longer as quick or smart. He could have been diagnosed with an illness that could be affecting his mental functioning. Your character needs something not normal about him, that's what makes them interesting for us to read about. No one really cares about normal .... though to be honest I don't really know what 'normal' is

3. He lacks something fundamental. He could be missing a leg, he could have PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and as a result is an insomniac, he doesn't sleep. Yeah he's a good guy, but that doesn't mean only good things happen to him. He could be in the midst of overcoming something which could work as an obstacle to his goals.

4. If you don't want to have anything fundamentally off or different about your character, simply throw in more obstacle and challenges to his goals. If he wants to prove himself to be the bigger man, have embarrassing things happen to him, like his socks don't match and someone notices. Allow your character to be as human as possible, doing things the rest of us do so he can be relatable. Maybe he left the stove on all night. Maybe his toilet clogged and he can't find his plunger. These little things not only allow a reader to relate, but it gains our sympathy because "I've been there before."

Hope this helps!

 

You guys have definitely gotten me over the hump with this character, he's finally coming alive, and feeling independent of his antagonist. Because, as I said, he was really not coming alive. He was just an obstacle to the antagonist, but obviously I wanted more out of him. Your insights, comments, and discussions among yourselves have been very interesting and inspiring. Thanks for your time!

 

I never write a character with the intention of makin him a good or a bad guy. I write characters to which things happen and to which they react accordingly.

 

I think the thing is that you can write characters that are good people but you need to give them more than that, and they should be about more than that. They should feel human, not pure. If they're goodness is what identifies them or plays too large a role they will feel imaginary. The goodness should feel almost incidental to the interesting traits. Decency is common.

 

Perhaps it's because your MC is too much like you? I think we're all pretty bored by the overly familiar. (I know I am.)

What if you switched the protagonist and antagonist?