I want to clearly state that everything I said above about morally grey characters and a complex world applies only to character-driven genre and sometimes to literary fiction (the kind of stories that include a change arc for the character, where he needs to overcome his internal flaw). I was trapped in a blind spot for a while there, sorry about that. It's because I tend to write and read character-driven genre that sometimes leans toward being literary-ish.
My PI Christoper Croc Daille is a fairly flat arc character... in book one hes a flawed womanising cad, who's also a thief a fence and a killer... by book ten assorted stuff has happened and hes no longer a thief or a fence, but hes still a flawed and broken character with a commitment problem, who rounds out book nine by getting his mate's wife pregnant... in book ten his mate finds out about that...
You're not the only one to notice/lament that gray is the new black. If you haven't already, you should read/watch Watchmen. It handles the topic perfectly. Spoiler: pic
i voted no because i don't miss them because i get to read about good people trying to do good all the time, and what's more, I get to write about them too.
It's part of the question. People like to read about characters who they can relate to, and a flawless do-gooder is simply not one that anyone has any experience of in order to relate to them.
please provide the quote of anyone in the thread talking about flawless do-gooders, because I think I missed that part of the conversation.
There are several comments in the thread talking about flawed characters, as an opposite viewpoint to the OP. The opposite of flawed characters are flawless ones.
I think people like dark things because it's part of coping with the traumas of life. I also think that dark, flawed characters are relieving and likable because we can feel more acceptance about who we are. A lot of people have felt villainized by a moral code they didn't resonate with. Groups of people and individuals have been told certain aspects of themselves are evil and wrong. I grew up in a highly religious house where a person was only acceptable and good if they follow the rules. Being judged is an enormous fear of mine. When I watch movies with dark heroes I don't feel judged, I feel like it's okay to be me--imperfect and perhaps even evil in the eyes of some groups.
because it's unfair to say that people who write good-aligned protagonists are automatically writing flawless do-gooders. nobody said that. no one claimed that. so why create an imaginary writer who doesn't exist in the thread according to the evidence of the words in the posts to oppose? what is the purpose of doing that? who benefits from inventing this fictional construct to oppose?
This is an interesting point often raised, but personally I've always preferred to read, and write, characters that I don't relate to. I drift towards others, because I'm interested in others and their world. I like shows like Pose and the characters within it, when I'm not: black, gay, transgender, impoverished etc... Sure, from a debating perspective you can find relatable elements in any character if you boil it down enough, (and on that point it would be unfair to pick one trait and say they can't be related to even though other traits not mentioned, such as some yearning or struggle can be) but on the merits of the point, I find characters I can 'relate to' intensely boring and disinteresting. But that's just me.
I'm seeing quite a bit of "real people are never completely good," but that's just blatantly untrue. I've met plenty of people who would never intentionally hurt someone, and always try to do the right thing. Yeah, a lot of those people get frustrated and throw insults around, but that's not evil. They're still completely good people. Being good doesn't mean you're always nice, and never emotionally lash out. Being good means that, when the chips are down and you know things are serious or personal, you're kind and understanding and helpful. People who are always good exist, they're just not always nice. Besides, even if I'm wrong, reading about impossible situations and fantastic people is why I like fiction in the first place.
I think it depends on what you mean by good... certainly i'd agree with you that there are a lot of people who are inherently good at heart, but most of those people as you say might also get frustrated, throw insults about, potentially violate traffic laws, emotionally lash out etc... the sorts of examples we were talking about before as 'completely good' were like Captain America and Wonder woman though... there's very few people who meet that bar I mean I'd say that I try to be a good person and that when the chips are down I mostly try to do the right thing... i once jumped into a flooded river to save a kitten. However I also once slept with my then best mate's girlfriend while he was passed out drunk in the next room... which is what I mean when i say many people are complicated
The story would have to be engineered such that every obstacle has a clear 'good' or 'bad' outcome, so that the hero can identify and accomplish the former. One can have want to do the right thing, but actually Quixote into doing something not good due to ignorance. Interestingly, if you claim that the ignorance is just a flaw of the character, it would have to be to a particular degree—since some of the most compelling 'evil' villains are ALSO trying to do the 'good, right thing' (especially in real life). Of course it could still be an enjoyable story, and there are many that do that successfully, but I would eventually find the simplicity tiring.
it's so strange to me. why would it have to be that kind of story? like I really don't get this at all. I always write good people who want to do the right thing. Always. And I have never written a story that does what you're describing here, and I have no idea why it's a commonly held belief that if you write stories that center on good people who want to do the right thing, then the stories are simplistic and the characters are bad and...just what is the reasoning? And also why do people feel so free to talk nonsense about it? I don't see the appeal of Grimdark at all, but I don't bust in on people who like it and tell them they're nihilism fanboys and they should feel bad for liking that sort of thing because it is poor quality junk. Just because it doesn't interest me doesn't make it inferior, and people like what they like! and that's fine! right?
I know I don't get tired of the good people I have in my life. I love hearing about, and retelling—and in some cases being apart of—their stories. They're inspiring, and I'm grateful for that. And I often have similar feelings, albeit while not as personal, toward similarly good characters in the stories I consume.
Hm. I guess it really does depend on what you think 'good' is. I recall a Punisher comic where he, the hero, blasts away the patrons in a crack den. He even remarks that he'll have to do it again the following week. It's all good fun and enjoyable to read, but the dude is delivering his light machine gun 'good justice' on people who've fallen on hard times. He thinks he is doing the right thing, obviously. I think the hammer of simplicity would have to come in and depict those addicts as totally irredeemable for the Punisher to be the kind of hero we're talking about here. That hammer flattens the heck out of characters, IMO. But that character is a somewhat accepted anti-hero. Classic rebellion stories might be a better example. "We need to topple the dictator!" Yeah, it could be a simple story about a wholly irredeemable dictator who wants the worst for his people and gets justly removed, yadda yadda hobbits yadda happily ever after. Or his defeat could create a power vacuum, disorder, progroms, squabbling, and make the nation look weak to incipient invaders. Were the sacrifices worth it? How much more pain will it cause? To me those questions are much more compelling. It's hard to describe it without going into examples like that. I wouldn't say it necessarily results in 'bad' characters, but simplicity ends up becoming a must for the totally good hero, or at least for his actions to have consistently good outcomes. That's fair. I can't really argue with that. They definitely are inspiring. For extreme examples, I think that was the whole aim of Superman, or even Jesus. They certainly have their merit, but I can't only read about that. It gets old for me, especially because I enjoy fiction as "reality but with answers." I'm not asking for a totally cynical narrative, but characters like that seem to lose their parallelism somewhat.