|
Post by CONTRAST on Apr 29, 2012 15:06:30 GMT -5
I know what you are going to say. Flaws, right? As much as that is true, they have to be carefully placed to be believable. I've read about some characters with "flaws" that are just... cringe-worthy. The book basically says "(Character) is good at everything except for flying." Or rather, "character has no particular talents except for the violin." These kinds of character always make me roll my eyes. That is not a flaw. I don't even know what that is. And I hate it when characters belong to some super race and are naturally better at everything, although there's no explanation as to why. They just don't seem believable at all. I hate Mary Sues. [Character name] is modest, smart, pacifist, good at everything, insanely beautiful and just doesn't see how amazing she is. Oh, but she has weaknesses, of course. She can't swim and she gets a bit light headed when she uses her supercharged lightning bolts. (^ That was a reference to Helen from Starcrossed, by the way. ) Just because your character isn't good at something doesn't make them flawed. It's about the personality! Everything should be natural and flowing, not set in stone. Real people are not solid, they are dynamic and ever changing. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by tzswee on May 3, 2012 9:43:16 GMT -5
Well usually the story always have characters respond to predicament as way to show character, their habits, personality, and impression on friends around them; Mary sue is a bit unexpected everyone will see but find it cliche. I find if there's Mary sue, the story is a bit boring.
|
|