Character Flaws--What They Are (Or Should Be)

I noticed that for almost all the posts for How to Write Compelling Characters there was something about character flaws. I called it "3-Dimensionality". (I just had to say that word again.)

And I agree.

The only question is--what counts as a flaw and under what context are they flaws?

For example, let's take an example of a character (I realize this is cliched--I'm using this for demonstrative purposes only): male, tall, handsome, glittery. (Maybe cut the glitter if you like.) Now, if I was going to give this person a flaw there are a range of things I could do to make him 3-Dimensional. Only, some things people might see as flaws are things other people don't see as flaws.

I, personally, am skeptical of male, tall, handsome, glittery (MTHG) characters. However, it seems quite apparent that a lot of people think that such people are pluses for society and quickly fall in love. Unless it's some subconscious need to bind yourself to the weird-y and strange, it's obviously not a "flaw" per se.

Another example is if I made this MTHG dude a fan of science and math. Now, some (me in particular--hehe) would see that as a big positive and simply contribute to the flawless side, while a lot of other people would see that as a drawback AKA flaw. (Geek alert!) Same if I made him a fan of P.E.; some people would be happy about this, others would not. (Jock alert!

(Note that these are stereotyped flaws--be sure to stay away from that!)

So here comes the first question: what are more "universal" flaws that people can relate with? To appeal to an audience (I am assuming that this is the idea when it comes to creating characters) then there has to be something that most people would say is a flaw.

For example, a crabby, snappy attitude in the morning. I think most people would agree that being super-grouchy in the morning is a flaw. Or a nervous habit of talking a lot when under stress and babbling when scared. Or jumping around when things are tense and jiggling and not staying still when things are bordering on really serious. Or having a constant fear of combat and backing off when pressured.

Those would be flaws more people could relate to than meeting a MTHG dude who loves studying molecules.

That sort of flaw-tackling strategy is important, in my opinion. When creating a character, be sure that the flaws of your character are people others can relate to and that they are significant enough to really matter. A lot of characters (MTHG dude was partly based on Edward from The Twilight Saga, Damen from The Immortals, and from other influences I've forgotten by now plus some stuff from off the top of my head) in new fiction don't have enough substance; they're handsome, but that's about it. They aren't real.

Another thing is that a character should have more than one flaw. They could be jittery, and that's a good flaw, but they should also have something else, maybe a smaller flaw, something not quite as important to the overall appearance of the character; for example, an iced-tea obsession. It's not as important, but it adds another facet to the character, another, smaller dimension.

The same goes the other way: too many flaws and the character is going to seem hopeless to the reader.


So all of you were right--flaws are important!


What do you think a "flaw" should be? Do you agree with this analysis? Disagree? Have a point to make?

-----The Golden Eagle