Eliminate cop-out flaws and bad characterization!

I would argue that "snark" has basically become the webnerd version of "sarcasm" already.

I think we're going by different editions of the OED here: I was taking my cues from the main site—a friend gave me his subscription password—which lists several early examples each for both definitions of the verb form of "snark." Neither definition contains the word "snide," although implications of blustery nagging and snorting derision abound. I'll have to check "snarky," though.

Nonetheless, this is a somewhat silly argument. Shall we keep it at "sarcastic" or "snide" instead...?

I prefer to keep discreet words... discreet, but yes, it sort of is. Which is disappointing, as I find that conflating two words of different implications deprives both of meaning.

edited 2nd Dec '11 12:40:57 PM by JHM

I HATE it when people say that! It drives me nuts! </mini rant>

Most people on this forum use snarky to mean witty, probably because they see pages like Deadpan Snarker and say, "Oh, so a snarker is a witty person." But it's not quite that simple.

Dang it, I'm repeating myself, aren't I? I'll stop.

I personally prefer to define my characters as people built up by the society around them, from their families to their nations. Defining them by traits rather than experiences seems odd to me.

I can generally appreciate the need for imperfect characters, however, and I'm fairly sure my current main character—an out-and-out Villain Protagonist with murderous tendencies and a revolution behind him that's morally dubious at best—has his own share of flaws and profound faults of personality to deal with...

I've always had fun playing with that, actually, as in this insult from one of my works:

Thread Hoppity Hop: Yes, yes, YES. I know that coming up with a list of traits isn't the best way to build a character, but in order to be believable a character needs to actually suffer from the consequences of their flaws. Impatience and stubborness seem to be the biggest offenders.

I'm just jumping in to put in my 2 cents:

The reason Excessive boasting or Being overly emotional or dramatic aren’t used as flaws is that any drama segment can be melodramatic depending on the time, context, and narm proportioning. It’s alos because Large Hams are the ones who are always boasting and being emotional, but because it's funny or otherwise entertaining, it isn’t really seen as a flaw.

Also, combining mutually-excluded flaws could be funny: Like someone who is ridiculously distrustful yet at the same time very gullible, or overthinks when decisive action is required and rushes in when plotting is necessary.

That's actually funny. :)

So, can we come onto this thread to ask for advice on a character or...?

Sure, why not.

Well, I have a character, and if anyone has actually read my story, you know him as Nicholas Cuantine.

He is:

• Bratty
• Sexually-repressed
• Hot headed
• an aspie
• narrow minded
• ignorant
• loose-tongued
• rude
• whiny.

So, yeah, I added a lot of flaws on him. A lot. And the problem is he has no real redeeming features. In my second version of the story, I added

• pathetic

to this list, and I think that has helped a bit, but I simply don't think that can carry a full story. I don't want to remove any of the flawed traits (since I wanted to negatively play all the shonen-hot-blooded-here traits), and I don't want to have people thing these traits are ideal and...

yeah.

So I guess my problem is I have too many flaws, and thus, bad characterization.

This might be off topic. >_>

Well, I consider "characterization" to refer to selling a character as a real person. It's more about writing the character and how you portray them to the audience than straight facts about them. What I see that might be the problem with your character isn't that the characterization is bad, it's that his many flaws and lack of good traits, should you pull them off as written, make him an unappealing character to an audience as a hero. What exactly do you want the reader to get out of reading this story you're writing? What is the character supposed to accomplish?

Like I said, the best way to make a very flawed character endearing IMO, is to have him recognize his flaws and try to change. He can fail at every turn and still be a total ass, but as long as he's obviously trying and the failure is getting to him emotionally we'll feel pretty bad for him and want him to succeed.

edited 5th Dec '11 2:35:49 PM by NoirGrimoir

Agreed with . Also, until you provide a writing sample, we won't know if you've actually succeeded in getting those characteristics across to the reader.

edited 5th Dec '11 10:27:55 PM by kashchei

Noir: He is supposed to be a negative version of a shonen hero, since I dislike the idea of those traits being played as virtues. I wanted to write something I thought would more likely happen. Yes, I am writing a Deconstruction. You may proceed to point and laugh at me for being a pretentious idiot now.

If you want samples, I have PLENTY.

here,

here,

here, and in continuation,

If you don't want your character to be liked than you'll have to just make him cool, or provide some other incentive in the work, otherwise no one is going to bother reading your story.

edited 6th Dec '11 11:34:23 AM by NoirGrimoir

He doesn't exactly stay that way during the entire story. There will be character development over the series.

And making him cool would completely ruin the entire point of the story. You are not supposed to think he's cool.

edited 6th Dec '11 11:41:58 AM by MrAHR

Maybe you should make him not the sole lead character or viewpoint character. Make one character the deconstruction, make another more of a reconstruction or "how a hero ought to be" as a foil.

I have a cast of characters. It's not just him alone. I have 3 other characters who will be with him by the end of this book, and another 2 who join up by the end of the series, and so on. My character is very rarely completely alone in a scene.

I already have a foil for him. He is introduced late into the book, but he is there.

It has done nothing.

Then just make sure he has a good character motivation in every scene and then see how people react to that.

edited 7th Dec '11 2:40:13 PM by chihuahua0

A bit of a thing with a character I'm writing. The whole point of her is that she's supposed to be The Corrupter to the protagonist. She's constantly trying to drag him deeper into a pit of hedonistic indulgences (alcohol, drugs, sex, wild parting, more sex) by taking advantage of his messiah complex, which has locked him in a nigh-on hopeless battle (turns it actually is hopeless, but he doesn't need to know that, does he folks?), and the stress it places him in.

Now the kicker here is that she does know he's fighting a losing battle. He's in a position where inevitably, if he does defeat one enemy, the other will still triumph. It's lose-lose no matter what if he fights. She knows because she's been in the exact same situation. Instead of pouring all of his efforts into a pointless fight, she wants him to enjoy the last days the third rock from the sun has. Her methods are questionable, but what she really wants is to just give him the best farewell he can muster for his planet. Ease his transition to the Last of His Kind (because god knows hers was anything but smooth).

What I want to know is if she's too sympathetic (she is supposed to be sympathetic, but basically what I'm asking is if she comes off as a Karma Houdini or Mary Sue)). Sorry if this is coming off as incoherent, but explaining the full circumstances behind this situation takes some doing.

Whether she's sympathetic or not is going to come down to how you portray her while writing, as with all characters. The best thing to do is to show both sides of things equally. Both that she has a somewhat decent reasoning, but it doesn't forgive what she's done. Have her be called out on the bad things she does and give supporting evidence for it being wrong, have her question herself and in the end, don't have anyone say something like 'I guess you were right all along, thank you! to her'.

Well see, that's the thing. The whole point behind this tale is "learn to let go and enjoy yourself instead of worrying yourself over things you can't help", so in the end, she really is supposed to be right. That doesn't make it any easier on the protagonist, but she really is, given the circumstances.

And in her defense, I probably overstated things a bit in the previous post. She does try to get him to participate in some morally dubious activities, but nothing that actively hurts other people (like murder, theft). It's less about making him evil or anything and more about teaching him how to enjoy himself a little.

I dunno, this might not change anything, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I don't think you have a problem, especially if you haven't written it. Write it and then see where you're at with the issue.

Listen to Cakman when Cakman give advice. Cakman smart. And AHR not bad writer.

I have a quirky character who might seem a bit... much. I first wrote him with Asperger's Syndrome in mind. I've tried to move away from this original design because ambiguity would deter some criticism, but I think it still really shows and some people say he's gotten more autistic.

• His social skills are so bad that he has to ask his friend how to say sorry to people he offended. This makes people around him assume he's a sociopath, but he just feels bad about being unable to express himself adequately. If he wants to exit a conversation and is getting desperate, he will either start hammering away at the nearest musical instrument (piano is preferred, but he carries around a harmonic in case of emergencies) or reciting a list of facts until the person backs off.
• He's a musical prodigy, but is unwilling to perform for strangers, which is why he insists on going to medical school. He never writes down what he improvises or sees in his dreams because he remembers everything almost perfectly.
• Finally, the cat thing. He makes paws out of his hands and waves them at people, meows when most people would say, "Huh?" and when he was younger, he would go into full-on kitty mode if he was upset or angry. That's what he's doing in his first appearance.
• When he picks a position, he fucking sticks to it. And defends it at all costs. Even when it makes him look like a complete douche. Such as when he tells his sister she's an idiot for trying to keep their cancer-ridden father alive when she could have used the money to go to a university. He beats that point to death.

Aside from this, he's a pretty chill guy that you'd like to have around, the kind of guy that hangs out with your group of friends at lunch but only seems to talk to you and makes smartass quips while he does the homework he should have done the night before.

edited 7th Dec '11 10:02:36 PM by SnowyFoxes