Warning the following is just my personal opinion*

Please excuse me if it sound like am trying to impose my point of view, I am here to learn and change my own.

.

I have noticed that very often people identify the most with with very troubled characters and those that aren't in canon, people like to think they are.

fanon luna vs Canon Luna

And not without reason because people identify better with people that have similar issues like you (I think that's why the main character in a lot of works is bullied and the success of franchises like the xmen)

I am designing my main character and I wanted her to be genuinely happy and angst free despite being poor..

But just by making a quick scan on some great characters I can't help but wonder if people see themselves on them despite their angst or in part thanks to it.

Happy family?

1. Iron man,batman, captain marvel= Dead parents
2. Harry potter= idem
3. goku=idem
4. Superman= Happily Adopted/later dead father
5. masterchief= no parents
6. luke skywalker = dead parents/evil parent

Angst free?

1. Naruto= Stepford Smiler
2. batman= dead parents sadness
3. spiderman?= gwen's dead/uncle's ben/Mary Jane divorce
4. every chracter on Madoka?=
5. Princess Luna = regret for being evil and lack of social skills.

documentary on history channel goes as far as to imply that part of batman's likeability is for his personal issues that reflect our own.

I have wondered if removing that personal issues would hurt a character.Would a genuinely happy character (despite problems) would be as interesting as someone who was tormented somehow?

What's your opinion on this?

edited 18th Jul '12 4:03:27 PM by FallenLegend

In a word: yes.

(In two words: hell yes.)

A character with absolutely no flaws or any sort of internal debate, ever, would be extremely boring to read about. But I could certainly stand to see some protagonists with less forced angst, and in my own writings will always consider Angst? What Angst? the lesser of two evils next to Wangst. As the latter trope and Angst Dissonance note, many characters' problems actually serve to make them harder to identify with, not easier.

edited 18th Jul '12 3:37:11 PM by nrjxll

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes you can. However, I can understand why some authors would make angst characters; angst characters are much easier to identify than non-angst characters.

edited 18th Jul '12 3:51:52 PM by Masterofchaos

Yes, but be careful. A character who seems effortlessly happy despite their problems easily seems like a Stepford Smiler and can put an audience off as easily as a character who wallows in wangst.

edited 18th Jul '12 4:25:39 PM by peccantis

Can and have done so.

I'm more likely to identify with, relate and most importantly like characters who don't have angst as a major problem or their defining feature.

edited 18th Jul '12 4:26:22 PM by MajorTom

In my own writing, I kind of like playing relatively unconflicted or balanced characters off of more volatile or unhappy ones for the sake of seeing how each reacts to the other. On that note, I have a few observations:

• "Without angst" does not mean "without internal conflict." A person can be torn between to vital decisions and remain level-headed depending upon their personality.
• To lack internal conflict does not equate to a positive demeanour. A fairly cynical, cold individual can be perfectly at peace with themselves, as can be a cheerful child or a murderous lunatic.
• A character can evolve subtly, and without obvious growing pains. People do it all the time in the real world. When a character changes, sometimes it takes time to see.

All very true, especially the first.

Generally characters need internal conflict of some sort to be interesting, and angst is a very easy sort of internal conflict to portray, which is why it's so popular, but it is not necessary and in fact people are starting to get sick of angsty characters, so ones without angst get bonus points.

The idea that Batman is a particularly angsty character seems to be a result of a fundamental misinterpretation of what he's about.

The man has issues. Giant, incredible, issues. But they provide a driving force rather than a huge internal conflict. People have gotten a lot more mileage on the conflict quarter out of his methodology than out of his dead parents.

Take the Master Chief example. The Chief is, really, the world's best technician. He just happens to kill things rather than fix them. Every aspect of his personality is subsumed into or subordinate to this. We may (or may not) regard this as tragic, but the assumption that he is living a tragedy is not one he would agree with; possibly not even one he'd understand.

So I'm going to come in here and ignore the question and basically attack your methodology of arriving at it instead, but I think it needs to be explained that tragedy in the backstory is not the same thing as angst in the present, that tragedy and angst are often not the same thing, and the world would be a better place if a lot of crappy writers realized that.

I didn't want to be the first to say it given my past history, but... yup.

Especially this part.

edited 18th Jul '12 7:48:35 PM by nrjxll

Definitely. There is a difference between having a problem and dealing with it, and angsting over it (even if they're also dealing with the problem/s). Even if a character seems to suffer from Angst? What Angst?, the audience can still have sympathy for them from what they've been through. The other tropers above expressed their perspectives well.

edited 18th Jul '12 8:16:35 PM by BearyScary

No problem with"atacking" my reasoning I learned something with your post aswell as everyone's

I see I was wrong on my reasoning and I am happy about learning something from it :).

Thanks for you input

edited 18th Jul '12 8:21:18 PM by FallenLegend

Yes.

Angsts gets really, really old after a while.

^^^ And that's the thing. You can put characters through the wringer both physically and emotionally, and have them experience the very emotions represented in such scenarios like sorrow, fear or pain. But the best written characters don't angst over it or dwell upon it forever. Sure they may get put on a 10-Minute Retirement but those kinds of characters, the ones who can move on without falling for the angst routine at the end of the wringer end up the better written for it.

Mainly because the angst-addled protagonist was shot to hell and back as a usable character type by one Shinji Ikari.

Maybe that's why movies like The Expendables and Red did so well recently. Hearkening back to the days of badass motherfucker protagonists who didn't become psych ward patients at the first sign of adversity.

edited 18th Jul '12 8:20:19 PM by MajorTom

Interesting, as written I both strongly agree and strongly disagree with this.

quoted for truth.

Good Point.

I guess I am the opposite, it might have been true for me at one time to enjoy an angst free main character but nowadays it is opposite for me. I find that like of angst is jarring and I admit to envying those that don't angst. Sometimes I need time to sort out my feelings and it usually takes me awhile to deal with them however one thing I will agree with is that a character needs conflict. Without conflict there wouldn't much of a story to tell and you can still have angst free characters, just be sure to write them well.

Yes. In fact, when I try to think of a non-angsty character that I'd identify with well, the easiest one I can think of is someone who is either disabled or supernatural and has absolutely no desire to be normal. (I'm autistic and proud of it.) In Switched at Birth, I've been disappointed by how they developed Emmet's character, because he goes from a snarky, proud Deaf kid who reminds me a lot of this one paraplegic friend I have, to an insecure kid who wants to act hearing. Given what the story has dumped on him, it makes sense, but it's still disappointing, especially since he's stopped his awesome snarking at hearing people in sign language.

I can identify with a much less angsty protagonist. I can't believe that they would have no trouble or nothing that makes them sad in their life, ever though. If they're human, they're going to have emotions. I think the only type of character would not have at least some kind of reaction to the troubles in life would be a robot, and if they're programmed to have emotions, they'll still react with sadness, grief, anger, etc.

Some angst is fine. But there's a point where it becomes too much. I can't personally identify with someone who is an orphan, had his village burnt down and is on a quest for revenge. However, I could probably identify with someone who say, went through a divorce (it came close to being a personal experience), lost a loved one (like a grandparent) or even lost a pet (I've experienced that). I guess the angst has to be realistic in order for me to relate.

I think this is a yes and no kinda dealio. Yes, because people who are happy can be more fun than ones who dwell on things too much, but no because if they are happy all the time it is annoying. Stephanie Brown from Batman comics is a good example. She's probably the least angsty Batman character ever and never stops being positive but she's continually fun because she does have worries and problems. She always wants to impress people, she has a lot of parental issues and often doubts herself in extreme situations. Not very angsty, but still a very relatable character.