longwritingposts

[longwritingposts]

i honestly dont get why people stopped reblogging things they like on here bc like what are you afraid of??? people thinking youre cringey?? guess what bitch! youre on tumblr! it’s all cringey! reblog everything you like and do it shamelessly no one fuckin cares

[longwritingposts]

living in the midatlantic is like oh you’ve never had lyme do you just not go outside lol

[longwritingposts]

The Dark Side of Social Justice in the Tumblr Writing Community

Today marks the one year anniversary of an incident that happened on this blog that I’m finally ready to talk about again. I’ve made little hints to it here and there but for the most part, I wanted to move on. Now, I feel like enough time has passed that I can have some perspective on what happened.

I was sent a prompt that I thought was worded in a bit of a tactless way but which could be an interesting idea for a story. At the time I thought it could be offensive to gay people but I didn’t want to speak for anyone else so though I mentioned that gay people would find it offensive, I spoke from my own perspective as a bisexual - which I had done before to a positive reception. I also mentioned the split attraction model and bi erasure - again, I had talked about this before with no negative responses. The next day I woke to a shitstorm. People were sending me violent messages and reblogging my posts with accusations of lesbophobia and rape apologetics.

I hemorrhaged followers for about a week. Looking back, I know I handled it poorly. At the time, I thought an open discussion was the right way to go but I was wrong. I should have responded privately to individuals who weren’t on anon and once I actually understood how everyone felt, made one response post and then moved on.

But I ended up making the situation worse by turning what is supposed to be a blog for writing prompts into a forum to air grievances. One follower even told me they could see both sides of the issue and the whole thing gave them anxiety.

The blog has since recovered and no one brings it up anymore but I haven’t forgotten it. During the mayhem, people searched my blog for prompts related to lesbians and found this really old one, which further fuelled their accusations of lesbophobia. I don’t apologise for that prompt. I labeled it as “not pc” and it was inspired by a joke from Orange is the New Black. Yes, it is very controversial but it could be written in a sensitive way. I was told that the only prompts on my blogs about lesbians were rapey or focused on conversion therapy, which totally ignores this prompt posted months earlier but what can you do?

The point that I tried to make last year was that tropes are not bad. Story ideas or premises on their own are not bad. Tropes are tools. You can use tools to cause damage but you can also use them constructively.

People who come out as gay and realise they’re not later in life exist. People who think they are straight, and later in life fall for someone if the same sex exist. There is an honest, sensitive way to write that.

As a writer, this not only demonstrates the toxicity and low tolerance of outrage culture, but also why pop culture criticism often misses the point. Culture criticism is concerned with the morals and lessons we learn from our media. The Jonathan McIntoshes and Anita Sarkeesians of the world seem to think media should be teaching people how to treat each other, should always serve as a positive example, and while yes, stories do influence and shape us, and can be a way to express a certain point of view, that isn’t the point. The point is to tell stories and create interesting, engaging and relatable characters. If every single story was an after school special, it would suck. Again, this doesn’t mean stories can’t or shouldn’t have a positive message but my worry is that this mindset is causing self-censorship among writers.

That doesn’t mean you can’t be offended or express that you are offended. But people were so swept up in condemning me I think they forgot that I m a human being. Instead, they treated me like an enemy, as if allowing that story to be written would have been a hate crime.

I think it's pretty safe to say I fucked up on this occasion, but the way many people reacted was way out of line, and not the tolerant, compassionate response SJWs pride them themselves on. We can all do better.

[longwritingposts]

How much creative license should an author be allowed to take with a preexisting concept?

 Answer to this question from @splatman7300 

Authors should take as much license as they need to whilst still keeping concepts recognisable. If it’s so different that there;’s no trace left of the original concept, it’s probably better to use a different name.

Keeping them recognisable does not necessarily mean staying true to the original source material. A lot of the qualities we associate with vampires come from old movies from the early 20th century. So, the two easy options here are to stick to the original source material or model your concepts on popular ideas of that concept. Either way, you can’t be faulted for changing the concept too much.

Either Scott Browne or Scott Kenemore (can’t remember which one) has said, on audience attitudes towards zombies: “They don’t like it when they run. They Don’t like it when they’re fun. They don’t like it when they’re smart. They don’t like it when they have a heart.”

Again, those are the easy options. Creative license is exactly that, it’s your license to be as creative as you need to be. Let’s look at Basilisks for example. In mythology, a Basilisk is a hybrid of a chicken and a snake. In Harry Potter, it’s just a giant snake. This didn’t hurt the franchise and it didn’t make the Basilisk any less intimidating or threatening (and now I’m imagining Harry fighting a giant chicken and I’m chuckling).

On the other hand, there are the Twilight Vampires. There are many versions of vampires from different cultures and mythologies across time, and across popular culture. Not only is it ok to have your own spin on vampires, it’s basically guaranteed that you will due to the broad range of traits available.  The problem with the Twilight vampires is not that they’re different from what we’re used to. It’s that they have no weaknesses. The only way to kill a Twilight Vampire is by tearing them up and burning the pieces. Burning the pieces. Do you know what that implies? That the pieces could somehow reform somehow. Or that they could regenerate.

Now that I think about it, there’s a lot of good material here for a great villain. And while there are vampire villains in Twilight, the main vampires are supposed to be the good guys. We’re supposed to be able to identify with them. How are we supposed to identify with someone super strong, super fast with basically no weaknesses other than the thirst for human blood? they don’t even need to go to the toilet. I’m not making that up. (I know, right? Where the fuck does the blood go?)

So I think that when you’re looking at supernatural characters, the need to identify with them is more important than the need to recognise superficial traits.

Ultimately, it’s up to you.   You need to look at what works for your story, characters and settings.

[longwritingposts]

Writing Injuries Realisitically

Contains spoilers for ANGEL, THE SERIES, SEASON 2.

Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor. I barely remember my first aid course. Also, I do talk about self-harm a bit towards the end for those of you who are easily triggered.

How to Fight Write is a great reference for things like this. Check out their injury tag here.

As I thought about what I could bring to this topic I realised that most people are not medical professionals. Odds are, the majority of your audience will be laypeople when it comes to the human anatomy. So, as much as you should research this stuff to keep it as Realistic as possible, no one is expecting you to have a PH.D. in medicine. People are usually willing to suspend their belief for minor things if the story is good enough, and if it’s really minor or mostly plausible they may not even notice slight inaccuracies.

Keeping things accurate matters to the extent that you don’t yank your reader out of the story. This is why beta readers and editors are so important, because as authors, we’re so inside of our stories that we’re more likely to miss certain things that might be glaringly obvious to a reader. For this post, I’m just going to briefly touch on things that I personally notice in fiction (feel free to add anything you have observed in relation to this topic that is often portrayed incorrectly) that can be distracting.

Pain

“This is real life. You can’t put your hand through a glass window and have it not hurt.” - Last Action Hero, written by Alexander Lum.

If your central nervous system is working properly, you feel pain. There are medical conditions that render people unable to feel pain. Nerve damage can make certain parts of our bodies numb to pain. Damage to the spinal cord hinders our ability to feel pain. Certain drugs/medications (including alcohol) can relieve or even mute pain. I’ve heard that adrenaline can also have an impact on your ability to feel pain but you’d have to look them up because I’m actually not too sure about that.

Generally, though, injuries hurt (depending on their location and severity). Some people have a higher pain threshold than others, or more muscle or fat that allows them to tolerate more pain than someone smaller. Some people may have experience in pain management or simply be used to pain.

Characters who don’t feel pain without a canonical reason are too perfect and do not feel like real people. You can have a tough-as-nails character who still feels physical pain. In fact, feeling pain and not stopping what you’re doing is pretty badass.

Also, a quick word on vaginas:

Yeah, ok, you probably weren’t expecting me to go there, but this is a pet peeve of mine, particularly in film. Getting kicked in the vagina usually hurts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fairly certain it’s not the same as being kicked in the balls. Usually, it doesn’t incapacitate you in the same way. Just because most vaginas don’t come with a pair of testes doesn’t mean they are impervious to pain, however. Quite the contrary. Vaginas are full of sensitive nerve endings. So if your character gets injured in the vagina, don’t write it like it doesn’t hurt at all, because it does.

Bleeding

If a character starts bleeding, you need to find a way to stop the bleeding, indicate that the bleeding stopped on its own or let the character die. I’m not talking about small cuts but I know I notice if a character starts to bleed on page three and they’re jumping on a pogo-stick on page seven with no explanation for how or if the bleeding stopped.

Also, blood has a tendency to stain. Blood gets everywhere. Chances are, a bleeding character is going to leave a bit of a mess on clothes, furniture, floors, roads, the ground, door handles, etc.

Survival

The human body is capable of surviving an incredible amount of things. However, if a character is shot ten times in the head, unless it’s some kind of Scifi show, readers won’t accept them being completely fine other than a splitting headache. Part of what makes survival stories so powerful is understanding how the individual survived. On the flip-side, if you make it look like a character is dead but there’s no body, readers will usually automatically assume they’re alive.

Incapacitation

Angel: “Do you know how hard it is to think straight with a rebar through your torso? ” Cordelia: “Actually, I do. Benefits of a Sunnydale education.”

Angel, the series - Untouched

Everyone has a breaking point, even beings with supernatural abilities. At least, they should (one of the main reasons the Twilight vampires are so annoying). Of course, the stronger, more experienced and more resilient a character is, the more they are willing to take, but eventually, given enough of a beating, or enough power behind simply one blow, everyone has a point of vulnerability.

Again, I am not a doctor, but someone who has a concussion - or injuries that realistically would cause concussion - is not going to be able to jump off of a train into a car and then start driving it expertly to avoid the bad guys.

Someone who just got shot three times is not going to be jumping into the sack with the sexy love interest twenty minutes after being “patched up”, even if they were in the mood after that sort of ordeal and the love interest does most of the work.

If it works for your story to have your character constantly injured, that’s fine, but the consequences need to be shown. Even when vampire Angel got shot, it would still hurt. Bullet wounds weren’t fatal to him and would heal quickly once the bullet was removed but he still needed to be patched up initially. Depending on how many bullets he took, it may take longer to heal. Pain and injuries took an obvious physical toll and he was tortured several times through the series. Angel was a hero on the road to redemption through self-sacrifice. None of these ordeals, such as the trials he endured to restore Darla’s life, would have had the same impact if he were invulnerable .

Scars

Some wounds leave scars and some don’t depending on the depth and severity of the initial wound and also how well it heals. Someone who’s been shot twice with surgeries to have the bullets removed are probably going to have physically visible reminders of all of those things. Scars can fade over time, though they never go away completely. They can become barely visible.

I used to be a cutter. I never got too serious or too deep with it but I did do it. This was about ten years ago. I have fair skin and the scars have faded to a very pale white. No one else can spot them any more. I can still see them just barely, because I know what to look for. The scars remain but they can be practically invisible to most people.

Scars can make the effected area numb or more sensitive depending on the circumstances.

In Conclusion

Again, it’s important to remember that I’m not a doctor. This is just basic stuff that your average reader will notice. To be completely accurate, you really need to do research.

[longwritingposts]

Writing LGBT Characters

I had written about 2000 words about LGBT+ people filled with facts and common misconceptions and explanations of as many different groups as I could think of in response to this topic. Then I realised, I was going about this completely the wrong way. Because research is, of course, the first port of call for someone writing about something with which they are unfamiliar. This is tumblr, for crying out loud. There are so many resources on this site alone, let alone outside on the wider web. There are books, articles, essays, documentaries, you name it. Anyone who wants to learn about the LGBT experience - who really wants to learn - can do so. No two experiences are exactly the same and therefore, it’s good to find as many different perspectives as possible. It’s also good to look up harmful and problematic tropes so that you can avoid or subvert them.

So, why is it so hard? Why is it such a challenge to write about queer characters? Why does anon think so many people do it wrong?

It all comes back to one of the most misunderstood pieces of writing advice: “Write what you know - and if you don’t know, find out.”

Part 1: You already Know How to Write LGBT Characters

So let’s say you’re a cis, straight writer who wants to depict LGBT+ characters. In this scenario, you have no idea what it’s like to be LGBT+. So, You decide you will have to find out. You do your research. You watch, you read and you speak to people in the group you wish to represent. Does this mean you’re ready to write LGBT+ characters?

Well, there’s just one more step. One important step writers don’t think about twice when writing characters they feel they can relate to but when they are depicting the “other”, i.e. people who have largely different life experiences in society they suddenly forget to do. You need to understand how your character thinks. Not just what people like your character think, but how your character thinks. What is your character like? As a person? Do you purely base this on their sexual or gender identity?

I hate to break it to you, but the human brain doesn’t really work that way. As a straight person, do you go around thinking about your straightness all the time? As a cis person, does your gender matching your sexual organs effect the way you go about your day? Or do you have an identity outside of your gender and sexuality? Do you have goals, relationships, hobbies and interests outside of who you’re attracted to and what your gender is?

What I’m trying to say is, you understand LGBT people much better than you think you do, because you know what it’s like to be human. You know what it’s like to feel pain, hope, love, compassion, all the universal human experiences that span across gender identity and sexual orientation.

So what you need to do is find out who your character is as a full and complete person and not just their experiences as an LGBT person (though it’s important to develop that as accurately as possible, as well). If you can already write three dimensional characters, develop character arcs and write character interactions you should be able to do the same thing for your queer characters.

Because I am not gay, or demisexual, or asexual, or aro, or trans, or genderqueer or Intersex, I can’t speak to those experiences. So, I encourage you to find people and resources that can. Fly, my pretties, fly!

Part 2: Writing Bisexual Characters

I can, however, speak to my own experience as a bisexual. I can’t speak for all bisexuals, I can only speak for myself.

Bisexuals are not confused

It is not uncommon to question your sexuality, particularly if you are not heterosexual. Most people experience confusion about their orientation at some point. Bisexuals and pansexuals are often even more confused because we are brought up in a society that is mononormative. If we are attracted to the opposite sex, we are straight. If we are attracted to the same sex, we are gay. There is no in-between, no nuance. So the common assertion that bisexuals are confused is often accurate before we come out because it is very confusing to feel one thing and be told another your whole life.

However - and I recently wrote a prompt about this - by the time we come out as bisexual, the confusion part is over. So once a person actually identifies as bisexual, they are not “confused”. They are not “kidding themselves”. Being bisexual is not a stepping stone to coming out as gay. I do not deny that this can be the experience of some gay people, that coming out as bi can be easier than coming out as gay. But that is not everyone’s experience. We have found a word we identify with that we feel best describes us.

Not all bisexual people are promiscuous.

I’m not slut-shaming people who are. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with sleeping with lots of people as long as it’s safe and consensual. But bisexuality doesn’t mean you date twice as many people or that you don’t believe in monogamy. Do you just date redheads? Or are you also attracted to people with dark hair and blonde hair as well? That is basically what it is like to be bisexual. It is a range of attraction, not a personality trait.

Also, just because someone is bisexual does not mean they will leave their same-sex partner for someone of the opposite sex or their opposite partner for the same sex. That is ridiculous. Are you going to leave your white girlfriend for an Asian just because your ex-girlfriend was of Asian descent? That is how crazy that sounds to us.

Not all bisexual people are polyamorous

Again there is nothing wrong with that and I think there should be more stories about polyamory. But it’s not every bisexual person’s experience. We don’t all engage in threesomes, either.

Bisexual erasure

Finally, I should probably address bisexual erasure. Basically, it’s ok to use the “B” word. Or the “P” word. Or the “D” word, come to that. If your character dates a woman, that doesn’t undermine or cancel out their past attractions to men, or vice versa. For some reason, people are terrified of having characters that are not monosexual even if that’s where their writing takes them. Listen to your characters and let them be who they are.

Bisexual erasure may sound like a conspiracy theory but as bisexuals, we are a little tired of being told that we don’t exist. All bisexuals get treated this way in fiction and society as a whole, but particularly bisexual men. It’s impossible for Iceman to be bisexual, he has to be “full-gay” but it’s ok because his relationships with women didn’t work out so that makes him gay, ‘cause that’s how orientation works, right? We can totally retcon decades worth of history to say that Bobby just didn’t want to be persecuted further and that’s why he never showed an inkling of being gay in all that time. And it’s totally cool for other people to decide what your orientation is for you as long as they can read your mind, right?

Fuck that.

I believe as much in sexual fluidity as the next person and something along the lines of the Kinsey scale can be very helpful. But just deciding to make a character who has always been written as straight gay rather than developing them as bisexual, which would make more sense nine times out of ten, is deliberate bisexual erasure.

A bisexual person in a same-sex relationship is still bisexual, as is a bisexual in an opposite sex relationship. No one is forcing you to write bisexual characters if you don’t want to, but don’t go out of your way to negate our existence.

[longwritingposts]

There is so much I could say about writing villains, as well as if villains even need to be evil or what it means to be evil, a word that gets thrown around a lot; but I’m going to stay focused on the specific question of motivation. Also, to be clear, the villain doesn’t always have to be the antagonist and the hero doesn’t always have to be the protagonist, but again, I’m going with your specific circumstances.

What leads a person to be evil depends on what you think qualifies as “evil”. Your own opinions and biases will influence the way you write your character. If you think that an evil person is someone completely self-centred with contempt for other human beings and no conscience, than you believe people can just be born evil. No accountability, no backstory, that’s just the way they are.

If, on the other hand, like me, you believe someone who chooses to do evil things is choosing to be evil, than want you want to find is why they are making those choices. So what is your villain doing that makes them the villain, the foil for your protagonist? Why are they doing this? What is their goal? Do they even have a goal or do they just enjoy creating random chaos?

There can be a lot of crossover, but generally the main reasons people do bad things are:

Ambition/thirst for power Greed Revenge/retaliation They believe their actions are for the greater good Survival To save/protect someone or something they care about Because they think it’s funny Fear

Your villain’s motive can be any one of these or a combination of several. What you want to do is find a motive for their actions that actually makes sense. For example, your villain is probably not going to try to take over the world simply because the protagonist called them fat. That makes no sense. That’s not o say your villain can’t be acting irrationally or impulsively. But you need to develop, show and make that clear to the reader, and explore that part of the character or the reasons behind it.

You haven’t specified if this a speculative story or not, and that could also impact on motivation, because having supernatural powers can corrupt characters in fantasy and Scifi, especially if it comes from a dark source.

I can’t really tell you what motives are going to work for your character with the little information you’ve provided about the villain and story. If you know your story and you know your villain, the motive should become clear. I suggest drawing out an outline so that you have a basic idea of the events in your story, and coming up with a character sheet for your villain. Where are they from? How did they grow up? What is their greatest ambition? Their greatest fear? What do they enjoy? How do they respond to different situations? What annoys them? Who were the most important people in their life?

I would like to caution you not to fall into the “daddy hit me so now I’m evil” trope. Childhood trauma - or any trauma - on its down does not make people evil. Again, it’s about choices. So if something traumatic is the catalyst for your villain to make what you see as bad choices, why? What is it about that character or the circumstances that causes them to react this way?

Lastly, keep in mind that many villains don’t see themselves as the villain. They believe their actions are justified. Other villains, such as Serenity’s Operative, know they’re are the villain but still believe themselves to be a “necessary evil”. Of course there are those who know they’re evil and just don’t care, or hate themselves so much that they figure they might as well be evil.

No matter what your villain’s reason for being “evil”, make sure they still come off as three dimensional characters (unless you’re writing farce or satire).

Good luck with your story! I hope that’s helped.

Stay tuned for some villain prompt lists sometime before the weekend to give you some more ideas.

[longwritingposts]

Yeah.

you literally post shit only about snape. other characters are good for you except snape. It happens rarely but damn it's annoying. be more positive and don't get involved in hate. grow up as a blog and as people who run it.

Oh good, having opinions about fictional character is immature now! Your advice, though unsolicited, is much appreciated, anon. But I’m not gonna heed it. Snape wasn’t a good teacher; if you need receipts on that, you can skim through your books. All 7 of them. There’s examples in each one. I feel no guilt whatsoever about reblogging a post that points that out. It’s not hateful, it’s merely me being agreeable.

Have a great day, though!

-Ashley

[longwritingposts]

Yay I'm not a psychopath!

Psychopaths facts - WTF fun facts

[longwritingposts]

Crossing Genres

I am a Taylor Swift fan, and recently she said something that made me a little sad. She criticised herself for not making “sonically cohesive albums” in the past. This has always been one of my favourite things about her work. For example, on Speak Now, you have Mean, the most countrified song she’s ever written, but you also have Enchanted, which is more of an electro-pop track. You have haunted, an epic rock song with strings, but you also have Never Grow Up, a lullaby. I could go on. It really is a great album. It is not a sonically cohesive album. It was still hugely successful when it came out. It connected with fans. I write songs as a hobby. Now, I’m no prolific Grammy winning song writer, so Taylor obviously knows more about music than I do. However, in my opinion, an album doesn’t have to be sonically cohesive in order to be thematically and emotionally cohesive, and Speak Now was. Speak Now was about saying the things that scare you, about confessions, opening yourself up. Whether it’s the bully you were too intimidated to confront in person, that cute guy/girl you were too shy to talk to, that ex you haven’t spoken to in six months or the thirteen-year-old girl you see in the front row of your concert. Thematically the album soars, and it’s one of the few albums I regularly listen to all the way through in track order. When talking about writing across genres during the Fearless era, Taylor said she preferred the term “Spillover” to crossover, because crossover implied you started in one place and ended up in another. I agree. “Spillover” is a great way to put it. I don’t have a publication background, so I can’t advise you on what is the most marketable, commercially viable thing for you to write, but to me, it should be OK to write across multiple genres. It’s done frequently and quite successfully. It should be ok if your period drama “spills over” into Scifi (this is how we got Steampunk), or if you start out writing a comedy and end up writing more of a dramedy. We should not be constricted by the genre we’re writing in. I agree with Taylor that works should be cohesive. Moulin Rouge is a comic tragedy and a musical which can be quite startling to watch, but it stays true to the themes of truth, beauty, freedom and love throughout. We’re more comfortable categorising and labelling things because that’s how the human brain works. “That’s a dog,” “that’s a cat,” that’s a chair". “That’s horror,” “that’s fantasy,” “that’s romance”. Writing is much more fluid than that. Different ideas don’t each “live” in one particular genre. Writing consistently and cohesively shouldn’t prevent us from challenging the confines of genres. Really great stories can come out of it. What are some of your favourite genre-bending stories?

[longwritingposts]

One of the big problems with the Mary Sue label that I didn't discuss is how broad and subjective it is. It's a very difficult trope to pin down. There is no clear-cut definition. What often ends up happening is that even strong, empowered female characters are labelled as Mary Sues. I've heard Buffy described as a Mary Sue, and she saved the world a lot. Ultimately, I don't think the label is constructive or helpful, at least not anymore.

To me, it really just seems like a way to delight in putting writers and their work down. It's much better to address one's specific concerns with a character or piece of writing rather than crying "Mary Sue!" at the drop of a hat.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Do characters need flaws?

I’m about to write something that may make me very unpopular: I don’t believe in the Mary Sue/Marty Stu trope. I think it’s a myth.

The reason I think people may respond unfavourably to this opinion is that “Mary Sue” is a favourite insult on the Internet. People love to label any character they think doesn’t have enough flaws, or is too much like the author, or saves the day “too much” as a Mary Sue. In my opinion, this is stupid. Don’t get wrong, I’m not saying that people who don’t like a certain type of character and express their dislike are stupid.

I’m saying the label of “Mary Sue” itself is stupid and limiting. It’s often aimed at Fanfiction authors experimenting with original characters and can often serve to discourage them from creating their own characters. The Mary Sue trope isn’t just aimed at fanfiction, though.

It has now expanded to include any (usually female) character someone doesn’t like who is not retreated as an antagonist or as annoying in-text/by other characters. For some reason, characters people don’t like being liked by characters they do like is highly offensive to people. Characters they don’t like being appreciated for their efforts or achieving their goals really gets their goat.

Do characters even need flaws? I’d argue no, which is probably another unpopular opinion. Everything we’ve learnt about creating interesting, three dimensional characters suggests otherwise, right? All characters need flaws, don’t they? Not necessarily.

Don’t get me wrong, most characters inherently have flaws any way, to serve the story and to foster drama and character interactions. To make realistic dialogue. To allow readers to identify with them.

However, what constitutes a flaw? Is compassion a flaw? Is empathy a flaw? Is reacting to negative situations with sadness or disappointment a flaw? Is being open to the opinions of others and willing to take on constructive criticism a flaw? Is being angered by injustices a flaw? Is not being liked by everyone a flaw? Is not knowing everything a flaw?

If you think so, then disregard this entire post, because under that definition, it is most likely impossible to write a well-developed, interesting, relatable, believable character who doesn’t have any flaws. However, if you don’t regard these things as flaws, then it is possible for a character without any discernible “flaws” to be upset, to get their feelings hurt, have differences of opinion with other characters, be wrong occasionally and to even get angry.

They can still be human and relatable even without being flawed, at least from a character perspective. From a physical perspective, that’s different. If your story is set in our world, there are certain human limitations that have an impact on everyone, even for a person in perfect health. People still get too cold or too hot, still sustain injuries if they fall over or are attacked, and still get tired after running long distances. People still get hungry and need to use the restroom.

If your story is not set in our world, keep in mind that physical perfection can limit the kinds of stories you can tell and remove suspense, which is why Superman has Kryptonite: he needs some kind of physical weakness or vulnerability. If there is no way for the villain to win the battle, there are no stakes. Without stakes, why should the reader care what happens?

In real life, it’s impossible to be perfect even if you start out with no flaws because in real life, people face choices, ultimatums in which no matter what one decides, one is still responsible for a negative outcome. So, a character that may begin your story without flaws may become flawed through character develop meant, story progression and moral dilemmas presented to her/him. Character arcs can challenge your seemingly flawless character to confront the potential for failure and mis-steps within the heart of every human being.

In conclusion, characters don’t always need flaws, but they do need motivations.

[longwritingposts]

Do characters need flaws?

I’m about to write something that may make me very unpopular: I don’t believe in the Mary Sue/Marty Stu trope. I think it’s a myth.

The reason I think people may respond unfavourably to this opinion is that “Mary Sue” is a favourite insult on the Internet. People love to label any character they think doesn’t have enough flaws, or is too much like the author, or saves the day “too much” as a Mary Sue. In my opinion, this is stupid. Don’t get wrong, I’m not saying that people who don’t like a certain type of character and express their dislike are stupid.

I’m saying the label of “Mary Sue” itself is stupid and limiting. It’s often aimed at Fanfiction authors experimenting with original characters and can often serve to discourage them from creating their own characters. The Mary Sue trope isn’t just aimed at fanfiction, though.

It has now expanded to include any (usually female) character someone doesn’t like who is not treated as an antagonist or as annoying in-text/by other characters. For some reason, characters people don’t like, being liked by characters they do like, is highly offensive to people. Characters they don’t like being appreciated for their efforts, or achieving their goals, really gets their goat.

Do characters even need flaws? I’d argue no, which is probably another unpopular opinion. Everything we’ve learnt about creating interesting, three dimensional characters suggests otherwise, right? All characters need flaws, don’t they? Not necessarily.

Don’t get me wrong, most characters inherently have flaws any way, to serve the story and to foster drama and character interactions. To make realistic dialogue. To allow readers to identify with them.

However, what constitutes a flaw? Is compassion a flaw? Is empathy a flaw? Is reacting to negative situations with sadness or disappointment a flaw? Is being open to the opinions of others and willing to take on constructive criticism a flaw? Is being angered by injustices a flaw? Is not being liked by everyone a flaw? Is not knowing everything a flaw?

If you think so, then disregard this entire post, because under that definition, it is most likely impossible to write a well-developed, interesting, relatable, believable character who doesn’t have any flaws. However, if you don’t regard these things as flaws, then it is possible for a character without any discernible “flaws” to be upset, to get their feelings hurt, have differences of opinion with other characters, be wrong occasionally and to even get angry.

They can still be human and relatable even without being flawed, at least from a character perspective. From a physical perspective, that’s different. If your story is set in our world, there are certain human limitations that have an impact on everyone, even for a person in perfect health. People still get too cold or too hot, still sustain injuries if they fall over or are attacked, and still get tired after running long distances. People still get hungry and need to use the restroom.

If your story is not set in our world, keep in mind that physical perfection can limit the kinds of stories you can tell and remove suspense, which is why Superman has Kryptonite: he needs some kind of physical weakness or vulnerability. If there is no way for the villain to win the battle, there are no stakes. Without stakes, why should the reader care what happens?

In real life, it’s impossible to be perfect even if you start out with no flaws because in real life, people face choices, ultimatums in which no matter what one decides, one is still responsible for a negative outcome. So, a character that may begin your story without flaws may become flawed through character development, story progression and moral dilemmas presented to her/him. Character arcs can challenge your seemingly flawless character to confront the potential for failure and mis-steps within the heart of every human being.

In conclusion, characters don’t always need flaws, but they do need motivations.