Is Your Character Too Perfect?
12 years ago
"A man is about as happy as he makes up his own mind to be." - A. Lincoln
I was re-reading “The Power of Myth”, a book containing the transcripts of conversations/interviews between Bill Moyers (a prominent journalist) and John Campbell (a recognized authority on myths and mythical symbolism) at Skywalker Ranch back in 1985 and 1986.
In it, Campbell made the comment that “… the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting …. It is the imperfections that are loveable.” And I will add, that it is those imperfections that make the human being knowable.
Many years ago, I was a semi-addict to the pleasures of the mucks (online role-playing entirely through texting) and was to be found almost nightly on Tapestries. Many was the night that stretched into the dawn hours with me spent typing feverishly as I and someone (or someones) else in some part of the real world as we played our characters together in a shared imaginary world entirely through the written word.
One of the occurrences that occasionally happened in role-playing was when you came across a character who no matter what your character engaged in some form of “conflict” with, no matter your character realistically did, always managed (through his player) to dodge the sucker punch, know that his drink was drugged, or somehow knew that there was a monster behind the about-to-be opened closet door and so was never played as being caught off guard. This was called “power playing” and was roundly considered very poor role-playing.
In clicking through today’s submissions here on Fur Affinity, I happily was directed to a hitherto unknown artist’s page where I found a lively interesting “world” of characters. I always enjoy seeing character reference sheets, since it is fun to see how other artists visually present their characters. This artist (like most other artists here) presented a list of the character’s physical features (height, weight, eye color, etc.) and a thumbnail of the character’s likes & dislikes.
I noticed that almost all characters that appear in the images on these character sheets, in those lists of their physical features and likes & dislikes, are nearly all perfect; a super “hero” of sorts. Physical specimens directly out of bodybuilding magazines, their “bits” immodestly above average, and the calm self-assurance displayed in school or gym shower rooms only by the most feature-lucky.
Now I am not sounding a call for “gritty realism” cause we all get that every day, and most of us (including me) are not worthy of having a character sheet of what we look like sans clothing worth any artist's graphic depiction.
“Real” characters, or characters whose creators want to be accepted by an audience as being “real”, usually have some imperfections, flaws or weaknesses. Superman had Kryptonite, Iron Man (up until recently) had the palladium that was powering his armored suit slowly killing him, and most other super heroes had the vulnerability of their secret identity to worry about. Incidentally, did you notice how Tony Stark (and the screenwriter) shot that old cliché down when Tony publicly announced, “I am Iron Man”?
Therefore, I would like to see two other entries in artist’s listings of their character’s features on their reference sheets.
“Imperfection/flaw in character that the character is aware of“,
and
“Imperfection/flaw in character that everyone else is aware of”.
In it, Campbell made the comment that “… the only way you can describe a human being truly is by describing his imperfections. The perfect human being is uninteresting …. It is the imperfections that are loveable.” And I will add, that it is those imperfections that make the human being knowable.
Many years ago, I was a semi-addict to the pleasures of the mucks (online role-playing entirely through texting) and was to be found almost nightly on Tapestries. Many was the night that stretched into the dawn hours with me spent typing feverishly as I and someone (or someones) else in some part of the real world as we played our characters together in a shared imaginary world entirely through the written word.
One of the occurrences that occasionally happened in role-playing was when you came across a character who no matter what your character engaged in some form of “conflict” with, no matter your character realistically did, always managed (through his player) to dodge the sucker punch, know that his drink was drugged, or somehow knew that there was a monster behind the about-to-be opened closet door and so was never played as being caught off guard. This was called “power playing” and was roundly considered very poor role-playing.
In clicking through today’s submissions here on Fur Affinity, I happily was directed to a hitherto unknown artist’s page where I found a lively interesting “world” of characters. I always enjoy seeing character reference sheets, since it is fun to see how other artists visually present their characters. This artist (like most other artists here) presented a list of the character’s physical features (height, weight, eye color, etc.) and a thumbnail of the character’s likes & dislikes.
I noticed that almost all characters that appear in the images on these character sheets, in those lists of their physical features and likes & dislikes, are nearly all perfect; a super “hero” of sorts. Physical specimens directly out of bodybuilding magazines, their “bits” immodestly above average, and the calm self-assurance displayed in school or gym shower rooms only by the most feature-lucky.
Now I am not sounding a call for “gritty realism” cause we all get that every day, and most of us (including me) are not worthy of having a character sheet of what we look like sans clothing worth any artist's graphic depiction.
“Real” characters, or characters whose creators want to be accepted by an audience as being “real”, usually have some imperfections, flaws or weaknesses. Superman had Kryptonite, Iron Man (up until recently) had the palladium that was powering his armored suit slowly killing him, and most other super heroes had the vulnerability of their secret identity to worry about. Incidentally, did you notice how Tony Stark (and the screenwriter) shot that old cliché down when Tony publicly announced, “I am Iron Man”?
Therefore, I would like to see two other entries in artist’s listings of their character’s features on their reference sheets.
“Imperfection/flaw in character that the character is aware of“,
and
“Imperfection/flaw in character that everyone else is aware of”.
FA+

Flaws and imperfections are generally not balanced out by perfections and admirable traits in a one-dimensional cartoon character (like Wile E. Coyote or Bugs Bunny).
While he's attractive, he mostly reflects what I feel is attractive and let's face it, there aren't a huge amount of anthro roo fans out there. I remember I used to spend weeks in Second life trying to get people to hire me back when I used to work as an escort. Noone wanted the roo, but as soon as I switched to something else, people generally tended to hire me.
I've never wanted Zid to be perfect. Even in my most recent roleplay sessions, Zid was far from perfect. I let him make mistake, wanted him to, because mistakes and how we learn from-or don't learn from them-are part of what gives us-and our characters-character. Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?
I think people godmode because there are two groups of people in life-those who want the power to control others, and those who don't. I don't want to control others. I don't want the responsibility and I sure as hell don't want to be bored. Life is boring when you get everything you want.
In an admirable sense, imperfections and flaws serve as a challenge to us (or our characters) and demonstrate what we (or they) are made of as people. Do we/they give up and accept them, or do we get up and try to change them?
I don't particularly go and make my characters perfect. like you quoted, it's the imperfections that make people interesting; a perfect face would look artifical. but I also don't go and add extensive lists of likes and dislikes, though sometimes it would add to the critter depicted. I play that by ear, sotosay. :)
All stories revolve around a character solving a problem. If part of the problem is some part of the character him/herself, then the story problem just gets much more interesting because of it. The little fellow, who can barely lift the sword, decides to go out and battle the dragon gets us curious as to how he is going to do it. Much more curious than perhaps of the big muscular brute wearing a suit of armour’s chances of succeeding does.
Well what you think, is he perfect? I dont think so (added glasses to him later btw(wearing glasses myself)
How does he consider himself? Imperfect and flawed? Or is he somewhat conceited about who and what he has been made into?
How do other people react to him? A “monster” because of his artificially enlarged “bits”? Or in some way attractive because of what he has been made into?
And his family and boyfriend are the only persons which knowing his past, i think some people are scared because of his "bits" but also some liking it.
Heck, as kids we played Cowboys and Indians, G.I. Joe (or Johann or Ivan or Tommy), or House (as Mommys and Daddys), or in the privacy of our bed rooms pantomimed the part of wildly celebrated Rock Stars to music hits we played on our stereos, and the capabilities we gave ourselves in that fun make-believe were limitless and not necessarily realistic!!
Part of the purpose of having an imagination (so the scientists tell us) is to “dry run” problems and possibilities through our minds in advance of them actually happening. In this way we have some rough idea of what to do when those imagined events actually happen to us.
As we get older we begin to factor in certain “facts” such as light sabers not exist quite yet and make imaginary substitutions of AK-47s, or that we probably couldn’t really flip a tank over with our bare hands or as a “Mommy” we went to the hospital one day and “got” a baby to bring home the next day. Those flaws and imperfections interfere with our perfect make-believe stories we are playing, but as we grow older they serve to help us suspend our disbelief. We know that babies are “made” in other ways and … well we “up-grade” our game playing ... and I guess where we get our first exposure with real life porn. :-D
Dominus tecum
In some primitive societies scars are a badge of honor or sign of having reached adulthood.
Dominus tecum
-
-
-
- I have Josef Alreya and Dreysanius Acrutar, as well as Parondor Calhoren who (while not paralyzed), cannot get out of bed without help
But I will concede your Down Syndrome furry.
Dominus tecum
For an artist then it is your job to show how those imperfections and flaws change the way the character deals with life.
It would seem that in the structured society that you mention (that pretends to be something than what it actually is) those personal flaws of your character would be general and not just his. Other people would recognized them because they themselves had them and so would secretly consider your character to be nothing out of the ordinary (and certainly not “flawed”) because of having them. Only the “controllers” of that society would condemn him or anyone else who did not match up to the (unattainable) “idol” of social perfection.
Part of the benefit of being in Furry should be that it is a place where we all can exchange ideas or be inspired by someone else’s ideas or thoughts.
When it comes to writing those characters for a story or comic, they can still do okay, so long as there is a source of conflict. Think of Superman as a prime example. His generally "perfect" nature is actually at the source of his problems, in some cases. In dealing with that, there is actually character growth. I tend to find it disappointing when Superman runs into things that are obviously overpowered, just to hurt him. It defies what the original character was intended to convey. But I digress.
Having "perfect" characters is fine, until you start involving other people. Collaborative stories and roleplaying exchanges rely on compromise and both ends to "give" to the story. That doesn't happen when either participant shields his character (and ego) from hurt by powergaming. 'Tis a big no-no. And also hella boring for the guy on the other end. And if both are doing it, it becomes a disastrous mangle of "I win; No, I win".
A great majority of my characters are built with interaction in mind, so they have personality quirks. They still tend to be physically idyllic, but the shapes and looks change depending on context.
In writing, can there be character growth (i.e., change) in a “perfect” character? What can any change in perfection be? Un-perfection? Degeneration?
Singular characters, who as you say, do not interact in any way with other characters can be perfect since there is nothing in their existence that is imperfect. Hence the plethora of drawings showing single-characters standing, laying, or sitting by themselves alone. “I am that I am.”
Then if two characters are portrayed as being in an agreed-upon “relationship” then all differences are assumed to have been agreed to and a perfectly balanced state achieved in their world and universe.
However, as soon as three or more characters are created the possibility of imbalance (imperfection in physical or psychological nature) in the characters can exist. Are the characters aware of what it is in them that creates that “imbalance“? Are others aware of the “flaw” in that character that creates the “imbalance“?
“Imbalance” creates the potential for change in the character and the character’s world (i.e., the story). Potential is the stuff of dramatic stories.
That's an example, anyway. I suppose another is the Mary Jane v Bus Full of Kids dilemma. Save one? Save the other? Try to save both but risk failure and losing all? A world of conflict inflicts the possibility of character realization, even for the "perfect" character.
Heh, as one of my friends has instilled in me: Trauma breeds Drama.
While the character may suffer angst over his occasional inability to solve all of his charge’s “problems”, I do not think that inability qualifies as a “flaw” in the perfect character‘s character.
Alfred Hitchcock described drama as ‘Life, but with the boring bits cut out.’
Just going down the list of my own creations:
A strong, steady gent who still manages to have relationship problems, since he has this habit of picking rivals with a penchant for wandering.
A well-versed bard that happens to be immortal, but said immortality is bound to a goddess of desire that compels him to follow people of great impulse and lead them into danger. A wealth of knowledge and a love of stories, but tragedy haunts him.
And then there's a D&D character I had stuck in my head for two years. Village ransaked, saved by a mentor trying to turn him into an assassin, guilt, soldier, conflicted morals that are far too black-and-white... I loved the little guy. He's one that grew so much during the time he was played.
Those are far more interesting to me than Mr. Kent. ^_^
Now however with pop psychiatry vogue and motion pictures being turned out by self-indulgent Hollywood screenwriters & directors, each character is a neurotic escapee from the psychiatrist’s couch complete with phobias, neurosis’ and childhood traumas -- all of which justify their actions, and remove all responsibility and guilt from the character. And for some reason we accept that as the way things are or should be. Do whatever you feel like dong if you are "bruised" inside.
Nobody works through their problems and comes out a better stronger person these days.
(Side note: that's something that bothers the f*** out of me in alternative music. Got time to whine about your life by dragging three friends into it and composing/playing a song? Got time enough to FIX IT and move on. )
Who can identify with a perfect someone who is “faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound“?
The people in interesting stories are not perfect; maybe they are even flawed in some way, but still manage to solve the story’s problem.
Bilbo was a not-very-tall not-very-brave hobbit but who stuck with the daunting task before him with what little he had, and eventually succeeded. These are the characters we like-wise fallible humans can identify with and keep in our minds as we daily face our own problems in our real life. These are the modern-day myths we can live by and be inspired to achieve more than we might think we can.
Also an interesting would be as well "what do they do?"
Speaking of that, you Find yourself across many godmodders when looking forward to take part on RP, that's one time when there are (ironically) issues with a perfect characters, and so is with stories and such.
Certainly, a good story or RP requires character development.
The more you can write about or actually experiment with the better.
The little fellow in a group of large muscular not-too-bright characters is forced to develop diplomatic skills to get along, and slowly begins to be acknowledged (and respected) by the rest of the group as the Go-To Person for the answers that they can not come up with on their own. Eventually he becomes the group leader's second-in-command.
But do you know what? Just like the skinny weak kid has to strain to lift the barbell, the effort eventually builds muscle (and personal determination). For the perfect person or character who does not have to strain to do anything, they very often never go beyond the “If I want it, it should be given to me without any effort on my part” mental stage.
They never grow up. They remain children all of their lives waiting for someone else to give them what they want. While their looks last, they do receive what they want, but when their looks begin to fade or there are younger, cuter, or more vigorous young people arriving on the scene -- these “children” are quickly forgotten. As an example, search for all the child stars of all those TV comedy/drama shows that once were so adorable and envied. Where are they now? Perfect characters are also like that.
What matters is what effect they have. If none at all then it simply makes the character even less credible.
If too much of an effect one might end up with no story at all, or a mere pity-party.
We still look a few seconds longer at the poor unfortunate who “walks funny” as they pass us because they have a club foot. The shorter candidate has been proven to be less likely to be elected than his/her taller opponent. Feature-lucky people tend to make earn more money over the span of their lifetime than feature un-lucky people. Would the effects of those life-altering flaws affect the character who has to deal with them? Do other people respond differently to the flawed characters? Statistics say that they do.
If a flawed character gives up and crumbles under the weight and effect of their disadvantages, then as you say, ‘there is no story, or at most it is a mere a pity-party’. But what about the flawed character who not only is able to work past their flaws but is able to solve the story’s “problem” as well? Isn’t that an interesting character?
Isn’t drawing or portraying interesting characters what good story-telling is all about? Weak little David and Unstoppable Goliath, Jack and the Bean Stalk, Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, the “Hunchback of Notre Dame”, “Beauty and the Beast”, the “Hobbit”, “Lord of the Rings” etc.
I'm the first to admit, I'm a pretty flawed person, IRL, so most of my characters end
up with a flaw or two, for the simple reason that it comes very naturally to me.
Only one or two have anything approaching the fabled Tragic Flaw, most are just
your normal, everyday people. Writing perfect people, is like writing a totally evil
villain. It gets boring very fast, because without something to related to, it's really
hard to bring them to life in a way that readers can easily believe.
Here's just a minor sampling.
Chris, is like Peter Pan, without his happy thoughts, he can't fly. If something makes him
loose faith in the world around him badly enough, the piebald mouse will emotionally fall
out of the sky, ending up in a severe depression. It doesn't happen as often, these days,
because he's been happily married for years, but it still, does happen.
For Shaun "Wildly Sexy" Wessex, cosplaying an anime style leopard-boy, has become
so easy, it's like breathing, but he is still human, and adopted, after both his parents
were killed in a botched extortion attempt. There are still times when he wakes up,
in the middle of the night, aching for his birth parents, and wondering what his life
would have been like, had he grown up the typical, suburban boy, he once was."
We all have problems; some of which we create for ourselves by bad choices and some of which are handed to us at birth. So what? Again, the character who marches through chapter after chapter of a story chanting “I have a problem! I have a problem!” is as much of a bore as someone who wrongly thinks he is funny 24/7.
A character who is flawed in some way becomes interesting to the reader when he/she tries to overcome that flaw and “carry on” as best they can rather than wallowing in self-pity or with a feeling of entitlement because of their flaw. "I have a flaw and so I am entitled to treat everyone around me like poop!"
Oh and BTW, having one’s parents being dead pre-story seems to be a much over-played “flaw” for characters in Literature (and in too many furry stories) don’t you think? It may have provided a believable character motivation for Bruce Wayne way back in l939 when the Batman comic first came out, but I really doubt that it stirs much sympathy in today’s readers, furry or otherwise.
As for whether or not it's believable, the fact that both his birth parents were murdered, was the only way
I used the Bruce Wayne parents-getting-murdered example of the (IMO) much over-used character “flaw” since I felt most folks here are familiar with the character and the death of his parents serving as motivation for his caped alter ego.
I did not mention the female co-major character in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” having had her parents killed in a car crash when she was quite young because I felt that the majority of folks here are unfamiliar with that character or the story.
Likewise, I did not mention Jim Hawkins, the young major character from Robert Lewis Stevenson’s “Treasure Island” as having only one parent -- who does not appear in the story.
Nor did I bring up the fact that even Superman’s parents were killed off in the first chapter of his story. Even naïve and innocent Luke Skywalker’s adoptive parents get snuffed before his story got under way.
Why can’t the character’s parents simply have abandoned the character in order to run away and join a circus or become rock stars? Or were both kidnapped by pirates (with the kid being left behind)? Or because the parents were doing such a poor job of parenting that the State came to their home one day and took them away to the Bad Parents Camp, while with typical bureaucratic bumbling forgot to take the child who was left to grow up in a hand-to-mouth existence on the streets?
The kill-off-the-character's parents motivation seems too much like the Same Old Thing, character after character, story after story. *yawn*
off the top of your head. Crystalfur "Chris Mouse" Lloyd is my brown and white, mouse boy fursona. As for Shaun Wessex, I need to take that discussion into e-mail, because his full backstory is way to complicated to explain out here. I'll have to talk to
*bows to you for your kind words*
In my own defense, I think I have proven to be a trustworthy receptacle for other peoples’ stories, story ideas, and story characters simply because my own writing skills are so abysmal that I could not take any of those stories or ideas or characters and write a single decent story paragraph with them.