Does Explaining Character Flaws Nullify Them?

[Lunarmirage]

So I was having a conversation with my friend about this story I've been writing and I was giving her basic summaries on the characters. Suddenly, she asked me, "Isn't explaining a character's flaws basically making them not as effective?" I'd never thought about this before. For example, the character we were talking about lacks compassion and is apathetic despite her usual carefree and cheerful behavior. She completely disregards other people whenever she chooses to do things (usually on a whim) and doesn't view people as people, often purposely messing with their lives for amusement. This manifests in both ordinary pranks and then full blown emotional attacks. However, the reason for this is because she's immortal and through millenniums of watching humans constantly repeat actions and mistakes, she's slowly grown disconnected from them, to the point where she just stopped caring about them and instead only desires change, whether that be good or bad.

According to my friend, she said that a flaw was a personality trait that existed by choice and that having the flaw result from the past was the same as nullifying it, much like "weak" flaws are nullified by making them lead to something positive, or how "weaknesses," such as being born with a disability, weren't real "flaws" since they weren't by choice. While I agree with her about how making flaws lead to something positive nullifies it and how weaknesses aren't the same as flaws, I never considered that explaining a flaw nullified it, and now it's making me a bit paranoid, especially since this character is meant to be flawed and she's basically the antagonist during the latter half of the game.

Does anyone else have opinions about this? Does explaining a flaw nullify it?

[Kumiho]

In your case (with the goddess), I think it depends on how you portray her apathy. If you use her past to justify her disconnect, then yeah, I can see how people would think less of her flaw. However, if you use her past to explain her disconnect while also implying that the disconnect is still ultimately her own decision & that it's something to be criticized rather than accepted, I think it could work.

I think the same goes for other situations. It's one thing to use the past as an excuse for the present; it's a rather different thing to use the past as background for the present while elaborating on it further as something that's understandable but not excusable / justifiable. Idk, am I making sense?

[YonYonYon]

My advice is not to think of traits as flaws and virtues because any trait can lead to bad or good consequences. By the way, by traits, I mean personality traits, not sicknesses and impairments.

For example, let's say there's a girl who's kind, shy, and polite. These are virtues, right? But what if because she's polite, she can't speak out her mind and that will lead to a disaster for everyone around her? What if because of her kindness she keeps bringing home various wild animals without asking her family and her family suffers from a stench, scratches, bites, parasites and various sicknesses? What if her shyness doesn't allow her to grab the chance to fulfill her dream?

These are flaws now! Magic!



But speaking about the topic, I don't think explaining a flaw nullifies it if you still treat it as a flaw. Like, I don't usually speak up my mind because I was silenced by my big sister a lot when I was a kid, and it gave me many difficulties in my life. It's a flaw that doesn't disappear just because I explained its origin, right? And it's not like I chose to be a pushover, like, I hate it! And it's hard to get rid of it completely, even tho I'm working on it.

Also, thanks for not speaking up, I wasn't beaten up by bullies in school. And if this trait gave me some positive consequences it doesn't mean that all the negative ones are nullified. We are humans with complex multifaceted personalities and traits, with bad and good mixed up. Treat your characters the same way.

[Parataxis]

I don't think your friend is quite correct. I particularly object to the idea that flaws are "a personality traits that existed by choice" because what does that even mean? She's basically discounted both history AND genetics-- the two major contributors to personality. Many of the best and most dynamic flaws come from a characters innate personality as it mixes with their environment. (Ex: a character who is nice and puts others before themselves only comes off as a doormat in a situation where people take advantage of them. A character who is gung-ho is only seen as reckless when there's danger involved.)

But I think she does have a good point she's getting at, which is that you shouldn't make excuses for your character's flaws. There's a real danger, especially when writing characters your audience is supposed to like, to explain away or minimize or apologize for flaws that might sour their impression. Fight This Impulse. Because this defeats the purpose of giving them the flaw in the first place. It might be important for you to know why your character acts like they do, it might even be important for the audience to know the backstory that leads to the character flaw, but if find yourself making excuses to the audience then stop. Let your character stand on their own in all their complexities and they will be more memorable for it.

EDIT: I also agree with YonYonYon on the "there are no flaws only traits that can work out poorly for you" thing, but I've sort of decided that the "Give your character flaws" is just a useful teaching technique for early writers so I don't have to go around stomping it out wherever I see it. But that's a whole different discussion.

[Katy133]

I think Mike Falzone made a good point in this video of his. I'll quote a bit of it below:

The biggest problem [with calling yourself a "nice guy"] is that you're telling someone something that you should be showing them. And if they're not seeing that, [then] telling them that isn't going to make much of a difference. You never have to vocalise what you truly are because that just comes out eventually.

Basically, this means that explaining a character's flaws has the danger of you not properly showing their flaws through their actions. If you say one thing, but the audience sees another (because of the character's actions), then they'll believe what they see over what they're told. Every. Time.

Also, I disagree with the idea that all flaws are created by choice. I mean, even people whose flaws are things like being greedy (Gwizdo in Dragon Hunters), being a dirty coward (Wheatley in Portal 2 or Johnny Powell in The Darkness II), or being horrible to other people (Pacifica in Gravity Falls) shouldn’t be written off as a "bad person by choice." Something in their life led them to this point, you know? For instance, Gwizdo owes a lot of money to people, so he's trying to get money by any means to pay his dept. Wheatley and Powell are weak characters who are forcefully surrounded by violent characters who might kill them at any moment. And Pacifica was brought up by a pair of very snobby parents. How did you expect these people to turn out? Flawless?

I think one of the things your friend was trying to say about "real" flaws versus "weak" flaws was this: A "weak" flaw is a flaw that either a) Doesn't seem to affect the character with negative consequences, or b) Is a "flaw" that can be seen as sweet or endearing (being "clumsy" or "too quiet").

And I agree with this. You can have "weak" flaws, but you still NEED "real" flaws. Otherwise, the character ends up too perfect and the audience will (ironically) dislike their flawlessness.

[Kuiper]

In your case (with the goddess), I think it depends on how you portray her apathy. If you use her past to justify her disconnect, then yeah, I can see how people would think less of her flaw. However, if you use her past to explain her disconnect while also implying that the disconnect is still ultimately her own decision & that it's something to be criticized rather than accepted, I think it could work.

I think this is the big point. Explanation and justification are not the same thing, and even though knowing about a character's tragic past might help us understand them better, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to agree with them. In Breaking Bad, we find out that

drug kingpin Gus Fring had a pretty tortured past--at several points he implies that he and his family were the victim of human rights violations by the Chilean government during the Pinochet regime. His introduction to the drug trade was watching his business partner get murdered in cold blood. Over time, he learned that he too must be ruthless to survive, and he became just as callous and cold-blooded as the man who murdered his business partner.

It's not as if, upon learning about his backstory, we think, "Oh, well, carry on then!" Explaining his past doesn't "nullify" his character flaws in any way; he is still a bad guy who does horrible things, and the fact that he has a tragic and traumatic backstory doesn't change that. His tortured past doesn't justify his actions, but it does help to explain them.

[Lunarmirage]

Yeah, I was also under the impression that simply explaining a flaw didn't affect it unless it was used to justify it.

I've actually never thought about not thinking of flaws being necessarily flaws. I usually just assigned personality traits that ended up being flaws or strengths based on the events of the story. I'll definitely keep all this in mind for the future. Thanks for the advice!

[RotGtIE]

In general, I consider a character flaw to have three essential requirements:

1: The character in question must be at least partially responsible for developing the flaw in the first place. External factors may influence the development of the flaw, but the character must have at least been able to react to those factors in a way which wouldn't have led to gaining the flaw.
2: The flaw must prevent the character from reaching a goal of theirs, or it must impede them in a significant way. If a character flaw is not detrimental to the character in any way, then it is not really a flaw in any meaningful sense. Preferably, the character should have to overcome their flaw in order to achieve their goal.
3: The character in question must be ultimately responsible for overcoming the flaw. External factors may influence this, but likewise with the origination of the flaw, it must be possible for the character to react in a way which would lead them to either overcome or retain the flaw.

The important thing about the character flaw is the character, not the flaw. Character flaws are a tool in your kit for achieving the goal of creating and telling the story of an interesting character.