Alfred Muller's Blog

I don’t know who needs to hear this but please stop with the perfect characters.
Perfect characters are not fun in fact for a majority of readers they bore us. A perfect character is one that faces no real threat in a story, never loses, and succeeds at every turn. In short they no not struggle.
Do not hide behind false threats either. If the reader never feels like the character is in any danger than it is not a real threat. A false threat is a threat that appears dangerous on the surface, but the Main Character (MC) over comes it by doing nothing different and never really had a chance of losing. If characters do not struggle at all in a book than there is no conflict and no story. I know I say that a lot between blog posts and my YouTube channel so let me try to clarify what I mean. What a story is, has a lot to do with struggle and conflict, this is why an anecdotal tale from a friend arriving late to a party can be a story because they were stuck in traffic and could not do anything about it. Sorry side note, but a useful example to explain what I mean. A story hinges on the MC overcoming problems and the reader believing the problems were actually difficult.
Something as simple as a friendly quarrel with the MC’s best friend may seem mundane which we all can relate to, but pair it with having just been beat up and tossed about by a more powerful villain, now we sympathize with the MC a little more. For example. A MC who is beat up and suffering the effects of a loss, confronted with the mortality of themselves lying in bed beaten and bruised is more sympathetic when the best friend comes in angry that they didn’t do their laundry. Now looking at the MC who is just tired after handing out butt whooping’s all night and the best friend comes in wondering why they didn’t do their share of the chores seems pretty selfish.
Struggles force a reader to keep reading, drawing them along the story so that they can see the climax where the average character becomes the superhero, or greatest assassin, or king of the realm. I already know what’s going to happen in a story where the MC wins all the time. I call this the underdog mindset. Readers like an underdog. We want to see the downtrodden win. By seeing the villains lose all the time, I start to pull for them to kick the perfection out of the MC.
Also, don’t pretend that personal issues are the main set back for the MC because that is a cop out. By making mundane issues the main problem characters face in a story, the reader feels less invested with the character. I often find myself wondering why I should care. I’ve had fights with my friends and it blew over and I didn’t have superpowers to distract me, or a super cool sword, or awesome assassin capabilities. The personal issues are often thin facades in order to give the illusion of conflict when in reality the threat of losing that friend too is nonexistent.
Villains are not straw men/women who’s purpose is to be smacked around by your MC. They are there to force your MC into situations that are uncomfortable and painful for them. They cannot be one dimensional. A superpowered MC can take on one to ten baddies at once, unless all combatants are super powered. Eventually numbers win out. Villains, bad guys, Antagonists all want to win just as bad if not more so than the MC and odds are they would. Most MCs have attributes like unwilling to kill or wanting justice to win out. Villains normally have no qualms with killing, maiming, or using loved ones against their adversary, so often a good villain can exploit those elements and win, or at least make victory feel like a loss. Those are the scenes as readers that hurt, but feel so emotional that they get talked about on the internet for years.

I don’t want this to become a page where I rant about my issues in writing, so here are some constructive tips to help avoid this.
It is okay to let your character fail. Your character does not have to win every fight they are in and it helps if they don’t. Let them lose. Don’t make them a savant or prodigy. Those are unique individuals who have their own struggles and must be written by someone who knows that lifestyle or has more skill because it can go off the rails quick. Use multiple flaws so that if one doesn’t fit your story as well it can still add an element to your character while still having backups to show your character isn’t perfect. Write your villains as if they have an end goal and would like to accomplish that. Write your Villain or antagonist as if they were a better version of your MC. Why? Because then it makes it harder for you as the writer to beat that villain as easily. If your MC is strong, make them stronger (i.e Incredible Hulk, Abomination). If they are smart, your villain is smarter and so on. Creating powerful villains is a good way to limit your MC’s success.

Use these tips to make compelling, believable, relatable, and tortured characters we can grow and love

First off, I’m sorry for such a delay in my post. This is a topic I have been contemplating a lot recently and wanted to nail it down before I shared it with you guys. Also, if you haven’t already check out my YouTube channel where I talk more about writing in a more direct way. It has the added bonus of use being able to discuss until your heart is content in comments about what I’ve said. Without further ado:
What is a story? Recently I would guess most of us would point to a book or movie as an example. We could try to explain it with ethereal sentiments like ‘you’ll know when you read it.’ Others of a more scholarly nature would attribute rules and laws to it nailing it down into definitions. We could explain it by its parts, characters, plot, settings, and conflict. Some may even get poetic and say it’s a collection of words. But in all of those attempts of breaking a story down we miss what it is. Not that I have all the answers, and this is simply an opinion piece based on my own thoughts. I don’t think any of these attempts at explaining what a story is, are wrong. I think they are too narrow of a scope. For me a story is a way for people to connect.
When I think story, I’m immediately struck by the book and movie, The NeverEnding Story. For those who are unfamiliar, this is a tale about a boy who is reading a fantasy story then ends up included within the climax of the tale. The subsequent movies continue the theme of the book being about the main character Bastian, even going as far as Jack Black reading excerpts from the story as Bastian is doing them. It speaks to the joint relationship between story and reader. As we read, we interact with the characters on the page imagining them in our mind and feeling the emotions they feel. This fictional novel adds in the fantastical element of the characters being able to interact with those who read The NeverEnding Story as well. This story comes to mind because it enforces my thoughts on Story.
As with The NeverEnding Story, a story is a medium in which we share thoughts with one another, connect on a level spanning distances physically and temporally. We interact with the characters, but also with the author. When I say Story I’m intentionally using it as a noun. I think this thing we claim to create is an entity in its self. A piece of reality we tap into when we write. A place where our minds go and mingle with our thoughts. See, Story is anything we want it to be as long as we are sharing ideas. It permeates all that we do. A grocery list for example can be a story, or the foundations of one. The number of times where a simple anecdotal piece of information starts off a story told from one person to another is numerous. ‘I was at the grocery story’ turns into a story about a car and a sidenote about how you were with your friends and then something funny happened. These do not follow the traditional story arcs we have become accustomed to, but they are stories none the less. Why? Because we share in the experience.
The written word changed how we interact with out ancestors in that we can now read what they thought as opposed to hearing it passed down from word of mouth. The system changed and one could argue the impact of interpretation is mitigated now, but the actual thing in which we do is the same. The same could be said of intimacy of the transfer of those stories. A communal closeness hearing the elder tell tales compared to the close intimacy of a quiet room left to read letters from your grandfather. To some these are stories at least in the passing down of history from one generation to another, while to others these may seem facts relayed from person to person. There is no story there. Now I could be making light of the arguments against my claim, but I do think that most would not call a letter a story or a blog post a story, and I would.
Why would I? There are no characters, no plot, no epic tale marching an army from the midlands to D’hara to face off with Fantasy Darth Vader. (Check out the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind for reference). Yet, in the sentences written, is there not a character? Would we not say that the author of the diary entry takes on the roll of character? In fact we have hundreds of novels with this exact premise. Dracula by Bram Stoker is written from the POV of diary entries and newspaper articles. The common thread is sharing thoughts and ideas in a way that engages an audience. From the peddler on the corner hawking fake Rolexes so that he can pay for his studio apartment on the bad side of town while his landlord refuses to fix the ac to the little bunny hopping from flower to flower nibbling up the farmers carrots we can read, relate, and interact with the author through the words they chose to write.
I’ve been to a handful of creative writing classes, read my fair share of books, even wrote a little, but what we call STORY isn’t in those examples. It’s in life, experience, emotion, observation, and people. It’s in the thoughts and conversations we share with one another. Life is Story, it is the universal connecting piece we all partake in from our first ancestors to the future generations we have yet to meet. When we are sharing thoughts, we give those reading or listening a glimpse into our own character sharing a piece of our soul if you will in that moment. It’s a special attribute humans have that other species may not. So, the next time you want to write, if that is your outlet, remember a scene can be a story, a drive to the doctor’s can be a story, and a joke can be a story.

Flaws. Do you have a flaw? What is your Flaw? One Flaw two flaw your flaw my flaw. Flaw, flaw, flaw, flaw. Have I said flaw enough? Good because I’m tired of flaws. I couldn’t tell you what Frodo’s flaw is to be honest. He’s too innocent? Small? Possessed by the ring? I’m not sure any of those are a flaw and if one is, why aren’t they all. As an author I believe the use of character flaw is a crutch or at the very least an obsolete way of developing a character. Authors are constantly struggling with the horrifying perfect character, the Superman without kryptonite weakness, the flawless deity that is character X. The fixation with flaws comes from this fear. Flaws break down a grand scale concept of humanity into a bite size morsel, except it has been overused and needs a newer version to take its place. That’s where I come in.
Overall. I think this technique is a subpart to the grander design of character development that I’ve talked about in blog posts and my YouTube channel. As I see it the intention of the author when developing a character is to mimic reality. After all what is the purpose of writing if not to create a believable individual for our readers to enjoy. To that end it is important to remember that we, as humans, have multiple flaws. No one is perfect and each of our individual issues is what makes us absolutely annoying to other people. When reading about those issues however, it instantly makes a character more interesting.
A character with a single flaw, like anger for example, is predictable. We know what to expect when faced with obstacles. They are going to ball their hands into fists and yell. Perhaps this can be done well a time or two, but after the tenth encounter with an antagonist the same old spiel will have the reader thinking they are watching an episode of Pokemon where Team Rocket is reciting their catch phrase song for the millionth time. This is especially obvious when a time comes for the character to be dressed down, or put in their place and one of two things happens. Either One, the character is dressed down and doesn’t respond as they have for no other reason than plot, or Two, the character explodes again and the events unfold as if they hadn’t.
For a little more clarity:
Option 2, Stephanous enters a guard station. The guard asks for papers which Stephanous does not have, so he acts belligerent yelling obscenities at the guard. The plot requires Stephanous to enter the city in search of the scoundrel who robbed him so he acts belligerent in order to bully the guard. Except the guard cannot be bullied and argues back. Perhaps the next several pages are a screaming fight ending with Stephanous entering the city without showing his papers.
Option 1, Stephanous has argued, bullied, and powered his way through every obstacle placed in front of him. He’s knocked out every antagonist he’s faced, but when a scoundrel steals his prized rabbit’s foot and sneaks into the city of Badtiding, Stephanous must enter. He approaches a guard shack and the guard asks for papers. Now the author wants this to be a conflict, but doesn’t see the guard as cowing to a mere boy, so they don’t allow the guard to be a push over. Now when the screaming match starts Stephanous is turned away.
While option one has a more interesting story develop because of the altercation we are left wondering why Stephanous didn’t punch the guard and lock them in the privy. Option 2 is less believable and loses the possibility of an interesting conflict and resolution.
Now this problem is simplified for argument’s sake, but I’ve seen it done enough to feel I haven’t over exaggerated the issue I’m trying to represent. The same situation can be used for meekness, fear of conflict, shy, drunkard, or any flaw you want. If only one is represented by a main character and a point of conflict arises, most will rely heavily on that flaw to get them through the scene.
This is not what you want for your character. Random drastic character reactions for the sake of plot are off putting for most readers and tend to pull them form the story. We want characters to react how we would expect humans to react with in reason. If we learn that Stephanous is angry all the time because he has a desire for control and he was born a peasant than every time something occurs that doesn’t fit his way of thinking we can expect anger. However if at the same time we see him bow to authority we can see he is aware of the hierarchy of the world he was raised in. Neither of these are flaws in the traditional sense. I would argue they are character traits or the character’s phycology.
As an author my secondary focus in on Philosophy a precursor to Psychology and Sociology. Any of the three should be of interest for a budding author. Anthropology can help too because humanity hasn’t changed much over the last thousand years. We still view our wants over anyone else’s with few exceptions and our sense of morality is most often viewed as superior to anyone else’s. Because of this any of the above-mentioned fields of study can provide a variety of human types to use as a basis for character creation instead of a flaw.
Take a character who has PTSD, add meekness and an inferiority complex to their chart of characteristics. The possibilities of conflict are wide and varying enough to stay fresh not to get boring or repetitive. Taking our example of the guardhouse above and putting this version of Stephanous we can see a few directions for conflict.
A) Stephanous was already in prison once for bucking authority so his confrontation ties with his meekness causing him to turn away and search for alternative avenues to enter the city. If this leads to breaking the law we can get a more direct character arch where Stephanous must decide what is more important, his lucky rabbit’s foot or going back to the dungeon.
B) Stephanous has the character arch moment right there. His inferiority complex is triggered when confronted by a holy-than-thou guard shoving their weight around and Stephanous decides he’s had enough being pushed around and challenges the guard. Of course this could end him up in the dungeon where he must face his fears. It also allows for meeting a new character expanding on the story.
C) The last option I’ll put down is perhaps all of these characteristics lead the author to not have Stephanous enter the guardhouse at all, instead he plans an ambush and waits to catch the scoundrel as he exits the town.
Singular flaws limit an author with choices and cause characters to fall flat when creating them. We often forget that humans are contradictions and avoid pairing opposite characteristics with the Flaw we so carefully crafted. An angry character has to be stoic and yell a lot. A sad character only screams when someone doesn’t understand their sadness and cries when challenged. We never see a Happy character mad even when someone cuts them off in line. Perhaps given the proper setting these characters could do well for a scene or two, but eventually a reader will notice the pattern and hope for the scene to be over and may even close the book.
As I stated in the opening, we as authors start with a single flaw because it helps us avoid a perfect character. We want to have characters that grow. The flaw is a focal point that we can use as a guide to make sure we do not have that hideous perfect character as we tell a story, it is a crutch to lean on when we are unsure how a character would react. It is an imperfect theory that stunts growth in a character because of its heavy handed use, instead of Psychology which is a more fluid tool allowing for diverse characters with more human traits than two dimensional flaws.

Why do we find characters entertaining? What about them touches us, making us angry or sad? Well the quick answer is development. Tyrion Lannister is compelling because we feel like we know him outside of the pages we read. We root for Kahlan Amnell and Richard Rhal to find a happily ever after because we can see their love and relate to the struggles life puts on a relationship.
Now, I'm going to dive into a little philosophy here so please bare with me. When a philosopher like Plato for example speaks of individuals they are talking about personality and personality resides in the soul. By soul they refer to the metaphysical aspect of reality. Big words and larger concepts I know, but what that boils down to is who we are transcend what we appear as and what we are. In that respect we can separate the character on paper into a mental representation and interact with them through imagination.
I don't mean we can have real romantic relationships with these characters, but I do think well developed characters move beyond the fictional setting we create for them and share a more personal existence in the reader's mind. This is key for successful works of fiction. No one wants to read about John Smith the postal worker who sells stamps from 9 to 5 then goes home. Sure some of us may relate, but there is no substance. Where is he from? Who does he hang out with? Does he have a favorite color? The internet if full of lists of questions an author should know about their characters. Why, because these questions are the building blocks of personality, that topic I talked about up top when I introduced the scary philosophy. Does John Smith's favorite color have to come into the story? No, but it may help develop him when he sells a geometric shape stamp with the color combination of pink and brown. Does he like it or not and more importantly does he tell the customer his opinion?
But personality is more than likes and dislikes. How does one react in certain situations, can tell you a lot about a character. Personally, I am not a fan of Rand al'Thor in the Wheel of Time series. His reactions to the situations he is put in don't mesh with mine and that's okay. He is still a well crafted character because I can say I don't like him and give reasons. Some may find Geralt of Rivia impersonal and unlikeable because he is a gruff man who only likes to kill things. What is important to remember is no one loves every person they come in contact with either. When writing characters we must remember that not all of them need to be Chandler Bing off of Friends. Some can be Janice or Shallan Davar.
Back to responses to situations with characters. This is where those list of questions comes into play mostly, I think. What fears do characters have? What response do they give when that fear is inserted into a scene? Once that is discovered, the question becomes what created that fear? For our character John Smith, the postal employee lets give him a fear of papercuts. Now while he is selling a book of stamps the page cuts him. How does he react? Maybe he leaves the window and runs to the bathroom hyperventilating or maybe he simply stares at the trickle of blood dripping off the wound. Then maybe he just asks to go home for medical reasons. Each scenario can introduce a piece of backstory that develops the character by building a foundation for their personality.
One last paragraph, then I promise we will wrap it up. In the situation above John Smith runs to the bathroom hyperventilating over a papercut. Why? Let's say when he was young and coloring outside his finger is cut with a piece of paper he accidentally laid in dung. Any kind will do in this scenario I think. Well that simple papercut forces a young John Smith to get a nasty infection and lose his finger. (Whichever finger you want). Now as an adult he relives the trauma of losing one of his digits. Does that make him likeable? Not necessarily. It may even make the reader believe he is melodramatic, but this is true of all two-dimensional characters. One interesting trait isn't enough to engage a reader. We are more than one interesting factoid. We are the boring and fascinating parts of our lives. Our job as authors is to pull those elements from our characters and show them to the reader.
Tyrion is presented as an imp, but he is also extremely intelligent, doesn't get along with his sister, and loves his brother. He desires a chance to be great, but is inadequate in a physical altercation. Later he is disfigured, but his sense of humor is unapparelled. All of these elements make him one of fictions most beloved characters. Remember these attributes don't have to come out in the first draft, but keep the development of a character in mind when writing.
Until next time!!