physically flawed hero?

[miles]

Some of the characters I end up caring about most in novels (or movies) are those who have a physical flaw to deal with along with the main conflict.

For example, in a novel I'm currently reading, the main character cannot be exposed to sunlight because he has a rare skin disease. And yet people are after him and he's trying to solve a mystery, all while avoiding light.

My girlfriend is not a native English speaker, so I simplified the question and asked her if she'd prefer to read about a strong character with no apparent limitations, or one who appears strong but has a heart problem and must avoid getting too excited. She preferred the former.

Granted, my example isn't the most unique, but isn't a character with a heart defect put into a long, strenuous situation more interesting than a muscle man put into the same situation? Or do readers prefer flaws to be more emotional, since they want to picture themselves being with the hero (especially in romance).

I know there are plenty of heroes without physical flaws who I like (Jack from Lost), but then there are those with physical flaws who I like as well (Dr. House).

So which do you prefer?

[shakeysix]

i have a m.c. who is over 40, has a heart problem, is frail, myopic, wears polyester brady bunch shirts and still lives w/his mother. strangely every female who reads the story falls in love w/him. but then they add that he won't be easy to sell. i am in the process of selling him now. will let you know how it turns out--s6

[althrasher]

I don't know how extreme, but I think every added dificulty adds drama to the story.

[BluGnat]

Not sure if this helps or not, but I just finished reading Patricia Woods' Lottery. The MC doesn't have physical limitations, but rather mental. He's the most endearing character I've come across in a loooong time.

I would think that physical limitations could add intensity and depth to the conflict.

[swvaughn]

For example, in a novel I'm currently reading, the main character cannot be exposed to sunlight because he has a rare skin disease. And yet people are after him and he's trying to solve a mystery, all while avoiding light.

Ooh, are you reading Pale Immortal? Fantastic book. I'm buying the sequel next week (Garden of Darkness . . . can't wait!)

As for your original question, personally, I like a convincing hero - flawed or not. Lincoln Rhyme, for example, is freaking awesome. :D

[TrainofThought]

For my reading pleasure, all characters have flaws whether it’s physical or emotional. As someone stated, Lottery is one story where the main character is battling impairment; other great books are The Shipping News and The Man Without a Face.

[miles]

Ooh, are you reading Pale Immortal?

No. I'm reading Fear Nothing (http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Nothing-Dean-Koontz/dp/0553579754) by Dean Koontz. But I'll check out the one you suggested as well.

[narnia]

Yup, convincing works, regardless, although I do agree that Lincoln Rhyme is a great MC, and also Simon St. James in Elizabeth George's books.

[ChaosTitan]

One of my favorite characters in any novel is Nick Andros from "The Stand." He's mute. It's part of what makes him unique, and I love the way in which other characters communicate and interact with him.

I don't think I've ever read a story in which a physical or mental handicap made the book worse. Likewise, it's certainly not necessary in telling a good story or making a memorable character. If the flaw is the only interesting thing about the character, s/he isn't as well-rounded as you s/he needs to be.

[Judg]

A major turn-off for me is a better-than-real-life hero/heroine. I can handle normality, but a character who comes across as the creation of an advertising firm just about makes me ill. Needless to say, I don't read romance.

So for me at least, a character with some kind of handicap to overcome is much more interesting. Not necessary, none of my MC's have handicaps per se. Hmm, maybe I should rethink that.

[Danthia]

I like my protags to have flaws. Not only does it give you more material to work with for conflict and plotting, but someone who has to overcome something besides their plot obstacles to win is far more interesting to me. Reading about perfect people winning without much trouble puts me to sleep :) Give me the struggling hero every time!

Of course, the flaw should be something that adds to the story. If they're "damaged" in some way and it never matters then it's probably unnecesary. But it if adds to the character or further ups the stakes, then it's wonderful.

[IceCreamEmpress]

There's a wonderful anthology called The Defective Detective which collects a number of stories about physically/mentally/socially challenged and disabled detectives from pulp fiction. The opening essay, as I recall it, presents a fascinating argument about how readers respond to detectives facing life challenges as well as the challenge of solving crimes.

[Bekah]

I prefer flawed MCs. I also love it when a writer isn't afraid to make his protagonist suffer, especially in some drastic physical way (e.g. loss of an appendage).

[shakeysix]

this is why i prefer boromir to strider--s6

[Queen of Swords]

I also love it when a writer isn't afraid to make his protagonist suffer, especially in some drastic physical way (e.g. loss of an appendage).

George R. R. Martin rules in this respect.

[shakeysix]

yikes--what kind of appendage did he lose? --s6

[jannawrites]

I find a MC with some kind of limitation that much more endearing, and he'd be an even greater hero in my eyes. (Ie. Perry from Patricia Wood's LOTTERY.)

I wouldn't like it, though, if the character had a 'tude about it. Like if he feels he's somehow owed something or requires special treatment for the mere fact that he's flawed. You know?

[Moon Daughter]

I say flaws are better because if a person is strong in every way, then it doesn't add more conflict.

[Mel]

Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan.

[Sassee]

Either has to have existing flaws or pick some up along the course of the book. No threat to normalcy (or perfection) is a little boring.

[Stormhawk]

(In formulating my response, I've realised that I have a lot of emotional cripples...)

In my WIP, I have a mute character.

In my (get out of my head and let me write you, you beast!) "Princess" story, I have a character (not the MC) who is horrifically burned. Not quite V (for Vendetta) level of burns, but pretty bad.

[slcboston]

I don't mind characters having flaws, as we all have them, but if those are going to be serious limitations (i.e. the skin condition in Fear Nothing - and there's a second book with that character, btw) then they need to relate to the story.

Nothing bothers me more than a character who's given some sort of "flaw" just to take them down a peg. It needs to be relevant to the story, like Checkov's gun on the mantlepiece, otherwise it's just a distraction.

[Prawn]

Hijack!

In addition to books, there are lots of movies and TV shows where a physical infirmity was part of the character:

Ironsides
House
Rear Window
Wait Until Dark

Can anyone name any others?

[donroc]

Quasimodo.

www.donaldmichaelplatt

[TrickyFiction]

Quasimodo.

Ooh! So long as we're going with classic French, Leroux's "Erik" was pretty flawed, too.

And, Quasimodo is en excellent example. Not only was he physically deformed, but he was also deaf. His deafness caused a number of major plot points, including his hours on the pillory and his defending Notre Dame against the vagabonds' attempts to save Esmeralda.

[Feathers]

Some of the characters I end up caring about most in novels (or movies) are those who have a physical flaw to deal with along with the main conflict.


Granted, my example isn't the most unique, but isn't a character with a heart defect put into a long, strenuous situation more interesting than a muscle man put into the same situation? Or do readers prefer flaws to be more emotional, since they want to picture themselves being with the hero (especially in romance).

So which do you prefer?

I prefer the deformity. (Wow, that sounded morbid.) People who are different tend to be more aware of themselves and the world; they don't take things for granted, and they have more sympathy/understanding. Generally.

I think they do add to the action because the MC has to work twice as hard as someone else to do the same things. It adds suspense - "Oh no, they broke his synthetic leg! How will he escape now?"

When I'm reading about a flawed MC, I feel empowered. I feel pitying and attached. I root for them more than I would a perfect MC b/c I feel they need my help. And when they do overcome their roadblocks this disability causes, I'm overcoming it too, and I get to expierence this high.

As a writer I'm always trying to get inside other peoples' heads. When I see someone with a disability I wonder what it's like for them; not what I think it's like, but what it's really like. A good novel makes me understand those people better.

I vote "yes" for flaws.

-Feathers

[Queen of Swords]

yikes--what kind of appendage did he lose? --s6

What kinds of appendages have Martin's characters lost? Hands, fingers, noses, eyes, cheeks, balls, heads, you name it.

[Chris Grey]

What kinds of appendages have Martin's characters lost? Hands, fingers, noses, eyes, cheeks, balls, heads, you name it.

Martin's characters' losses are especially gruesome. Not because they lose things or how they lose them, but what they lose and what it means to them. Like Bran. Or Jaime.

[Chris Grey]

You don't so much need flaws as you need to be able to put pressure on your character. If you go with the idea that a basic plot is "Put your character up a tree, throw rocks at him, get him down from the tree," then it's not really interesting if your character is Superman. The rocks bounce off without harm and he can just fly down whenever he feels like it.

Characters develop like moths. They gotta struggle for it.

It's hard to pressure Superman (especially in the olden day when his powers weren't really defined and he'd be off spewing rainbows from his hands or whatever), it's hard to put his back up against a wall and force him to make the Tough Choices and see what he's really made of. On the other hand, it's easy to pressure someone with a bum knee, a revolving door membership to AA, and an outstanding warrant.

Extraordinary flaws (eg, burns in sunlight) aside, what's the difference between a "flawed" character and a "normal" one? One slip.

[Danger Jane]

I hate gimmicky flaws in characters. If your character being deformed pushes forward the story (character and plot), by all means, have your character be deformed.

But if it is for the sake of making the character "interesting", then you are probably taking an easy route away from characterization...and it probably won't work.

[katiemac]

It's hard to pressure Superman (especially in the olden day when his powers weren't really defined and he'd be off spewing rainbows from his hands or whatever), it's hard to put his back up against a wall and force him to make the Tough Choices and see what he's really made of.

Superman is a good example. By the early 90s, the guy had become so perfect and untouchable, they had to kill him to make him interesting again.

[Thrillride]

No. I'm reading Fear Nothing (http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Nothing-Dean-Koontz/dp/0553579754) by Dean Koontz. But I'll check out the one you suggested as well.


I KNEW it! Christopher Snow is awesome. Read the next two books. Oh, and Watchers is a spin-off of the Snow series.

Oh yeah...your question...I like flaws. It's the most human you can get. My protag has a physical limitaion of sorts as well. I like it and more importantly, can relate to it. Which is the writer's ultimate goal anyway - getting the reader to relate (read :care) about the characters.

~Thrill

[Thrillride]

lol.... I just got to this post, miles. Wait until you get to the ending. It gets really really weird. The second one is even more bizarre. I guess you can ignore my earlier mention to the examples in this book since that's what you're actually reading. lol...

I thought of another example and, since you like Dean Koontz, you will love this one. "Life Expectancy". It's about five horrible days in the life of the MC, Jimmy Tock. By the end of the book, both MCs are physically injured in very permanent ways, but it's done in a very uplifting way. The psychotic Beezo Clown family is interesting too. :e2bear:

*grabbing at my chest* Be still, my heart! Life Expactancy (I just bought it for my son) was really well done...'course to be fair - I stalk Dean.:D

~Thrill

[Thrillride]

Extraordinary flaws (eg, burns in sunlight) aside, what's the difference between a "flawed" character and a "normal" one? One slip.

In the above case, the flaw moves the story forward. The young man with the disease lives his awake hours in the night. This is, of course, when most villains skulk around corners and dump bodies. This is how Christopher Snow ends up getting involved.

When flaws are done in this way (propelling the story) but it has the fringe benefit of endearing the character to us. Or at the very least, gives us interesting insight to unusual circumstances.

*Which, of course, ends up showing us that no matter what our troubles, we are all going through something that is hard on us (physically or emotionally) and that we are all more alike than we think...and we relate to the character and care for him - ta da!*

~Thrill

[Thrillride]

Then you should read his Amazon blog. Its' very Dean. I have most of his books, but I either hate them or love them, seldom anywhere in between. :e2bear:

I am mostly like that. There are a few I thought were "okay". The Husband was one. Also, while I LOVED Odd Thomas, the sequels were okay. I don't think I hated them. But they didn't have the same punch as Odd Thomas.

He is bringing Christopher Snow back by the way.:D The other interesting thing is that he will have Manga (Graphic) novels out...I find this brilliant. Keepin' up with the times, bro!

~Thrill

[ACEnders]

I don't mind characters having flaws, as we all have them, but if those are going to be serious limitations (i.e. the skin condition in Fear Nothing - and there's a second book with that character, btw) then they need to relate to the story.

Nothing bothers me more than a character who's given some sort of "flaw" just to take them down a peg. It needs to be relevant to the story, like Checkov's gun on the mantlepiece, otherwise it's just a distraction.

I agree with this totally. And I don't think MC's should be perfect - even if they just have a little flaw - like a quick temper, or an attitude with a tendancy to roll her eyes. I don't think it needs to be a huge thing. And I think that in some examples that have been given, the character flaws have been so big as to be ridiculous. And sometimes, depending on how the book is written, I don't sympathize the characters, I grow to hate them. Their flaws don't endear me to them, rather they make me think they deserve whatever it is they're running from. Wish I could think of an example, but I can't.

[EelKat]

looking at a few of my all-time fave books:

Phantom of the Opera
Jane Eyre
Beauty & the Beast


yep...

Eric the man with no face
Rochester the blind one armed man
and a beast

yep, I like the hero with a flaw

lets look at some of my MCs now:

a man with metal claw hands and a mental disorder
a little 5'3" guy with 4 eyes
an albino who can't be in sunlight
a guy born as dicephalic conjoined twins (one body two heads)

yep... I write about flawed heros too

[c.e.lawson]

...yep, I like the hero with a flaw

lets look at some of my MCs now:

a man with metal claw hands and a mental disorder
a little 5'3" guy with 4 eyes
an albino who can't be in sunlight
a guy born as dicephalic conjoined twins (one body two heads)

yep... I write about flawed heros too

So EelKat...erm...reading your title...which one of those MCs do you want to marry?

[AFGNCAAP]

A flawed main character...didn't I just have to take that idea and be weird about it?

Mine has the possibility of being cursed with a mental stain that is usually portrayed as a blessing--the ability to catch glimpses of the future. Here, it is very much a death sentence. It so happens that the worst premonitions are the strongest, just as our most terrible memories can be the most vivid. Being receptive to them is known in society as a curse and a terminal mental disease; the feeling of inability to stop what is coming, the dread, and the helplessness are overpowering...no one with it dies a sane person. This is the prospect my MC may face.

But it doesn't define him and become ridiculous; it is only a grey cloud hanging over things, like a real fear--maybe it will rain at some point, but otherwise, it hovers quietly. All of his littler quirks are what do make the character who he is, such as his sunburning easily, catlike penchant for falling asleep in silly places, and startling but awkward height.

I like to read books with that kind of balance, too; I cannot relate to a character if they are their greatest physical or mental challenge or lack any whatsoever.

Hehe...apologies if I ramble; I go on and on about my characters as if I'm their mother.

[JJ Cooper]

In Matthew Reilly's novel involving his MC Shane Schofield, everyone calls the MC Scarecrow because of vertical scararing in the middle of both eyes from an old torture session. He now wears this flash wrap-around sunnies day and night and they never come off. Cool.

My MC has lots of scaring from bullet wounds and some PTSD (although he won't admit to it).

JJ

[Kallex]

Everyone has feet of clay and a MC should to. The reader needs to identify with a realistic MC.

[Sage]

Granted, my example isn't the most unique, but isn't a character with a heart defect put into a long, strenuous situation more interesting than a muscle man put into the same situation?
<glances at WIP> I certainly hope so. :D

[Takvah]

Flaws or no flaws, show me some humanity.

[HeronW]

Having an MC not perfect in body as well as psyche makes that MC more accessible. Few TV heroes are perfect specimens of body and mind, they're battling stress, family issues, personal demons. I connect better with someone normal with a f--ked up life trying to do a job.