I’ve recently found myself giving up on more and more series and authors, in thriller, mystery, literary fiction, romance, fantasy, science fiction, and pretty much every type of book I read. It’s not because of the plotting. It’s not because of the writing.Â
Â
It’s due to what I’ve been calling the PPP: the pompously perfect protagonist.Â
Â
I’m thrilled with strong characters, and I’m just as happy to read weaker characters who learn and grow and fulfill their promise throughout the course of the book. But what I absolutely can’t connect with are the flawlessly perfect characters—the ones who are stronger, prettier, better, smarter, and just MORE than everyone else in the book. Nary a flaw in sight.Â
Â
Frankly, they bore me.
Â
I call it the Horatio Caine effect. Have you ever watched CSI Miami? Horatio Caine is the boss of all the CSIs, and I think he ought to fire the lot of them. Because every time the going gets tough, he has to step in – doesn’t matter whose job he’s taking over or what role – and save the day by doing everything . . . better. It got laughable for me a couple of seasons ago.
Â
“Oh, Horatio, you mean I should have DUSTED for FINGERPRINTS? Thank GOODNESS you were here to tell me!! After only FIVE FREAKING YEARS as a CSI, I might have FORGOTTEN THAT.â€
Â
You can bet your removable sunglasses that Horatio wouldn’t have forgotten. Because, you see, he’s perfect. And better. And more. It’s so over the top I can’t watch the show any more and YouTube has impressions and parodies by the score.Â
Â
It’s TV, though. Maybe the show can get away with it with most viewers, even though it jumped the shark for me. But in books . . . in books I want characters with flaws. I want my protagonists to have to figure things out, to need help from others, to face obstacles that they can’t leap with a single bound or conquer with their newfound powers of perfection.Â
Â
I need Kryptonite. I need for the protagonist to face something, either externally or internally, that drives her to her knees. That smashes him to the ground and makes it almost impossible for me to see how he can prevail.Â
Â
That makes me care so very much about whether either of them can survive.
Â
Which leads to the problem I’ve been having with a lot of books lately. There is no Kryptonite. Nothing and nobody who can cause the perfect protagonists (or me, the reader) to have the slightest doubt that the PPP will conquer all. Brilliantly.
Â
Yawn. Give me those flawed characters, please. For example, I was thrilled to read debut suspense author Eileen Carr’s new book, HOLD BACK THE DARK (Pocket, Feb. 24). Eileen, who previously wrote poignant, beautifully emotional women’s fiction as Eileen Rendahl, got rave reviews from both Publishers Weekly and Romantic Times BookClub for HBTD’s gripping suspense, but what really caught me by the throat and held me was the sheer non-perfection of the heroine and how hard she has to fight to overcome it.Â
Aimee is a clinical psychologist who believes she failed, horribly, with a violent patient who stalked and attacked her. Instead of morphing into Super Shrink, able to heal all psychological wounds with a single well-placed phrase, Aimee had to work her way through self-doubt so that she could save a new patient accused of a horrible crime. I was rooting so hard for Aimee that I caught myself literally holding my breath sometimes while reading.  Doubt was her Kryptonite, and I cared about whether she could overcome it.Â
Â
What do you think? Do you need Kryptonite, too, or do you like the escapism of perfect characters? Please weigh in! Or, for kicks, just act like Horatio Caine for a while. It’s oddly liberating.Â
hugs,
Alyssa
No related posts.
Oh, goodness, you’ll love Invisible then,
my latest release.
My heroine Maeve is terribly flawed
(she describes herself as broken).
I am SO like you.
I don’t like reading about perfect people
(can’t relate to them
as I’m about as imperfect as it gets)
and I don’t like writing about them.
It’s a delicate balance – the perfection versus the kryptonite. In fanfic, characters that are so perfect they can do anything are often called “MarySue” characters.
The thing is, we all want a character that’s special in some way. (Okay, that might just be me, but I’m pretty sure it’s at least a commonly held desire). But like you said, you can’t go too far. You can’t make them TOO powerful, too perfect (too pretty, too smart).
Going back to your TV show analogy – I love House. In many ways, he totally fits the bill for the too-perfect hero, but I keep watching because I love the verbal sparring between he and the other characters, and I like to see HOW he saves the day (even if the fact that it’s he that will do it is more than a little typical). He, the character, has enough internal flaws to make it interesting for me.
I find the medical mystery portion of the show interesting, but I watch it for that character.
So it CAN be done, but it’s awfully hard to ride that line. Especially in a series, and especially if you’re reading the sort of book where each bad guy or problem gets worse and worse. The hero (or heroine) has to get stronger and better to solve each book, and the problem perpetuates itself.
Look at comic books. They’ve had to kill off characters they’ve made too powerful over and over and over again. I mean, once you’ve had a character rip the earth in half in order to deposit a bad guy inside…what do you do? What’s next for him? A bank robbery? Puh-leez.
It’s one of the (many, many) reasons that I like series that have a planned ending. That aren’t indefinite, that aren’t going to suffer the fate of so many animes, comic books, and open-ended series out there – of having protagonists become gods just to keep the story interesting.
As you noted – it isn’t really even enough to keep the story interesting. It’s especially hard to put down a series suffering from this when the writing is excellent, and the author is one that you really love.
Kryptonite? Yeah, right. You haven’t actually seen the latest Superman movie, have you? The one where Superman lifts a freaking kryptonite created island into space?
Sigh.
And they wonder why they can’t get that particular movie franchise off the ground again.
I’m a Superman fan over a Batman fan any day of the week and I still prefer the newer Batman movie setups to the directions they took that Superman character. Why? Because they made him too much of a god instead of emphasizing his humanity. That’s why I liked Lois & Clark as a series. The Clark there was as human and flawed as he could be while still having the nobility of Superman. In fact, he was rather a dork at times. Adorable, but still clueless.
Which is why he needed Lois to keep him grounded.
Seriously, though, they grew together and doesn’t that make the best romances all the way around?
Perfection is so boring it makes me slip into a coma.
I want wild variety, believably real. I want kick-butt heroines who actually get knocked up and morph into awesome work-outside-the-home mommies. I want zits on the teens and temper tantrums in the toddlers. I want the pregnant heroines to get horny and nauseated at the same time. I want the heroes to doubt themselves, get all cranky and not realize it’s because they’re afraid of failure, and morph into their best selves for the love of their good women. I want star captains who make selfish, stupid mistakes and realize in horror that it’s cost the lives of their crew, and have to work their butts off for redemption afterwards. I want virginal couples who learn to love and please each other together, who don’t always get it right, but never give up trying. I want slutty heroines who realize, through true love, that they were sleeping around just to cover up old heartache.
I’m an extremely character-driven reader. If the characters are already perfect and powerful and pretty, they don’t have any room to grow. Boooooorinng.
It’s no fun if the characters are just doing what they’re trained for, what they’re good at. Make ‘em figure out how to do stuff they never dreamed they’d have to do. Stuff that scares them. At least, that’s what I like to read, so that’s what write. People shoved well outside their normal comfort zone, finding skills they’ve never thought they had.
Definitely kryptonite. [nod] I have a hard time with characters — especially the guys in romances — who have this one oh-so-picturesque flaw, and apparently that’s supposed to be all they need to make them feel human. So you get a guy who’s been a total slut since he was twelve (which makes him the perfect awesome lover ’cause he’s put in his 10,000 hours of practice
), or he’s a workaholic (which makes him rich), or he’s obsessed about working out (which gives him a totally hot body) or whatever. And when a guy has some actual flaw-like flaws, people whine that “That’s not heroooooic!!!”
I want a guy who starts out a normal person, with real flaws, and ends up a hero by the end of the book — still with real flaws, but having learned to get around them or overcome them, or having defeated the worst one while still having enough “normal” flaws to be human.
Angie
I just think there’s this trend that rather than the character we can identify with because they’re like us, readers are going for the character they wish they could identify with. Feh. Boring.
I wonder too, if the issue isn’t that when you do come across flawed characters, they either tend to be in darker, perhaps more introspective works or the victim of the pratfall, i.e. the Becky Bloomwoods, where their flaws aren’t so much realistic as they are caricatures.
It’s almost as if you can’t find a “normal” flawed character in a mainstream story because it’s too ordinary. As I’ve seen so many readers say before, they don’t want realism in their stories. They want pure escapism and part of that escapism includes the perfect character.
Right now, I’m reading Lee Child and John Sandford. Their protagonists are flawed to the point of being unlikeable. Yet the authors have crafted the characters so well, that readers DO like them, and keep coming back, if the huge numbers of books featuring these characters is any indication.
It’s fascinating to read the books as a ‘writer’ to see how they do it.
As opposed to the RITA entries I’m reading, many of which have me grinding my teeth.
I’m with you. Perfect is boring. Just don’t make the flaw stupid (like a heroine who wears high heels on a nature hike because she wishes she were taller).
But I don’t necessarily believe that escapism equals wanting perfect characters. And I’m absolutely not a fan of dark, brooding, tortured characters, whether male or female, hero or heroine.
Okay, I do like the occasional darker heroine but that’s just an odd personal quirk.
My point is that I was one of the readers who actually cheered quite loudly when well-adjusted family men type heroes started showing up routinely in romances. I like them. A lot. And I don’t want them to go away. Ever.
Doesn’t mean I want them in every single book I read. I just don’t want to have to read about those dark, brooding, tortured angsty suckers in every single story either.
Variety in terms of types of characters and plots is the escape for me. Not realism or lack thereof. So perfection, or its relative lack thereof, never enters into it unless it’s a matter of too much of a good thing.
Give me tortured any day. One of the things that puzzles me is the readers (I get this from looking at Amazon reviews) who don’t like “weak” heroines. By weak they seem to mean a woman who can’t conquer the world in an afternoon and still have her hair in place. Give me a break. I love seeing characters, whether male or female, coming into their own in the course of a book. That’s what I strive for in my own writing. I don’t know if I’m succeeding at it yet (g), but I try.
Although I prefer a bit of a flaw, for me it really depends on how well the screenwriter/author carries it off. For example, in Terry Pratchett’s “guards” books Corporal Carrott is absolutely perfect in every way. But the stories demand that he be perfect, he’s the caricature of heroishness, and because TP handles this character with such humor I, as a reader, love Carrott.
And what Tami said about House.
Like you, I stopped watching CSI M, because of H. He has his flaws, but always they are only very deeply personal. I like my heroes and heroines to be very flawed, not perfect, a little crazy, but willing towards a positive change. Or at least something in the story, gives them the oppertunty to grow. I like to see them eventually ‘get it.’ Whatever that might be.
Noooo!!!! No Horatio Caine!! I can’t stand to watch it. He’s so smarmy and smug. I don’t want that in a hero. I want vulnerability. I want believability. I, too, want kryptonite! Shoot me now. Please, don’t make me read Horatio Caine!!!!
I don’t see Horatio Caine as perfect any more than Gil Grissome (sp?) is. And House certainly isn’t. In fact, I’d say they’re all extremely flawed as human beings. What they are collectively, however, is very good at what they do in spite of their various personality flaws. Maybe even because of them.
Sort of like Batman.
See this is the thing that many times people miss about iconic comic book superheroes like Superman and Batman. They are iconic because they represent two sides of very different extreme of virtues that we all strive for. The odd thing is that both are valid representations of our human nature striving to do the right thing and both have their place but sometimes it seems like they can’t coexist at the same time. One functions in light and openness. The other hides in darkness. One appears to be brooding and tortured and alone. The other surrounded by people and openly adored.
But here’s the question, in most incarnations, who ends up with a sidekick? Who ends up with a support system? A network? A family?
Appearances really can be quite deceiving. Bruce Wayne may not want to commit to a wife but he’s sure a fraud about being lonely when it comes to other commitments. They have yet to convince me that Superman can be truly committed to anyone, Lois included, for the long term in the die-hard fans minds just because he’s “Superman”. This isn’t simply because of his powers, either, but because of the mindset of who he is. Now that’s loneliness. If that’s not something to brood about, I don’t know what is.
As to watching the CSIs, I have also stopped watching both Miami and NY recently, but it has more to do with the fact that series that are supposed to be “case-based” are spending so much episode time on personal/character issues. Always a bad sign. Avoiding that trap is part of the reason the main Law & Order has lasted as long as it has.
Lori: ditto!
And Tami Moore: I have to disagree. I found the character ‘House’ more perfectly flawed than “perfect.” He’s brilliant, yes–but he’s also anti-social, rude, insecure and yet arrogant, addicted to Vicodin, a terrible friend, an insensitive boss…(and I could go on). To me, his flaws are what make him interesting and what allow us to forgive him for some of the outrageous things he does and says; otherwise, he’d just be a jerk.
So yes–I love flawed characters. Real flaws–whether it’s a great potential family guy hero who’s a little self-centered in the beginning, or whether it’s the classic tortured, Heathcliff-esque hero, I love ‘em all.
What I would LOVE to see more of are heroines who are flawed, but not stupid. I’m tired of reading about trust issues and misunderstandings that occur because she obviously misreads the situation.
How am I supposed to believe that an otherwise beautiful, successful, and confident heroine suddenly has zero self-esteem and believes the guy she supposedly loves is dumb enough to have his head turned by the selfish, hateful witch of a woman who every reader is smart enough to hate from the beginning? How could she love a guy and believe he’s that stupid? Really?
Bring me…brilliantly flawed! Like House! I promise: I won’t be able to put it down.
I don’t watch CSI and never could stand the guy how plays Horatio anyway. However I am hooked on SVU just because the character of Elliot Stabler is so flawed. He’s got a violent streak, spends way too much time at work so that his family suffers and is extremely judgemental.
On this weeks episode he tried to make ammends to someone he’d misjudged and it turned around on him. Left him totally messed up and will probably see the effects of it in the future. A geuninely flawed character.
This also reminds me of Brandon Birmingham from the Flame and The Flower. I loved all of the ‘Woodiess books but this one. Brandon was too perfect. Women swooned when he walked by. Nope, didn’t like him. I thought he was an insufferable ass. Give me Wulfgar anyday.
I think we’re talking about 2 slightly different things. Horatio, House & Gil Grisom aren’t perfect. As others have pointed out they’re all serious flawed, damaged people. They’re just never wrong. I think perfect and never wrong aren’t the same thing.
Of course I don’t like either one so in some ways the distinction doesn’t matter that much to me. I like my characters to be human. That means that they have real flaws and are sometimes wrong about things. As long as they aren’t TSTL I’m happy.
And Tami Moore: I have to disagree. I found the character ‘House’ more perfectly flawed than “perfect.†He’s brilliant, yes–but he’s also anti-social, rude, insecure and yet arrogant, addicted to Vicodin, a terrible friend, an insensitive boss…(and I could go on). To me, his flaws are what make him interesting and what allow us to forgive him for some of the outrageous things he does and says; otherwise, he’d just be a jerk.
Actually, I think he is just a flatout jerk but that’s part of his charm in an odd way. Seriously, the viewer either likes him that way or they don’t. If they do then they’ll watch and enjoy the show and if not then no way are they gonna be able to tolerate his antics. It’s that Sherlock Holmes abrasive brilliance thing going on.
What I would LOVE to see more of are heroines who are flawed, but not stupid. I’m tired of reading about trust issues and misunderstandings that occur because she obviously misreads the situation.
The writer that immediately comes to mind here is Shelly Laurenston. Talk about somebody breaking the mold on romance heroines while at the same time keeping the stories light at heart. Her heroines could be insecure and vulnerable on the inside and still not put up with a TSTL moment from their hero. At least not without a good reason. And groveling afterward? They’d probably shoot them in disgust.
God, I love her books.
Great discussion. I too find Horatio boring and somewhat ridiculous. He’s always the one with the gun, making the bust, saying some line in a monotone that is supposed to be intimidating or threatening. Doesn’t do it.
As for the last Superman movie, I thought it clearly showed how lonely Superman is. He’s the only one of his kind and no one can really understand him or even what drives him. I have to say though, I’ve never understood why Superman is drawn to Lois Lane. It doesn’t seem a good match.
I too like to see a hero or a heroine grow. There are some things that really turn me off because I don’t think people in real life overcome certains character traits. Arrogance and self confidence are two entirely different things to me, and I really think that truly arrogant people seldom change. I avoid arrogant people in my daily life and I usually do in books also.
I am all for flawed characters. Although, I do occasionally enjoy the Jame Bond kind of characters, who learn nothing, I find it far more interesting to see characters grow in some way (and they don’t always grow for the better).
I especially like C.E. Murphy because of her flawed characters.
Sorry to have disappeared all day – the universe sent me a giant hole in my roof and so it was emergency insurance/roofers/painters/etc. etc. Whew! But wow – thanks for all the comments!
Kimber, Maeve sounds intriguing. I’m like you; I don’t write perfect people, either.
Tami – the comic book analogy is a great one. Save the day, fine. Save the world, okay. Save the universe, what can possibly come next??
BevBB, No, I couldn’t actually watch that Superman. The Lois Lane actress looking like a toothpick with hair threw me and she and Superman had zero chemistry, I thought.
Kimber An, I’m with you on the flaws and wild variety!
Terry, I love that – make them do something out of their particular box. I always make my characters face what they fear most. It’s fascinating to watch them take on the challenge.
Angie, yeah, I’m not much for the slutty guy with the “practice.†I always wonder what happened to all those women he practiced on . . .
Barb, it’s true it could be wish fulfillment for some, but even in my wishes, I don’t want to be inhumanly perfect. (OK, maybe some days. Like today, if I could have cloned myself . . .)
Terry, I have a Lee Child I haven’t tried yet. Will have to move it up the TBR. I was lucky and got fabulous RITA entries this year!
Bettye, I agree. Flawed is a lot different from TSTL.
OK, more in the next post . . .
Hi Toria, I admit to a frustration with weak heroines, but ONLY if they started the book helpless or passive and, by the end of the book, they are still doormats. Women who grow and become stronger and at least try to stand up for themselves (save the world, etc.) are wonderful!
Michelle, humor is different, of course. And wasn’t it brilliant that Terry Pratchett is now Sir Terry? Love it!!
Lee, a little crazy is wonderful! Or even a lot crazy. If they can at least, as you say, work toward a better version of themselves.
Lori, I’m guessing you won’t be “acting like Horatio Caine†today? LOL.
BevBB, I think we watch for different things. I do enjoy some of the personal/character stuff in with my cases. But a good balance is hard to find, that’s for sure.
Kacie, I am 1000% there with you on the “misunderstanding†that could be solved with a simple conversation. It’s artificial and contrived conflict and it just doesn’t fly for me, either.
Cindy, I could never watch SVU because of the nature of the crimes. Just not possible. I have heard it was good, though. I don’t mind reading about an insufferable ass if he suffers the big smackdown and learns humility. Tough to pull off, though. EVERYBODY should read Cindy Holby’s FALLEN, too, if you want to see flawed characters overcome tremendous adversity. Brilliant and so poignant!!
LoriK, that’s exactly what I mean. Protags who can be WRONG sometimes. Who need help to figure things out. Who don’t always solve every crime, defeat every bad guy, win every battle, seduce every person who sees them, etc. etc. etc. HUMAN.
Susan, I see your point with the truly arrogant. I do like to write the occasional massively arrogant alpha male, but only when 1) life has proved to him that he really IS that good/powerful/etc., and 2) he is set up to suffer the big smackdown when love or loss humbles him. Redemption is one of my major themes.
Andrea, James Bond is fun, but I never really cared about him until this latest incarnation where we actually got to see him suffer. Then he became real to me instead of a caricature.
Thanks everybody for the wonderful comments!! Off to oversee homework and then back to check on more!
Hugs,
Alyssa
I always wonder what happened to all those women he practiced on . . .
Good point, but this one can go either way for me. There’s a huge difference between seducing virgins with false hints of a marriage or other stable relationship and then kicking them to the curb once he’s got another notch in his bedpost, and finding a string of confident, experienced women who want exactly what he wants and are just as happy to move on when they’ve both had their fun. If his previous women are the former type, then the guy’s a jerk who needs his butt kicked. If they’re the latter type, then I have no problem with him practicing as much as he wants.
Angie
As for the last Superman movie, I thought it clearly showed how lonely Superman is. He’s the only one of his kind and no one can really understand him or even what drives him. I have to say though, I’ve never understood why Superman is drawn to Lois Lane. It doesn’t seem a good match.
Depends on the incarnation as to whether Lois is a good match for him. She usually matches up much better when Clark is seen as his true identity and Superman as the disquise. The movies are patterned after the tradition that has Superman being the true identity and Clark being the disquise however. Much harder for any Lois to work in that. For romance, period, to work.
Personally, I never cared much for Margo Kedder in the 1980s movies as Lois either and I actually liked Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of Superman even if I didn’t like where they took the character. Especially in those last two movies.
In contrast, Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher in Lois & Clark had incredible chemistry and the series was based on a Clark-oriented Superman, which had been used in the comics since the mid-1980s. But that’s also an echo of the setup of the earlier Adventures of Superman with George Reeves, too. And equally strong Lois Lanes, too, I might add.
It seems episodic television is automatically a better vehicle for showcasing the man/journalist over the alien/superhero.
I think the thought that might translate to books here is that the longer we’re exposed to a character or characters in a story or group of stories the more we want to see some warts, so to speak. So if they’re only going to show up once, omnipotent might be fine. Sooner or later a long-running character has to show some cracks, though, or they’re just a statue.
(de-lurks)
This is something I’ve actually been thinking about recently. And what is definitely irritating about these shows and movies is how the PPP is combined with a style I like to call ‘Everybody is Stupid Except Me’. Not only is the character a living god; but everyone around them is written as a complete idiot to further enhance their godhood. And do they do anything to improve the abilities of those around them? Of course not. A well trained flunky might manage to do something right and steal the glory. Can’t have that.
This is why I prefer shows like the original CSI or NCIS. Their leads aren’t perfect; they’ve just been doing their jobs for so much longer than the other characters that they’re able to do more, think five steps ahead of the baddies, etc. And they train those they work with to think five steps ahead too.