Morally Perfect Characters

It depends, I think. Perfect characters are not very relatable, but you do like them and want to be like them. When however you see that perfect character repeated continually, you start to go, “Not again”. You never do that for a flawed hero (unless they really weren’t portrayed well). Flawed characters provide opportunity for growth and when you have a flawed character, you don’t have to make all your climaxes based around personal peril (Swords, knifes, kidnapping). You can base them around psychological battles, struggles of faith, doubts, misunderstandings, etc. Over all, the flawed character is more versatile. Perfect characters remind us of what we are striving for, but flawed characters remind us of how our struggle is going to be. We can sympathizes with flawed characters. We can see what made them conquerers and how we can be the same. The how is so important. Its not just about the what. Both are useful, but flawed should be the focus. So there you have it. It depends.

When however you see that perfect character repeated continually, you start to go, “Not again”.

Gulp… Listen to Daeus on this one, guys. He’s uniquely qualified to be offering an opinion.

Okay, first things first. On the podcast Mr. Davis used Aragorn as an example. Good choice of example. I think a lot of what made Aragorn such a great character even though he had no major character flaws was his introductory scene. He was sharp and blunt and not exactly very considerate to poor Butterbur—called him a fat innkeeper who only remembered his own name because people shouted it at him all day. And for the first part of his part of the story you are practically convinced he is a scoundrel and trying to take advantage of the hobbits. So you remember that scene even as you get to know Aragorn better, and it sticks with you that he certainly can be sharp, almost rude, if the occasion demands it.
Besides, he isn’t invincible. For a good part of the second book of the Fellowship of the Ring (each book in the trilogy is two books, remember) he was uncertain what direction to take, and how to lead the fellowship when Gandalf fell.
And as a quick note on this facet of the subject, the Aragorn in the movie was much more flawed and human than the Aragorn in the book, and the Aragorn in the movie is nothing compared to the Aragorn in the book. He is only a shadow of a shade of an echo of a memory.
So I don’t think it’s necessarily always better to have flawed characters— but a significant majority of the time it is. Like, it’s almost never a good idea to make someone perfect unless you want them to be practically untouchable. Which is also almost never a good idea. 😛

‘Some, many, classic older books tend to have the morally perfect character with one flaw thrown in that needs to be ironed out. Once that flaw is indeed remedied, they all live happily ever after, the preachy moral of the story has been dished out, and it’s all good. Alright, that’s fine. They are not trying to write like today’s books. The character aren’t realistic or relatable, because they aren’t three dimension- they are just tools to get the lesson across. They are just there to embody something, but they aren’t much in themselves. Some of these type books are very good, and they do have their place, perhaps a bedtime story or a family devotional. But I personally don’t like this at all, and I know if I saw it in modern fiction, it wouldn’t be labeled as a great thing, it’d be amateur. It’s just a sign of the times, and that’s okay. But yeah. I wouldn’t encourage emulating this. At all. ‘

Excellent points, Emma. Excellent.

Henty. For all his mastery with escapes, you’d think he’d be able to write real people, but no. Some parts about them were real and some specific characters were done well, but overall, they were platonic ideals with a John Bull twist, just given different names.

But Henty did a good job with his side characters. Peterkin and that sailor from Martin Rattler (Can’t remember the name) were great. Martin Rattler is actually a lot like Tintin. Tintin is a really extreme role-model perfect character. But if a little kid goes “Oh, I want to be like Tintin!” It’s more a question of where to start. I mean, he’s proficient with about anything anyone happens to throw at him, weapon or otherwise and has a completely never compromising moral code. Which is great, but Herge could have really benefitted from giving him a few weak points.

I’ve already said this, but hurrah for Peterkin. Henty does have some good points of course. First and foremost are his escapes like I mentioned. He also does a better job than any writer I know of at making historical fiction historical. He is always sure to write a gripping fight or battle scene. Henty was called the prince of story tellers. I think this is accurate. He really could spin a good yarn so to speak, but as a story teller he was focused on the plot and on personal peril, escape, and adventure. Henty was more giving his readers characters to be a role model than a friend.