//Short discussion time.
So lately (or maybe not that lately), people have been really worked up about the characters of the books they read being ‘flawed’. I don’t know from when exactly this flawness became a ‘thing’, but I’ve been noticing that nowadays, more and more people appreciate authors who pen down ‘flawed characters’. We like to read about characters who are not flawless or perfect, who are as humanly real as possible.
Why so? Simply to avoid feeling insecure, because the more flawed and human the character, the more realistic it feels. The more we can connect with the person, and the more we feel an attachment towards him/her. Authors who can present the flawness as realistic and humane, are appauded and cherished.
Which brings me to my question : what about characters who are wrong? Not just flawed, but fundamentally wrong? Do you still like such characters, by guising them under their so-called ‘flawness’ or do you judge those characters for what they are?
For me, personally, when a character does something wrong because of a flaw in his/her character (for eg, misbehave because of anger issues, or doing something rash because of being impulsive by nature etc.), I find it easier to accept than when a characater does something wrong or immoral or inappropriate.
I feel like wrongness brings out a funadamental deficiency in the character, whereas a flaw brings out the humanity in him. For me, it is much easier to accept and sympathize towards some trait which is ‘there’ in the character (like a flaw, which cannot be helped) than a wrong act (which is a character’s own decision and choice and action).
What about you? Do you draw a line between ‘flaw’ and ‘wrongness’?