4 - How Characters are built upon Flaws

 

In Ancient Greece, one of the greatest warriors told is Achilles, a legendary character who was nigh invincible and a force of his own when it came to battle. While Achilles’ story had its own morals and lessons, the main one I want to pick out is his death, in which, despite all his acclaim and power, he was struck down by a lone arrow to his heel, the one point in which he was mortal.  This character of Achilles is the most basic example of a character with a pivotal flaw, in which his heel was his ultimate downfall. Character flaws are an essential vehicle of storytelling due to such qualities being required for character development and forming conflicts in the story. 

A main reason why character flaws are so interwoven in the art of storytelling is that it is such a familiar trait to have, and that writing characters requires this as to somewhat make them engaging and interesting. Everyone has their individual flaws they can point to, as it influences our social decisions and personalities every day. Someone who claims that they do not have a flaw is a flaw in of itself. If people had no flaws, there would be no conflict or change in character, as there would be no need to inspect one’s imperfections and enhance them in some way (In Achilles case, while he did not have time to learn from his flaws, others can be influenced by observing his hamartia). Some of the most engaging stories focus all on one character and them encountering their flaws, either as an external force resulting from their actions, or a conflict that is confined inside the mind. 

Oedipus is a character who is directly influenced by his pivotal flaw. Despite being an accomplished champion, he viewed himself as higher than everyone else, going into conflict over Creon while ignoring the clues to his fate. This one flaw amplifies the tragic element of the story by tearing down the walls of confidence that Oedipus previously had. While the fate aspect of the story can be debated about in how impactful that is to the conclusion, the flaws of Oedipus in his pompous attitude certainly made the character reach his breaking point in emotional overload. Sophocles argued that, in order to have a tragic hero, they have to be “good”, but also “lifelike”. While Oedipus accomplished many trials that grant him the status of hero, a truly lifelike character will have flaws to overcome. 

 

I would even argue that, without the flaw that Oedipus has, there would not be a tragedy. The main force that held in conflict with him was not Creon or the fate of the gods, but it was his own flaw that led to his downfall. It was not the part of the fate that he would recoil in horror over his own actions and blind himself, it was his own hands that did that. If Oedipus didn’t react so badly to this realization, then it would not be as remembered as a tragedy. An Oedipus who is reasonable may accept or learn to change, which does not fulfill the yearn of failure that a tragedy requires.  

If the main character has no flaws, then there is no story. There is a reason why nobody wants to read or listen about a character that is literally flawless. There is virtually no use that people can get out of such a character – if this character is unbeatable physically and emotionally, why is there any need to be a story? Wouldn't the character overcome such trials easily and not have to change at all? Such characters would be boring, as there would be no stakes or conflicts in the story (if there would be enough meaning to call it a story). 

For example, Superman is one character in media that is seen as one of the most powerful characters ever conceived, with the hundreds of abilities he possesses. This gives him a lot of critics who consider him “too powerful” to be engaging, as they will always assume that he is going to win in every circumstance (which isn’t completely false, but Superman still can be affected by such experiences). Although he is very powerful, he is given 2 pivotal weaknesses that fleshes out his character. 

 One of these, kryptonite, is a more straightforward approach to making Superman more grounded by temporality reducing him to the strength of a normal human. This allows new situations in which he must come up with a new method in order to save the day, giving stakes and reasonable conflict to the story. The other one is the inclusion of Lois Lane, which adds an emotional weakness that he sometimes must protect, further making him more of an interesting character who must balance 2 spheres of his life. 

(Spoilers for a 40-year-old film) When superman is confronted with the death of Lois Lane in Superman, he disobeys his main quest in order to take a risk to revive Lois Lane. This shows Superman’s character by acknowledging a flaw in that he feels like every human depends on him and that he must be valiant to save every life, which makes him take this huge risk in the film. 

In order to have story, you need characters, and in order to have characters, you need to give them interesting stories to go along with them. The flaws of characters make them more than one dimension, in that they have something to overcome and a desire to change, which separates them from still objects. Achilles, Oedipus, and Superman are all morally good figures in thier own right, but it is their flaws that make them characters in which we can connect to.