Can a perfect character be a good character if they're well written?

[Jotari]

So one thing you see a lot of people complaining about are how perfect characters without flaws are automatically bad characters. It's never been a sentiment that I've argued with but I've also always had the belief that every rule in writing can be sidestepped with competent writing. And now I think I have a pretty major example to back that belief up. I've recently read all the Sherlock Holmes stories (well I said read, I got them off audible. 60 hours worth of material for fifteen euro. It was a freaking steal!) and on coming out of it I have to say, Sherlock Holmes is basically a perfect Mary Suish character. He always knows what's going on. Barely ever fails. Knows absolutely everything about anything and is constantly being praised by just about everyone. His typical flaws tend to be his antisocial habits and condescending attitude but they're overplayed way more in the adaptations. In the original stories he's perfectly capable of getting on well with people but chooses not to and the condescending attitude is also quite reserved and fully backed up by the fact that he really is that amazing. And yet, despite all that, he still is an engaging character because his deductions are genuinely good and his personality is generally likeable.

For all the bashing people give for character that exemplify such superior traits and attitudes, this is an example of one that has basically become one of the most popular characters in human history. So it begs the question, why are perfect characters generally seen as uninteresting? I think the most obvious answer is that it's boring. But then the solution is simple. Just make the plot and their reaction to it engaging enough to so that it's not boring.  I'm of course not saying all characters need to be perfect, but more the fault doesn't lie in how many flaws a character has or doesn't have, and more in how the characters actions actually derive intrigue, empathy and suspense in the narrative. What do you think? Is there any "perfect" characters you can think of that you still found to be engaging? Or do you think mr Holmes is a lot more flawed than I'm giving him credit (or indeed is he not even that great a character despite his massive following and legacy)?

[Zerotones]

Perfection itself is an unattainable benchmark to reach, but Sherlock Holmes was indeed a Mary Sue. However, writing good Mary Sues is not impossible, but instead, it is incredibly difficult. It takes an experienced writer with a very good understanding of what makes a Mary Sue character work in their setting without being too jarring or impossible to explain. I personally avoid these types of characters due to the knowledge that my own writing talents are far, far from coming near that level.

However, I won't say you would never be able to write a "good" Mary Sue. That all depends on a myriad of factors, a lot of which includes the aforementioned character balance. I don't know how to reach such a balance myself, perhaps you should consult someone who writes Mary Sue characters often and is able to do so to a decent or even skilled extent.

Best of luck, brother, and I wish you the best in your writing endeavors!

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Zerotones said:

Perfection itself is an unattainable benchmark to reach, but Sherlock Holmes was indeed a Mary Sue. However, writing good Mary Sues is not impossible, but instead, it is incredibly difficult. It takes an experienced writer with a very good understanding of what makes a Mary Sue character work in their setting without being too jarring or impossible to explain. I personally avoid these types of characters due to the knowledge that my own writing talents are far, far from coming near that level.

However, I won't say you would never be able to write a "good" Mary Sue. That all depends on a myriad of factors, a lot of which includes the aforementioned character balance. I don't know how to reach such a balance myself, perhaps you should consult someone who writes Mary Sue characters often and is able to do so to a decent or even skilled extent.

Best of luck, brother, and I wish you the best in your writing endeavors!

Not really planning to write one. Just providing food for thought.

[Sunwoo]

Short answer: yes

Long answer: what determines whether a character is likable or not is usually all in the writing of that character. Perfection is a bad thing when it serves no purpose other than to show how special or great or wonderful a certain character is, especially if said character doesn't deserve all that praise. I don't mind a character being perfect as long as the people around them still treat them realistically. After all, some people are just naturally better at things, or better at getting along with people, than others. But as long as it's kept to a realistic level, it's fine. Really, it's only when the story (or the characters around them) make a big deal about how perfect this character and when people either only care about that character, or everyone who dislikes them is bad, is that you start to get an issue.

[maybe]

in what case is a character "well written" but not a "good character"

[Dandy Druid]

Going off by what @unique said; if they're a well-written character, then they're probably good.

 

I'm just going to leave it as good though, but not great. Because ultimately, the stories that have the biggest impacts on us are with characters we find the most relatable, and Mary Sues are hard to relate to because they're perfect.

[Frenzify]

Yes. The reason perfect character tend not to be good characters is because for the sake of the plot, things tend to go their way, even if it wouldn't make much sense. If they're written well, if they're not just given handouts for the sake of plot, then they certainly can be good characters, if done well.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, unique said:

in what case is a character "well written" but not a "good character"

I suppose "can a perfect character be well written" would be more accurate.

[Res]

I have several thoughts:

- with specific regards to Sherlock Holmes, a big part of the appeal of the books/adaptations is the mystery itself. It doesn't quite matter so much that Sherlock is the perfect detective, because his character is not the focal point (a main point, for sure). In fact there's actually quite a lot about both Holmes and Watson's characters that we're not told (and details we are given are inconsistent - for example, for the books' timeline to work, Watson had at least two wives), a factor which has made them so adaptable for TV. In another fictional setting, Holmes's character would probably be a great deal more irritating. 

- I think Holmes is flawed enough to not be perfect, anyway. Perfect detective, absolutely. But he does have character traits that can be considered unlikeable. If he'd been written to have infinite patience and a kindly manner he'd be instantly ten times more detestable. I also think Conan Doyle was wise not to give him much of a life outside of his detective work.

- several critics have pointed out the unrealistic perfection of Holmes as a detective. Off the top of my head, Colin Dexter (author of the Inspector Morse series) rewrote one of the Sherlock Holmes short stories to point out how flawed Holmes's reasoning is and how the story could've had a different ending while still being true to the original (given the very nature of the stories, there are several in which we never discover if Holmes is correct). I do think a great deal of Sherlock Holmes's popularity is due to how groundbreaking the Sherlock Holmes stories were in their day and how adaptable the works have been.

I can't think of any perfect characters I have found to be engaging. Since no one is perfect, I do think any well-written character is either a) not perfect or b) they're not written in-depth. I can think of a few perfect-seeming characters in, for example, video games, where they don't irritate me, but they're also not given much dialogue or story interaction to work with in the first place.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Res said:

I have several thoughts:

- with specific regards to Sherlock Holmes, a big part of the appeal of the books/adaptations is the mystery itself. It doesn't quite matter so much that Sherlock is the perfect detective, because his character is not the focal point (a main point, for sure). In fact there's actually quite a lot about both Holmes and Watson's characters that we're not told (and details we are given are inconsistent - for example, for the books' timeline to work, Watson had at least two wives), a factor which has made them so adaptable for TV. In another fictional setting, Holmes's character would probably be a great deal more irritating. 

Think about that though is that ultimately the mysteries are about Holmes abilities (and the side characters wrapped up in it) and less about the mystery itself. For the vast majority of the stories the mysteries are outright impossible for the reader to solve before reaching the end of the story since the answer depends on some insight or deduction that Holmes doesn't reveal to the reader and thus the reader doesn't have the necessary information to work it out themselves. It's not a bad thing but it is a different approach to more modern mystery novels that follows stuff like knox's laws. The thrill in these books is basically to bare witness to Holmes' extraordinary mind and Watson's fanboying over him. Holme's brain is very much the focal point for the vast majority of the stories. (and while we get pretty little info on Watson's life during the series and even less about Holmes prior to starting his career, we do see pretty much every aspect of his life during the decades in which the books cover).

[PlaYeRaNoN]

I personally say yes! If you are interested in the potential of paragon characters and the misconceptions behind "Mary Sues", I recommend checking out the Overly Sarcastic Productions channel :

1. Paragons (11min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_Pi6OpNKU&ab_channel=OverlySarcasticProductions
2. Mary Sue (10min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU&t=560s&ab_channel=OverlySarcasticProductions

If I summarize this immensely it boils down to "just don't create characters that bend the plot and 'make it their bitch'" and "play with the idea of how charistmatic, inspiring heroes affect people around them and possibly, what happens when they make bad choices in the name of what they believe is right- and oh boy, can it make fireworks."

[dragonlordsd]

On 2/27/2017 at 0:43 AM, Jotari said:

So one thing you see a lot of people complaining about are how perfect characters without flaws are automatically bad characters. It's never been a sentiment that I've argued with but I've also always had the belief that every rule in writing can be sidestepped with competent writing. And now I think I have a pretty major example to back that belief up. I've recently read all the Sherlock Holmes stories (well I said read, I got them off audible. 60 hours worth of material for fifteen euro. It was a freaking steal!) and on coming out of it I have to say, Sherlock Holmes is basically a perfect Mary Suish character. He always knows what's going on. Barely ever fails. Knows absolutely everything about anything and is constantly being praised by just about everyone. His typical flaws tend to be his antisocial habits and condescending attitude but they're overplayed way more in the adaptations. In the original stories he's perfectly capable of getting on well with people but chooses not to and the condescending attitude is also quite reserved and fully backed up by the fact that he really is that amazing. And yet, despite all that, he still is an engaging character because his deductions are genuinely good and his personality is generally likeable.

For all the bashing people give for character that exemplify such superior traits and attitudes, this is an example of one that has basically become one of the most popular characters in human history. So it begs the question, why are perfect characters generally seen as uninteresting? I think the most obvious answer is that it's boring. But then the solution is simple. Just make the plot and their reaction to it engaging enough to so that it's not boring.  I'm of course not saying all characters need to be perfect, but more the fault doesn't lie in how many flaws a character has or doesn't have, and more in how the characters actions actually derive intrigue, empathy and suspense in the narrative. What do you think? Is there any "perfect" characters you can think of that you still found to be engaging? Or do you think mr Holmes is a lot more flawed than I'm giving him credit (or indeed is he not even that great a character despite his massive following and legacy)?

Yes, but the character must be handled realistically, which Sherlock Holmes often isn't.

The biggest reason Sherlock Holmes often comes of as Mary Sue-ish is that the other characters don't react realistically to him or his flaws. 

The best example of a perfect character is the series Sakamoto Desu Ga (Haven't You Heard, I'm Sakamoto). The entire series focuses on the idea that a perfect human being exists, and how ordinary people have to come to terms with the fact that he is perfect.

This causes a lot of different reactions, which are well handled. For example, certain characters become obsessed over him to the point of stalking/assaulting him. Some characters hate him just out of spite. Still others want to get close to him not because they care about him as a person, but because they want to use his skills or popularity to advance themselves.

Dealing with these kind of situations makes the characters far more believable and acceptable, but Sherlock Holmes never addresses these, so he's just left feeling flat, like early Batman or Superman comics.

[Jotari]

21 hours ago, PlaYeRaNoN said:

I personally say yes! If you are interested in the potential of paragon characters and the misconceptions behind "Mary Sues", I recommend checking out the Overly Sarcastic Productions channel :

1. Paragons (11min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_Pi6OpNKU&ab_channel=OverlySarcasticProductions
2. Mary Sue (10min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-GIY9RTqU&t=560s&ab_channel=OverlySarcasticProductions

If I summarize this immensely it boils down to "just don't create characters that bend the plot and 'make it their bitch'" and "play with the idea of how charistmatic, inspiring heroes affect people around them and possibly, what happens when they make bad choices in the name of what they believe is right- and oh boy, can it make fireworks."

Oh wow. I really like their video style. Thanks for sharing. You just earned them another subscriber.

[PlaYeRaNoN]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Oh wow. I really like their video style. Thanks for sharing. You just earned them another subscriber.

I'm glad you liked them! Their myths and classics summaries are also intertaining, if you got the time: Red's snark is as intertaining as in trope talk videos. 

[Shoblongoo]

Yes.

And the key to a perfect character being "well-written" comes in the manner in which the perfect character goes about interacting with the characters around him, and vice versa. I think we're all sufficiently familiar with the tropes for bad writing of a perfect character that I don't need to rehash in great length where it so often goes wrong. A perfect character that is mindlessly hero-worshiped and praised for being great at everything and never develops an ego or thinks of himself as anything more than just an ordinary guy makes for a rather dull, unrelatable, tropy character.    

But there's two ways to do in correctly--IMO--2 completely opposite but equally effective approaches, that can make for a compelling character. 

1) The Christ-Like Figure. A figure of perfection who is not universally beloved and hero-worshiped for his perfection, but on-the-contrary, is received rather harshly by the world. Nailed to a cross, so-to-speak. He is reviled and feared and made to suffer by his lessers. His perfection disturbs them. And yet in his perfection, he is nothing but gracious to his lessers. Even as the world rejects and torments him. 

2) The Emperor of Mankind. The complete opposite of the above. A perfect figure who--knowing that he is perfect--develops a Trump-sized ego and is just a complete dick about it. He rules you. He will never let you forget that he is better then you in every conceivable way. If you disagree with anything he says or does, you are wrong. Those who would deny him must learn their rightful place beneath his boot.     

...either others act negatively towards the perfect character, or the perfect being acts negatively towards others. And that creates an engaging dynamic.  

Edited May 31, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Original Alear]

Jotari, as an aside I'm going to PM you about this, but I wanted to recommend Nero Wolfe, a detective created by Rex Stout. His curmudgeonly nature, AFAIK, is real, and bothersome. His partner of sorts, Archie, does most of the legwork, and Wolfe tends to invite suspects to his home for dinner before pronouncing his verdict on their guilt.
(It's like the reverse of a Thyestian banquet). If you find brilliant but eccentric detectives interesting, he's probably pretty fun to read.

What you said about surroundings and plot and other chars reminds me of FE9. Ike is pretty Sue'ish, but there are some depths there, and the rest of the cast is likable and entertaining (parrhesia if you're reading this feel free to tear into it). FE in general seems to do decent Sue's, since they probably started making them for young kids and wanted the characters to be likable, cool, noble, roguish and the whole gamut. I dunno.

What you gave to me - a detective character - as an example of someone perfect, is probably more easily counterattacked by going through the system they live in and finding typical faults which mostly everyone probably does have. Also, it seems to me that being condescending and critical would need to be a part of what he is trying to do. If he likes solving mysteries, does his personality help him?

Between Holmes and Watson, are we merely discussing good cop, bad cop? (Haven't really read any holmes stuff)

in what case is a character "well written" but not a "good character"

If - if - and when we accept that there will be bad people in the world, or people who do bad things.

Anyway, as to the real answer to this question:

A character being perfect may mean all of existence is perfect. Their perfection extends outwards - perfection should include the ability to undo all imperfection in being perfect. This would be a strong reading of the word "perfect," but perfect is usually a bit of a strong word. If you converse with others and start calling them perfect, you might find people who aren't willing to accept they have enough goodness to qualify for perfect. I know that when people call me perfect, it puts me a bit on edge. "Why is this person praising me? Do they want to get something out of me?"

There probably are exceptions. If the prison in The Dark Knight Rises had been successful in keeping its prisoners stuck forever, their qualities of good or bad would likely be irrelevant to most of humanity. In other words, isolated enough populations can create a notion of good or evil or bad or right if they aren't interacting with the mainstream(s). In fact, I hope that even we in the mainstreams can make a world that is good enough

But the truth is that in a story, if not in reality, characters are typically written to have a meaningful role in the plot. The author can write for us that "X, Y and Z performed their work with all of their being and only the fact that they were true to the absolute highest qualities caused a bad situation to go right again." But does that sound very convincing? Neither "winning sides," "losers", "helpless victims," "madmen," "megalomaniacs," etc. are likely to really put every ounce of their effort into what they do from morning to night to make their days right. And I believe the reason they will fail is because they won't know everything and will make errors.

Still, you won't see me intentionally playing coy about what I think as I used to if you see me on here. (he said, and then forgot to remember)

A perfect character that is mindlessly hero-worshiped and praised for being great at everything and never develops an ego or thinks of himself as anything more than just an ordinary guy makes for a rather dull, unrelatable, tropy character.    

Confused here because having an ego doesn't seem to necessarily relatable or untropey, and lacking an ego doesn't seem to do the opposite.

To wrap up, my answer is absolutely, they can be well written, good characters. In part because we so clearly want to claim we accept imperfection, it would be critics such as myself attacking perfection as boring or uninteresting who are simply championing imperfection.

1) The Christ-Like Figure. A figure of perfection who is not universally beloved and hero-worshiped for his perfection, but on-the-contrary, is received rather harshly by the world. Nailed to a cross, so-to-speak. He is reviled and feared and made to suffer by his lessers. His perfection disturbs them. And yet in his perfection, he is nothing but gracious to his lessers. Even as the world rejects and torments him. 

2) The Emperor of Mankind. The complete opposite of the above. A perfect figure who--knowing that he is perfect--develops a Trump-sized ego and is just a complete dick about it. He rules you. He will never let you forget that he is better then you in every conceivable way. If you disagree with anything he says or does, you are wrong. Those who would deny him must learn their rightful place beneath his boot.    

I think you've misunderstood perfection in the first case, if you ask me. The first, the christ like figure, if all he meets is hatred and revilement for being good, that's a wrong on society, but how does it make him perfect? Did sticking his neck out too far get him reviled and feared? If his perfection is disturbing, he should have reduced it. Lacking self awareness is not evidence of perfection. An individual leading a movement of morality or trying to show how to deal with "sin" who encourages only hate of those who work against it...whatever he's doing, he's doing it the wrong way. Can he ever claim that he did more good in self abnegation when in turn, all he received was revilement? All he taught the world was how to hate people like him.

Did we really need him to die for us? Or could we have dreamed him up and done enough?

I doubt it's possible for 2 to really be concentrated in one specific figure, but I could imagine an "elite" or "computer AI" or somewhatever conspiracy trying to consistently keep those under them down below. I can deny the perfection of that ruler easily, and that ruler probably won't even care, but it really doesn't matter if they have enough power, or enough apathy, or whatever.

[Skynstein]

On 2017-5-31 at 11:44 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Yes.

And the key to a perfect character being "well-written" comes in the manner in which the perfect character goes about interacting with the characters around him, and vice versa. I think we're all sufficiently familiar with the tropes for bad writing of a perfect character that I don't need to rehash in great length where it so often goes wrong. A perfect character that is mindlessly hero-worshiped and praised for being great at everything and never develops an ego or thinks of himself as anything more than just an ordinary guy makes for a rather dull, unrelatable, tropy character.    

But there's two ways to do in correctly--IMO--2 completely opposite but equally effective approaches, that can make for a compelling character. 

1) The Christ-Like Figure. A figure of perfection who is not universally beloved and hero-worshiped for his perfection, but on-the-contrary, is received rather harshly by the world. Nailed to a cross, so-to-speak. He is reviled and feared and made to suffer by his lessers. His perfection disturbs them. And yet in his perfection, he is nothing but gracious to his lessers. Even as the world rejects and torments him. 

2) The Emperor of Mankind. The complete opposite of the above. A perfect figure who--knowing that he is perfect--develops a Trump-sized ego and is just a complete dick about it. He rules you. He will never let you forget that he is better then you in every conceivable way. If you disagree with anything he says or does, you are wrong. Those who would deny him must learn their rightful place beneath his boot.     

...either others act negatively towards the perfect character, or the perfect being acts negatively towards others. And that creates an engaging dynamic.  

I think neither are perfect, but #2 even less so because egoism is considered a flaw. Even perfection is relative and/or restricted!

[KnightOfNohr]

My answer is yes: if that character is Subaki! Or Literally Cordelia I guess. 

[Skynstein]

21 minutes ago, KnightOfNohr said:

My answer is yes: if that character is Subaki! Or Literally Cordelia I guess. 

Cordelia is not perfect. That's the whole point of her character, she looks perfect on the outside but her mind is a mess, full of confidence issues that hinder her. She's a good foil to Sumia because they're pretty much exact opposites, as the things that trouble Sumia don't trouble Cordelia and vice-versa.

[KnightOfNohr]

Just now, Cerberus87 said:

Cordelia is not perfect. That's the whole point of her character, she looks perfect on the outside but her mind is a mess, full of confidence issues that hinder her. She's a good foil to Sumia because they're pretty much exact opposites, as the things that trouble Sumia don't trouble Cordelia and vice-versa.

Actually, I was talking about  Cealdori. Admittedly, I feel she's a lot more humble than Subaki, but the joke stands. Personally the "perfect protagonist" can be done well, but it takes a skilled writer.

[SullyMcGully]

Anybody remember Zidane Tribal from FF9? He's kinda my avatar... anyway, he isn't exactly a completely perfect character, but he does have that whole complex where he is incapable of not doing what is right in any given situation. However, I think he was very wall done in spite of that. In the game's final scene, we see Zidane about to throw his life away, fully knowing that he will not save anyone in the process but still incapable of not trying. It's kind of pathetic, and the game actually acknowledges this as Zidane comes to grips with the fact that he is basically a slave to his sense of virtue. It takes his perfection and makes it unique. 

That's why I like Zidane. And I think we could use a few more perfect characters like him.

[Snowy_One]

Yes. Very much so. The common misconception about Mary Sue's is that they are perfect characters. In my experience, however, it is not their perfection that makes them a Mary Sue but, rather, their perfection being a byproduct of being a Mary Sue. The author is afraid or unwilling to have them ever be wrong, hesitant to let them fail, and so-forth resulting in a character who NEEDS to be perfect in order for the narrative to work. Otherwise they don't have a story. But that perfection is not what makes the Sue.

In my experience the thing that makes a Mary Sue is author favoritism; especially to the point where the world is willing to warp around them in order to ensure their status as being the MC, likely being always right, and so-forth. Using Star Trek as an example, if someone were to write a story in which they become the captain of the Enterprise D a Sue would have beaten the Kobayashi Maru simulation (a feat canonically confirmed to have only happened twice to the best of my knowledge, by Kirk and his cheating and Nog's unexpected use of ferangi bargaining/diplomacy), managed to escape the Tholian Web, introduced multiple new species into the Federation, and so-forth. They would probably be allowed to wear their clothes of choice as opposed to the standard uniform simply because of how 'good' they were. Get away with horrible acts that would have anyone else court-mashalled. Not to mention many other things. Probably all while being told that they're just one short step away from losing the Enterprise D while Picard/Riker/whoever the author loves dotes all over them and whoever they hate turns into Snidley Whiplash trying to sabotage them.

However, take note of all that. None of that is perfection creating a Mary Sue but being a Mary Sue resulting in perfection. The character is an author insert in a world in which they are always right an which has been warped to their whims. How did they beat the KM? Either using bog-standard tactics that an idiot could think of or just being THAT good. For comparison Scotty, when he took the KM, got a stalemate by performing engineering tricks which were outright stated to not be viable in reality but functional in the simulation resulting in a never-ending stalemate before they shut off the simulation for his own health. In the new Star Trek Kirk's cheating is shown and it's not used to show him being awesome or anything like that but to establish his character. Namely that he does not believe in no-win situations and that he is willing to use unorthodox tactics, even cheat, to do win as well as showing a bit of the future relationship between Kirk and Spock.

Batman, while perfectly fine when written well, can devolve into a Mary Sue when the writer favors him far too much (See: Act of God) or when they overlook his flaws (Allstar Batman and Robin), but I doubt anyone would claim that he's a terrible character without some personal stake in the matter. Superman is constantly struggling against the pressures and temptations to simply right all the worlds wrongs and to adhire to his ideals. This is why the single most effective weapon against him has shown to be 'Why don't you just put the whole world in a bottle?'. It's effective because he could, but in doing so he'd become an iron-fisted dictator unable to uphold the very ideals he's fought and espoused so hard. Hence his character dilemma.

Going to games we can see Samus as another 'perfect' character. She's an outsider loner who doesn't 'need' anyone (OTHER M CAN SUCK IT!) who inherits a ton of lost ancient alien technology that makes her super-powerful and she always succeeds in her missions. However she's not a sue as these 'perfections' aren't meant to showcase how great she is. Rather they're there to build the world and the game is set upon Samus's constant explorations, discoveries, and fighting space pirates. By comparison Kratos from God of War is a massive Sue outside of his first game. He commits horrible acts yet is frequently framed as being in the right (because the gods are jerks), the gods get warped and hold the idiot ball massively through and through, Kratos does things which would basically destroy the world a thousand times over... and he's supposed to be the person we're rooting for. The man with the personality of a raging baboon who uses women as doorstops is the good guy. 

So, yea, it's entirely possible to make a likable perfect character. Mary Sueness is not the result of perfection but, rather, perfection is often the result of Sueness.