Main Characters Screw Up & That's OK
As the ever-insightful Tiger Grey pointed out in a recent comment, it's common for readers to see the main characters-- especially first-person narrators-- as extensions of the author's views, without taking cues from context in the story (especially context which indicates the main character might be incorrect). As spot-on as this observation is, I do wonder if part of that behaviour is due to the fact many authors have a massive aversion to letting their main characters be wrong in the first place.
Part of this may be due to not wanting to watch one's characters screw up, because there's a cringe element to seeing them walk into a trap or create series of avoidable problems for themselves. Even though they're not real, and even though we're the ones dumping them into troublesome situations on purpose (bwahahaha!), it's tempting to use our omniscient author skills to make everything okay.
Because first of all, characters who never make a mistake are about as entertaining as a sleeping pet rock. We know they're not going to get it wrong, and thus they're never in any physical or psychological danger, which kills the suspense. Even in genres where we expect the hero to triumph, we know that they might make an almost-fatal mistake, like identifying the wrong person as the mole or miscalculating how fast the were-iguana army can reach their fortress.
Second, characters should make mistakes do so because they have flaws and shortcomings, and those imperfections are what make them relatable. We can't really see anything of ourselves in a character whose perception is always perfectly in tune with objective reality, because that's not how we experience the world. Characters with limited perception, limited knowledge*, and personality faults which cause them trouble are human-like and thus able to inspire empathy (or at least fascination).
Part of this may be due to not wanting to watch one's characters screw up, because there's a cringe element to seeing them walk into a trap or create series of avoidable problems for themselves. Even though they're not real, and even though we're the ones dumping them into troublesome situations on purpose (bwahahaha!), it's tempting to use our omniscient author skills to make everything okay.
Because first of all, characters who never make a mistake are about as entertaining as a sleeping pet rock. We know they're not going to get it wrong, and thus they're never in any physical or psychological danger, which kills the suspense. Even in genres where we expect the hero to triumph, we know that they might make an almost-fatal mistake, like identifying the wrong person as the mole or miscalculating how fast the were-iguana army can reach their fortress.
Second, characters should make mistakes do so because they have flaws and shortcomings, and those imperfections are what make them relatable. We can't really see anything of ourselves in a character whose perception is always perfectly in tune with objective reality, because that's not how we experience the world. Characters with limited perception, limited knowledge*, and personality faults which cause them trouble are human-like and thus able to inspire empathy (or at least fascination).
No comments have been added yet.
