Last Week’s Discussion:
Weak vs. Weakly-Written
We’ve discussed strong characters. Now it’s time to discuss weak characters and their differences with weakly-written characters, because this can make or break a book and an author. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of discussioners who agreed with me on the topic. Though, not all agreed with my examples. :p Let’s take a look!
Carla Louise said:
“‘Weak’ characters aren’t actually bad. […] I think the problem is when a ‘weak’ character is poorly written.”
Bookmark Chronicles said:
“I also don’t think that I read about weak characters often (or that I just don’t see them that way). The only character that I would consider weak is Aimee from The Spectacular Now, she let’s too many people walk all over her and doesn’t know how to make decisions for herself or how to put herself first.”
“I find most ‘weak’ characters are more real. They have more regular human traits and their point of view is usually in line with what the reader is thinking. It is nice to pretend we are the main character but the weak characters are in a sense more normal.”
This week was fantastic and I especially loved all the examples the discussioners provided of ‘weak’ characters. It seems the weak characters tend to be the ones we love more. Perhaps we love them because the flaws that make them weak characters make them more realistic and relatable.
Flawed characters also promise the reader that the character has a direction in which they can grow. It’s surely an interesting idea and I hope this helps readers and writers to pick out and appreciate ‘weak’ characters over ‘weakly-written’ characters!
Check out this week’s discussion on Thursday at 10am EST:
Gender Double Standards(in Literature)