Fable

See, Sami, this is why I love writing with Alex and why Jeff is one of my favorite writing partners ever. Both of them understand what it is to have characters whose flaws can hinder their own advancements and neither one of them have any qualms about 'taking a dive' for the integrity of the storyline. This always makes for a better read and this is why I get so excited when I get involved with anything they're doing.

Personally, I have characters that are either designed to die or designed to live. If they get involved in something that will screw up what I want their fate to be (IOW, their predestined death) then I'll pull them out and move on. Otherwise, my characters bleed, mourne, and all around have their faults.

I've written with both types of writers; those who want their character to remain perfect in an imperfect world, and those who realize that perfection isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I prefer the latter.

and those who realize that perfection isn't all it's cracked up to be.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Why are you so much more clear-headed than I am? Q_Q

Some characters should be perfect if it's thematically relevant. Flat, static characters exist and serve a purpose in all forms of literature. While it is true that it becomes boring when everyone plays and generally misuses that type of character, I also doubt our ability to comprehend the usage of these characters without engaging them for some length of time. It's much like reading the first chapter of The Giver and dismissing it for these qualities, but that would be entirely missing the point of the work. In short, it is in our best interests as members of the community to not exercise judgmental attitudes, but engage in constructive criticism. It is not to change someone's character, but to help them legitimize its intended purpose.

However, I wouldn't begrudge someone for disliking The Giver and choosing not to read it or books of its genre, much in the same way I won't begrudge someone for avoiding certain characters. We all have different tastes, which is what I believe makes roleplaying an excellent medium for writing. The variety and often pure spontaneity, very much a form of serial free writing, creates for us a crucible of creative prowess that, while imperfect, benefits us all.

The problem arises when *every* character is a perfect character. A perfect character cannot grow; they are already fully realized. Stories shouldn't begin at the ending, when everything has already been settled and the character has achieved enlightenment.

And you're right, there were 'perfect characters' in The Giver. They weren't truly perfect (I remember a passage about the parents of the main character never spending time together because they found more interest in their friends.)--and that was the point of the entire story. The psuedo-perfect characters in The Giver were thematically important. They helped further the plot of the main character -- an imperfect character, by their standards as well as ours. They were background noise to validate his struggle. None of them were legitimate protagonists. So, sure, they can and should be used to further plots. But not as a hero of a story.

I don't think any person rping would like to be considered an NPC 100% of the time. It's their choice, however.

The perfect characters I'm talking about are more along the lines of Twilight -- Bella and Edward, with faux-faults. I think they're called Mary-Sues? Those are no fun to read. I'm sure they're plenty of fun to write. If you like that sort of thing.

Let me clarify what I meant, then, because I took your blog post more generally than typical Mary Sues and I like discussing roleplay topics too much:

My point about The Giver was less about the nature of imperfection vs. perfection and more about the format of a novel vs. a roleplay, but to briefly address perfection: it's relative. In the context of The Giver, they were truly perfect for that setting until a certain point of view was introduced and developed throughout the narrative. Ideals are culturally transmitted and there is no way to objectively measure perfection. What is imperfect is what has flaws, but what is a flaw varies widely from culture to culture and from person to person. I feel this is self-evident enough, given the success of Twilight. Note that I do not think its success protects it from criticism, but if you'll allow a tangential comment about Twilight:

I believe the problem comes down to poor writing. Any character in any work that is driven by poor writing will be a bad character in a bad work.

I digress and return to the issue of format: we know the perfect characters in The Giver aren't so perfect, at least from a certain point of view, but it's only because we've read it from start to finish. A roleplaying story rarely has an end and the people one roleplays with aren't always there for the beginning. This is what is meant by caution in judging from the first chapter: unless we read past that first chapter, we are ill equipped to judge a character, its purpose, how it will develop and whether the conflicts that will arise from that character's interactions can be interesting.

On that note, conflict is what drives most interesting stories. Flaws provide writers with one type of conflict from the start: character vs. self. These flaws will generally open avenues to other conflicts, but I don't think flaws are necessary for interesting conflicts. They certainly help, though. A perfect character can be a hero or a side character in a roleplay, but The Giver is not an apt example of that. To give a less specific example, off of the top of my head there could be significant and amusing conflict between a perfect mentor and a belligerent student or an inept mentor and a perfect student. There could even be interesting conflict between a perfect mentor and a perfect student, but you're right when you say a problem arises when every character is perfect; that is a situation which requires some formidable writing prowess to pull off. Such situations tend to work best in comedies.

To be more specific, have you ever seen the film Vampires Suck? It's a parody of Twilight. I found it rather amusing, but all of the character traits from the original characters were in tact. Characters of parodies in general might fit the Mary Sue template, but they're still funny. Like I said, if it's thematically relevant, it should be done. This requires forethought, good writing and ingenuity. Otherwise, you are right: it can be an eyesore.

Anyway, the point of this was to say that even if you end up in a roleplay with a perfect character, there's still things that can be done to create a good story. It doesn't have to be a terribly loathsome thing that drives you raving mad, screaming from the thread.