Do you prefer flawed or virtuous characters?
Do you prefer flawed or virtuous characters?
Related
13 answers
55 answers
69 answers
97 answers
71 answers
116 answers
96 answers
29 answers
44 answers
157 answers
Loading Please wait
Flawed!
Flawed are far more interesting
Flawed
Flawed!!
Flawed. The virtuous characters thing made Mansfield Park a huge drag.
Flawed – I can relate to them more 😉
Both
Flawed!!! They’re more realistic. No one is perfect.
Flawed but with some redeeming character
Flawed
I like interesting characters. No one likes a cardboard cutout.
Flawed!
Flawed.
Flawed as in humanly flawed; but not sociopathic or evil.
Agreed
Both in the same book
I like not only flawed but unlikable characters.
I prefer believable characters, in realistic situations in actual settings.
Well both.
Flawed
Flawed enough to make the story interesting but still relatable if not likable.
Flawed
Both
Flawed..
Wonderful question! I can’t think of many virtuous characters that I liked. My favorite saints are flawed.
Flawed characters who really want to be virtuous.
Everyone is flawed, even the virtuous. So do I prefer the flawed who know it or the virtuous who don’t? They both make for good reading if the writer gets it right.
Both … When I read the Harry Potter series as an adult, I wished that such an imperfect character had been written for us. Someone who realistically expressed emotions like anger, fear, and jealousy, letting readers know it’s okay to have these feelings.
Oh, interesting perspective. I am in my 40s and just finished reading the series for the first time. What I liked is that I felt like so many of the characters *were* flawed, not the least of which was Sirius (and James Potter for that matter). But even Dumbledore was imperfect. And Harry was a downright Bratty McJerkface sometimes.
Flawed, all the way!
Yes!?
Yes….both!
With the exception of Atticus Finch, virtuous is boring!
I just wrote almost the exact same comment below!
Flawed
Flawed, but with some redeeming qualities.
Are they mutually exclusive?
Flawed – like most of us!
A virtuous character can’t be flawed? A flawed character can’t be virtuous?
Yes and yes.
Flawed, they are more relatable to me. Also, imperfection is humanity. IMO
Flawed
Flawed – more relatable (notable exception: Atticus Finch in TKAM)
Flawed
Both
Flawed. Definitely.
I like characters that are strong. I don’t care if they are “good” or “bad” as long as they have something that is important to them and they stick to it. I dislike the modern trend of characters who are flawed for the sake of being flawed. Some authors add in annoying traits, supposedly to make the characters more realistic, but all they accomplish is creating a character I don’t want to spend time with. Most books that I give up on reading get abandoned because I can’t stand a major character.
You can be both.. Those are the best characters..
What a good question! Since we are all flawed, I like relatable characters. Therefore I liked them with flaws. I really hate when the main character is not at all likable. It’s hard to read and relate. Jayne
both
I like when the flawed and virtuous character are played against each other and then they switch roles! Both ?
I can handle a flawed character such as Jake Barnes in “The Sun Also Rises”, but I did not like Tim O’Brien’s protagonist in “The Things They Carried” or Robert Leckie in his memoir “Helmet For My Pillow”.
Both – Flawed characters are more realistic and interesting!
Flawed
I like complex characters with soul
I like both but if I really had to choose it would be flawed.
Both.
Too perfect and they’re boring, lacking depth. Too flawed and I don’t want to spend time with such a person. Their humanity comes in being a blend, striving but not always succeeding.
Combo, that’s humanity
My favorite is flawed with good intent. One of my all time favorite examples of this is Lancelot from Once and Future King.
Flawed
Both. But maybe flawed just a tiny bit more 🙂
Flawed characters can be virtuous. Nobody is perfect.
The exact words I intended to write! ??
Definitely flawed.
Flawed mostly but I think complex is a better word because even virtuous ones can be complex and interesting.
Flawed becoming virtuous or virtuous becoming flawed
Read Gentleman In Moscow which is he?
Flawed. They are more realistic.
Balanced characters. I do not like characters that are too perfect or too evil. I want to see a little of both sides of them.
Both – it’s only human!
Flawed characters are much morw interesting. I am currently reading Gone with the Wind and there is a reason why we love Scarlett and not Melly.
Flawed….
Flawed! I can relate to them.
Virtuous
Flawed. Virtue is a wonderful quality but not very exciting to read about. I would also generally rather read about the struggling than the rich.
Both.
Yes,booth…….
Usually flawed
Flawed but striving to be virtuous–in a realistic, human way.
Flawed – we’re all flawed
Perfect characters are not believable.
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive characteristics. Virtuous characters who get challenged again and again make for good stories too!
Flawed
Flawed
Flawed, like the rest of us.
Someone can be both flawed and virtuous. Elizabeth Bennett from Pride and Prejudice comes to mind.
Just ordinary humans
I prefer flawed BUT virtuous, the idea of good but room for improvement is intrguing.
It makes for a good story.
sorry, typo, intriguing
Flawed
Combo too boring. The other way
Flawed
I like the “bad” ones.
Flawed
Given that the novels I’m currently reading feature a conniving, Machiavellian clergyman (“Barchester Towers”), an adulteress and her lower-class lover (“Lady Chatterley’s Lover”), a crazed, obsessive whaling captain (“Moby Dick”), and two 18th century French libertines attempting to corrupt and wreck the happiness of the people in their orbit (“Les Liaisons Dangereuses”), I think it’s safe to say that my preference is for flawed characters.
I like characters who are both but primarily virtuous. They’re pretty rare in literature and real life so I definitely enjoy their uniqueness.
Flawed, like real people. Scarlett O’Hara from Gone with the Wind is one that comes to mind.
More realistic if they have flaws, and more relateable
Somewhere in between.
One whose character either rises or falls from one to the other.
Flawed.
Flawed
Virtuous…and I like happy endings too.
Flawed wins every time for me.
Flawed with virtuous souls
Flawed, so much more interesting.
Flawed
Dynamic characters who change in some significant way are usually more interesting…but then, Atticus Finch, one of my favorite characters was a morally good person, lawyer, and father throughout TKAM.
Flawed
You can be both.
What a great question! I love redemption stories, so…both?
As long as I don’t have to deal with them in real life, I like flawed. In real life, I prefer virtuous.
Flawed characters are more intriguing.
A book needs a problem that leads to a resolution, hopefully with some missteps along the way. Without character flaws, I don’t think that could make for a very interesting story.
Flawed
Flawed characters hearts of gold and redeeming traits and virtuous characters with flaws and human traits.
Flawed
Flawed.
Definitely flawed
Flawed because their exploits are more interesting to read than virtuous characters.
Flawed. Far more interesting and true to life.
Flawed because they are more real.