Why flawed characters?

[B.R.Stateham]

I asked one of our Crimespacers if he would be gracious enough to review my book Murderous Passions.  He did and posted his review on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.  His assessment was both honest and accurate. And appreciated.

 

But he mentioned something which got me to thinking.  He said the book was a light read (which is okay.  I don't mind that description) and mentioned it might be too light for those who want to read a darker kind of novel.

 

So the question that comes to mind is this;  Why is a flawed, sometimes almost hopelessly flawed, character more important that a complex, interest-grabbing plot?  When did a good whodunit become secondary to character development?

 

The secondary question which arose was this;  Surely there are just as many readers out there who prefer a well plotted story line in a novel as there those who prefer character-driven novels.  There are millons of people who love to do puzzles.  And a good crime novel can be a wonderful puzzle to trip and blunder through.

 

But if a book has characters who are not deeply scared (and/or deeply whacko) apparently the book become a 'light' read.

 

Yes?  No?

 

What are your thoughts?

[I. J. Parker]

Yes. Two different kinds of books for two different kinds of readers. I like flawed characters myself, probably because I'm somewhat hung up on having things as close to real life as possible. Besides, it's rather nice to see how flawed people cope. One can be inspired by it.

[Jon Loomis]

I think ideally one wants to do some of both. Flawed characters are ultimately more interesting, maybe, than impervious, super-genius detectives like Poirot and Holmes because they're more human, and there's perhaps a bit more doubt in the reader's mind about whether they're actually going to be up to catching the bad guy this time around. I think also that since the advent of modern psychology, we have a lot more trouble taking an impervious detective seriously as a character--everyone's vulnerable, ultimately--even Superman. As for the plot thing: I think it's very important, too, although my impulse so far has been to spoof on its conventions pretty broadly.

[Eric Christopherson]

I think that historically the movement has been toward more emphasis on characterization, a balancing of the inner journey with the outer. We're a long way from Agatha Christie now.

[Jon Loomis]

It's partly a point of view decision, too. Contemporary writers are much more likely to use third person close than Christie's very distant third person, or Conan Doyle's even more distanced first-person-through-the-eyes-of-the-sidekick thing. I think their impulse was to keep their detectives at a distance (like Poe's Dupin) in order to make them seem less human, in a way. Apart from and above the normal order of human frailties, for the most part--particularly unmoved by sex or money. That's characterization, and plenty of it--but it's not the kind of characterization that's currently in style.

[Mike Dennis]

Flawed characters are not inherently more important than a complex plot, BR. It's probably just that your reviewer favors the former. Had he favored the latter, and plenty of people do, he would've undoubtedly omitted the "light read" observation.

It's just two different schools of thought, one no more definitive than the other.

[Stacy]

Hi B.R.,

I think it's more about what's easier for the reader to relate to. See, a plot is only as important as your characters and how they react. You can have the most intriguing plot in the world but if I can't relate to your characters for whatever reason, I will end up with a less than favorable reading experience and might even put the book down. Characters or plots can drive the story of course, but characters engage readers. They are the ones we link with emotionally and the ones who make us turn the pages. Characters are extremely important and perfect or one-dimensional characters are difficult to relate to.

You can write a book about Jeff trying to slay dragons while climbing Mt. Everest and be the best writer in the world. But if I don't care about Jeff, I won't be turning the pages and following the adventure with him, LOL.

Characters make us care. Plots keep the story going and give characters something to do. We want that interraction we want to see what the characters go through and that's what attracts readers.

I agree with you about what a good crime novel can be. Crime novels come in different forms. You must remember, don't take the review to heart. He is only sharing his opinion and someone else could feel totally different. Another reviewer might read your book and say the total opposite of this one, LOL!

I can't comment on your book of course, because I haven't read it but now I'd like to check it out. It seems interesting just from what's been said.

You are right, there are a lot of people who prefer plot-driven stories. That's really what all us crime fiction writers write. Our stories rely on the plot. Someone commits a crime, a mystery brews and it's our characters' jobs to solve it. But we also must remember that we have to make sure we have good character development. It's so easy in this genre to go on plot and neglect to get deeper into the characters. I think books can be both and strong on both ends.

Also, bottom line it's a matter of opinion. See what different readers are saying about your book. Don't focus too much on one reviewer's opinion.

Best Wishes!

http://www.stacy-deanne.net

[Stacy]

I also get the feeling this guy isn't a regular crime/mystery reader because he should know that there are different types of mysteries and crime novels. There is nothing wrong with your novel if it's considered "light" because there are many lighter crime novels. Just because it's a crime novel doesn't mean you gotta write like a Tarantino film. I've read many mysteries and crime novels that were light and some were very heavy on violence. Whatever works for the author and the story should be fine. One of the hottest selling subgenres in crime fiction is cozy mysteries which show no violence or "darker" things at all. But they still solve crimes and doesn't mean the book isn't good.

Don't worry about it, B.R. LOL!

[B.R.Stateham]

No, no---I'm not upset about the review! Far from it--I asked for an honest review. And I got it. He liked the story AND the characters. But the concept of a 'light read' has been bounced around before in different disguises in here and the consensus has been most readers . . .most critics . . . prefer the flawed character and really don't say a lot about the story line.

Stacy, I agree with you that through the character the story develops, and without characters you identify with, the rest of the novel is a so-so. But I'm concerned about the either-or's we find in developing characters. Either the main character is a super-hero, two deminsional cardboard cut out. Or he's one sick puppy needing psychiatric help.

[Jon Loomis]

I get that "light read" thing, too, B.R., and it annoys me until I remember that I'm actually writing comedies.