I was listening to an episode of The Dead Languages Podcast on some of the structural problems with big mainstream horror books and one thing really hit me. It was the part about characters. The hosts were talking about how authors in horror these days feel the need to make these perfect, likable MCs who have job interview flaws at most and who are generally unproblematic. Or, if they do have a real flaw or are (god forbid) mean to someone, they lampshade it to death so that you know the author is actually a good person.

All I could think about at first is…how boring is that?

But other people have talked plenty of how perfectly upright characters with few to no flaws are dull. I’ll leave that for them. I’ll talk about how the preference for such characters, to the exclusion all flaws, is actually questionable in itself.

Many early stories capitalized on this. The hero was always an example of perfect good. They were sweet, kind, compassionate, and maybe their big flaw was (as the Dead Languages Podcast hosts joke about) being too nice and helpful and getting themselves into some dangerous situations. Yes, there are people like this. Pollyanna still gets her due. Anne of Green Gables is still out there rockin’ it. Yes, they deserve to have their own stories told. But when these are the only people getting their stories told, or the only people getting happy endings, it starts to look pretty shady because the implication is…

If you didn’t get a happy ending, maybe it’s because you were brutally mean to someone. Or because you said something sexist. Or because you killed someone. Doesn't really matter which, because any of these flaws can get you slotted into the villain realm in a categorical system. And that means, no HEA for you!

To the point, many books create a false dichotomy between “good people” who are brave, kind, and honest vs "bad people” who are cowardly, cruel liars. But if you read any of my personality articles, you know that personality is a spectrum, not boxes, and that your behavior can change drastically depending on your situation. You can be an asshole to your brother but kind to your neighbor and her dog. Your personality can even change over time (look at all the shy introverts who become outgoing later in life).

So, are you a good person? Do you get an HEA?

When most MCs have to be “likeable” and unproblematic, or at least espouse the right political views 100% of the time, it puts people into permanent categories of good or bad. You are a good person, therefore you deserve a happy ending. You are a bad person, and you don't. It ignores the fact that people can—and do—change over their lifetime, sometimes in drastic ways. Former bullies who are kind and helpful in their adulthood. Gang members who leave the life and work for peace. Maybe it doesn’t always happen, but it does happen. But if you believe in “bad people" as a category, and you believe that they must pay forever for their sins, even if they change their behavior, then what's the point of anyone changing at all?

“Depends on the crime,” many people will say, to hedge their bets. Everyone loves to be anti-carceral, pro-rehabilitation—until they’re not. “Well,” they’ll say, "that man only robbed someone, so he can be saved, but she was in a hate group, so she’s…" Finish that sentence. How bad do you have to be before you don’t deserve to change? That’s a personal line for everyone, but once you know where yours is, it might surprise you.

How bad before your only dessert is death? (Yeah, I’m looking at you, K-Pop Demon Hunters. Star Wars. A thousand different examples.)

Also, is your line different in reality than in fiction? If not, why not? Because sometimes, truly, I think it's nice to see something improbable happen in books. Yeah, probably the villain isn’t going to change their mind and start helping people…but wouldn't it be a better world if they did?

So yes, we're talking about main characters, but we’re also talking about people. We know that the type of people writers choose to reflect on the page matters. And that’s why it matters so much to have a variety of characters. Not just the good and kind heroes, but the people who are sort of shitty and make mistakes. And maybe they get a redemption arc and maybe they don’t (depends on on your purpose and your genre) but the very idea that you chose them as worthy, even if they're not perfect, means something.

I don’t mean to have solved all the moral issues in writing in one article. I just want to get you thinking. There are so many other issues that need tackling. Because we also know that “likeability” is not a race-gender-disability-etc.-neutral term, nor is the kind of person we’re typically willing to root for no matter what they’ve done (think: would you redeem the “ugly” guy? Or just the hot shadow daddy?). But that’s beyond the scope of my little rant for today. Today, I just hope I have you thinking about the fact that it’s important to let your characters be flawed—really, truly flawed—and not just because it’s more interesting.

Get to know me and what I’m up to. Read it all or skip to your favorite section. (Links work only in web version.)

I’m writing | I’m reading | I’m watching | I’m listening | I’m playing | I’m doing

Watch this space. Things are moving…slowly.

I'm working on reading one thing at a time. I know, how weird.

I'm getting back into horror movies!

My writer friend Lex Duncan got me into Spiritbox and Ice Nine Kills. I've been listening to INK's The Silver Scream.

My video game brain is so dead. Stand by.

More crochet! In addition to my wizard frog which is still in progress, I did most of a hat for a friend, and then I started a single crochet chevron blanket in this pretty dark seafoam green and gray. Stand by for, you know, progress. Literally the chaining of 340+15 stitches plus half the first row took me two and a half hours. I’d show you but it mostly looks like a noodle at this point.

I've also been doing a lot of art. I'm working on hair and rendering. If you want to check out more of my art, you can look at my Cara portfolio.