From: ATH@kruemel.org   
      
   On 09.08.25, Joy Beeson   wrote:   
      
   Oh, activity here!   
      
   I've been wondering about asking whether anyone's still here, because I   
   would like to talk about one of my stories again. Been rereading and   
   adding stuff - except I now have most read aloud by Microsoft Edge "Eric   
   Online Natural", so much nicer than having to read it myself. While   
   writing of course I still reread my own words. :)   
      
   > I'm catching up on Partricia's blog, and have gotten to   
      
   > https://pcwrede.com/pcw-wp/heroes-protagonists-and-viewpoint-c   
   aracters-but-mostly-heroes/   
      
   Reading that, too, some thoughts...   
      
   Seems I don't have protagonists at all, just viewpoint characters (tight   
   third), some main characters, others not so main. (Certainly no heroes!)   
      
   I'd disagree on "nobody is born with a fundamentally good moral   
   code...". Humans certainly are born as a blank slate with just hardware,   
   and upbringing adds the software.   
      
   But some non-human species (thinking of one I made up here, of course)   
   can all be born with the same basic rules of what's right, and what   
   things no one would ever think of doing.   
      
   > The "make your character complex by sprinkling flaws on like   
   > parsley" school of thought was mentioned, but barely thought   
   > worthy of discussion.   
      
   > A complex character will have flaws, but adding flaws won't   
   > make him complex.   
      
   > It's rather like those silly signs in restrooms telling   
   > children to sing "happy birthday" while washing their hands.   
   > Getting your hangs clean takes time, but taking time while   
   > holding your hands under the water won't get them clean.   
      
   Seems we agree completely!   
      
   It's just that my characters come as they are written, and I don't like   
   the word 'flaw'. Would you call someone who's good at playing the   
   guitar, but terrible at hammering a nail into the wall "flawed"?   
   Characters are good at some things, and not so good at others, and the   
   decent characters know what they're not good at, and try their best   
   anyway. They _think_.   
      
   Only trauma is an excuse for temporarily not thinking straight, and not   
   even trying to. (In my never humble opinion.)   
      
   I don't think most of the traits listed as possible flaws are flaws at   
   all, they are character traits. All part of what gives a character,   
   well, _character_ (as opposed to being cardboard).   
      
   (I could ramble on about insecurity, versus just finding themselves in a   
   strange situation and trying to figure out how to act now. The latter   
   isn't insecurity.)   
      
   I think the only character I have who's lazy is one of my evil   
   overlords. :)   
      
   > A parsley flaw can be comedic, but the only example I can   
   > think of is Indiana Jones and his snakes.   
      
   Hm, maybe it's not even parsley! :)   
      
   --   
      
   Mickmane - not new here, but using my online nickname now, rather than   
   one you might remember.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)