The "perfect" protagonist

[pink_silk_glove]

Are you writing about a God who's fed up with their creation and the whole story is just a missive of present observations of the creation and its failures? 'cause if so, most of that list is probably what you're aiming to create and it's not wrong to do so.

Sure, but I think you're overthinking this. Obviously in art no rule is ever written in stone, but the list is very good general practical advice.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is blatant in romance. The main characters are often perfectly physically hot (but not always) but more importantly (and more vomit-inducing) they are emotionally perfect. They have to be to be perfectly deserving of the emotional justice, the HEA that we know is coming. They are far too plucky for whatever predicaments have befallen them and they never deserve those ills. This is what I absolutely detest the most about romance.

I'm copying across some of my content across to Theoreads, where a lot of it is a good fit.

I'm in conversation with the owner about my Arthurian novel, and this is the latest query

Would you be at all open to positioning Merlin just a bit younger? While a Fantasy audience may be ok with the big age gap, romance audiences look for a certain formula.

"Certain formula" would require a thematic make-over, since much of the point of the novel is that my Maerlyn is an ancient magickian, not some twee bloke in a cape and puss-in-boots type boots doing stage magic.

The owner is also fretting about a father daughter incest theme - which would be simple to tweak out and make non-explicit - I'm not fussed one way or another about that.

It'll be interesting to see if I compromise my principles about the age thing, or whether I'm even bothered doing the edit.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Well, you are of course correct. BUT in the very best short-stories the protagonist does change (or we can see the shape of that change) and it is clear that there is a past (even if we don't get all the details).

Try this: "the one about Ann Summers" by @rusureaboutthis under 4k words, but a lot of change and the background sits there under the surface, like an iceberg. It's hit too!

Or my own 750 word gay male one... not claiming it's the very best BUT change and background are there.

Of course, you are correct.

My point was that a short-story protagonist would have a hard time ticking all those boxes. I'm sure you could do it, you're a talented writer, but I do expect it would be more of a tour-de-force than a work of art, if you follow me.

--Annie

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

When I finally got around to adding Moms, they were everything real Moms never are. Not only confident, capable and in full control of every minute of the day, but DY-NO-MITE. Tall, lean, trim, fit, active, often former dancers who retained their physique, faces and hair too great for even Cosmo, bodies for an SI Swimsuit cover, not a bit of sag anywhere, all of this despite being in their late 40s.

Absolutely unreal in every way.

But it helped separate fictional stories from the weird obsession some might have with their own moms.


Some of you write realism as real as you possibly can, including flaws. Nothing wrong with that at all.


Others write pure fantasy.

 

[old_prof]

This is blatant in romance. The main characters are often perfectly physically hot (but not always) but more importantly (and more vomit-inducing) they are emotionally perfect.

This is interesting to me. I have not read a huge number of "real world" romance novels, but this is not my impression from any of the ones I have read. FMC is full of emotional turmoil. That is the only thing about them worth reading. Now I do have a complaint that almost every character other than FMC is shallow and unchanging. Or changes suddenly in unrealistic ways. (FMC "saves" him, usually.)

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

^^ The wreckage of lives is one of the things I hated about Hallmark and Lifetime type 'romance' flicks. There always had to be some kind of life altering drama or trauma that made one or more characters basket cases on the verge of doing something stupid enough to make national news.

Everybody says do conflict, you ain't got no story without no conflict.

Screw that.

I don't read here for conflict. I read for people having fun doing odd things real people may or may not do.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

FMC is full of emotional turmoil.

Yes, but none of it is of their own doing. They have done nothing to deserve their issues. They did not cheat on their former lovers, former lovers cheated on them. Or former lovers unfortunately died. Or some con artist ripped them off and left them destitute. Or a war tore their home and family apart. Or they're depressed because their devoted mother died of cancer. None of it is their own fault or their own doing (and whoever the evil bastard is who did this to them has absolutely zero redeeming value whatsoever - just as cardboard thin as our heroes). Our heroes deserve none of this. They are perfect and they trudge along because that is what good people do, and the happiness that they deserve somehow comes to them, although some teeth usually need to be pulled before they eventually accept it, even though we can see right from chapter 1 which two people will end up together in eternal bliss. (bleccchhhh)

 

[old_prof]

Yes, but none of it is of their own doing. They have done nothing to deserve their issues. They did not cheat on their former lovers, former lovers cheated on them. Or former lovers unfortunately died. Or some con artist ripped them off and left them destitute. Or a war tore their home and family apart. Or they're depressed because their devoted mother died of cancer. None of it is their own fault or their own doing (and whoever the evil bastard is who did this to them has absolutely zero redeeming value whatsoever - just as cardboard thin as our heroes). Our heroes deserve none of this. They are perfect and they trudge along because that is what good people do, and the happiness that they deserve somehow comes to them, although some teeth usually need to be pulled before they eventually accept it, even though we can see right from chapter 1 which two people will end up together in eternal bliss. (bleccchhhh)

I can imagine it turning into this, but it's not what jumps off the page on the ones I have read. Maybe I have just not run into this or I'm too dense to notice. Either is possible.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I can imagine it turning into this, but it's not what jumps off the page on the ones I have read. Maybe I have just not run into this or I'm too dense to notice. Either is possible.

In romantasy, FMCs seem to mostly be either women whose only flaw is that they're too perfect or evil assassin murder bitches (who secretly want to snuggle with kitties and bake cookies <3). What contemporary romances are like, I'm not really sure, admittedly.

I quite like happy endings and characters having their eternal bliss. I appreciate Moirin and Bao retiring to the hills to raise fat little babies. I also appreciate that they have to spend three years of their lives in suffering and hardship to fix a mistake she made because she was too cowardly and besotted to do the right thing.

 

[StillStunned]

Oooh... New writers challenge, the Mary Sue challenge...

I'm *really* tempted to set up a Mary Sue Writing Exercise, but I think the short form wouldn't do the concept proper justice.

But it could still be a contender for the worst challenge (how did that thread ever get to 7 pages?).

 

[Z_TheWriter]

Yes, but none of it is of their own doing. They have done nothing to deserve their issues. They did not cheat on their former lovers, former lovers cheated on them. Or former lovers unfortunately died. Or some con artist ripped them off and left them destitute. Or a war tore their home and family apart. Or they're depressed because their devoted mother died of cancer. None of it is their own fault or their own doing (and whoever the evil bastard is who did this to them has absolutely zero redeeming value whatsoever - just as cardboard thin as our heroes). Our heroes deserve none of this. They are perfect and they trudge along because that is what good people do, and the happiness that they deserve somehow comes to them, although some teeth usually need to be pulled before they eventually accept it, even though we can see right from chapter 1 which two people will end up together in eternal bliss. (bleccchhhh)

Not every character needs to be "perfectly deserving" and have little to no part in the bad things that have happened to them, but the opposite also doesn't have to be true. Not every real person is directly responsible for their own tragedies and trauma, and being fucked up due to something which was not your fault certainly doesn't make you perfect.

Danish cinema has for decades mostly gone in the opposite direction of what you describe. Every movie is about sad and deeply flawed people living miserable lives in which everything is and remains shitty, mostly because they're too flawed and sad to do something about it. This is why I almost never watch movies in my native language, I'm sick of it.

Sometimes the journey can still be interesting, even if the destination is obvious and the hero is generally a good person. Sometimes it's more interesting to follow someone who is genuinely an asshole, even if they stay that way. I feel like there's space for both, especially on a free site for amateur writing.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I'm *really* tempted to set up a Mary Sue Writing Exercise, but I think the short form wouldn't do the concept proper justice.

We'd have some way to go to beat the mainstream ones.

 

[Britva415]

In a short story, many times the protagonist doesn't change and/or we don't learn their background, for example.

I think some really good short stories function as inciting incidents for a story that could be told. The character or their life circumstances will change but not within the short story.

 

[Britva415]

Everybody says do conflict, you ain't got no story without no conflict.

Screw that.

Another of those "rules" which are made to be defied.

Also: What they really mean is that conflict makes for good stories. Or interesting stories or relatable stories or compelling page-turner stories.

Shit can happen without there being any conflict, and "can't have no story without no events" is the REAL rule. And even that rule doesn't say "you can't write like that." One could still write a bunch of stuff, but if nothing happens, then whatever the piece is, it isn't a story.

Also also: Some stuff is still conflict which doesn't seem or feel like what we usually think of as conflict. "Wanted to get laid, got laid" is still a conflict-and-resolution, even if there isn't much of any obstacle to getting the lay.

 

[TheArsonist]

I can imagine it turning into this, but it's not what jumps off the page on the ones I have read. Maybe I have just not run into this or I'm too dense to notice. Either is possible.

No, you're right. There are certainly romance novels with "flawless" FMCs, but in my experience it is more common for authors to assign some pretty obvious ones. The top three are probably insecurities, unreasonable hostility (the Pride & Prejudice ploy) and misunderstanding or comical incompetence at some task (often played as cute). And often an overlap of all three, as when insecurities cause the heroine to misunderstand something the love interest says in a negative way, giving rise to hostility. (Which I suppose also describes P&P.)

In general I think it's worth pointing out that a "flaw" doesn't have to be some grievous fundamental defect of character, but just making the characters feel real by sharing the common human experience of not being successful, content, and in the right at all times. And there's no sharp line between "flaw" and "misfortune": it's not necessarily a "flaw" to not know how to drive, but if you're on a weekend in a remote cabin with a lover who has just suffered a medical emergency, it's definitely a disadvantage. Quitting a well-paying job you hate doesn't make you a bad person, but if it means you have to move back in with your parents (and deal with all sorts of frustrations around that), you might feel like a failure and second-guess your decision.

I find it useful to take my idea for a story and try to think of what sort of character should be experiencing the events to make it most interesting. Which usually means that it challenges their shortcomings in some way. For example, in a story about a girl who accidentally shares nudes meant for her boyfriend with a group chat of all her friends (so right off the bat we have her flawed), is it more interesting if she is generally relaxed about sex and nudity and just laughs it off, or if she is uptight and repressed so that it's mortifying to her? In a story about a clergyman who is tempted by a sexy, sinful parishioner, is it more interesting if he's an unmarried vicar in a liberal Protestant denomination, or a conservative and judgmental priest who's either already married or pledged to celibacy?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sorry, every romantasy author has us beat already. The 'you must be this high to ride this ride' is outwardly a fisherman's daughter but secretly uses the magic of starlight, inherited from her father the King of the Gods who she is fated to slay, to make weapons (and probably dildos and stuff); to win the Hunger Games she must ascend to godhood, her only friend a necromancer from a marginalized group with dark secrets, a huge cock and an interest in light bondage, because... some stars... are meant to fall.

Reminds me somewhat of the Doc Savage series, immensely popular in its day:

A team of scientists assembled by his father deliberately trained his mind and body to near-superhuman abilities almost from birth, giving him great strength and endurance, a photographic memory, a mastery of the martial arts, and vast knowledge of the sciences. Doc is also a master of disguise and an excellent imitator of voices. He is a physician, scientist, adventurer, detective, inventor, explorer, researcher, and, as revealed in The Polar Treasure, a musician. Dent described the hero as a mix of Sherlock Holmes' deductive abilities, Tarzan's outstanding physical abilities, Craig Kennedy's scientific education, and Abraham Lincoln's goodness. He also described Doc Savage as manifesting "Christliness."
...
Doc's office is on the 86th floor of a New York City skyscraper, implicitly the Empire State Building, reached by Doc's private high-speed elevator. Doc owns a fleet of cars, trucks, aircraft, and boats which he stores at a secret hangar on the Hudson River, under the name The Hidalgo Trading Company, which is linked to his office by a pneumatic-tube system nicknamed the "flea run". He sometimes retreats to his Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic, which pre-dates Superman's similar hideout of the same name. The entire operation is funded with gold from a Central American mine given to him by the local descendants of the Maya people in the first Doc Savage story. (Doc and his assistants learned the little-known Mayan language of this people at the same time, allowing them to communicate privately when others might be listening.)
...
While some of Doc's gadgets were simply science fiction many of his 'futuristic' devices were actual inventions, or ideas engineers were attempting to produce. Futuristic devices described in the series include the flying wing, the answering machine, television, automatic transmission, night vision goggles, electromagnetic rail guns, and a hand-held automatic weapon, known variously as the machine pistol, the supermachine pistol, or the rapid-firer. A wide range of ammunition types were used for the machine pistols, including incendiary bullets that smash on contact, coating the target with a high-temperature paste-fed fire, high explosive bullets able to uproot trees, ordinary lead bullets, and the sleep-inducing "mercy bullets". Doc also developed an automated typewriter.

Possibly a bit much for modern-day audiences, but it's not hard to see Doc's DNA in characters like Batman.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, you're right. There are certainly romance novels with "flawless" FMCs, but in my experience it is more common for authors to assign some pretty obvious ones. The top three are probably insecurities, unreasonable hostility (the Pride & Prejudice ploy) and misunderstanding or comical incompetence at some task (often played as cute). And often an overlap of all three, as when insecurities cause the heroine to misunderstand something the love interest says in a negative way, giving rise to hostility. (Which I suppose also describes P&P.)

"Unreasonable hostility", really?

Lizzy has abundant reasons to be hostile to Darcy. Yes, her hostility is exacerbated by Wickham's lies, but even without Wickham in the picture, Darcy repeatedly makes himself obnoxious to her. On their first encounter, Lizzy overhears Darcy's reply to a suggestion that he dance with her:

...turning round, he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till, catching her eye, he withdrew his own, and coldly said, “She is tolerable: but not handsome enough to tempt _me_; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me.”

Later on, he takes it upon himself to break up Jane's budding romance with Bingley based on his mistaken assumptions about Jane's motives. This is a very serious thing not just for Jane but for the entire family: the situation with the Bennett family entail means that as soon as Mr. Bennett dies they will become homeless unless they can marry well, Jane is approaching an age where she'd be considered unmarriageable, and it's against convention for the younger sisters to marry before the older.

He then makes a very patronising proposal to Lizzy in which he mentions "His sense of her inferiority, of its being a degradation, of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination", taking it for granted that she'll accept because he's doing her such a huge favour marrying down. Instead she rejects him, pointing to the harm he did to Jane, and he doubles down:

"...do you think that any consideration would tempt me to accept the man who has been the means of ruining, perhaps for ever, the happiness of a most beloved sister?...I have every reason in the world to think ill of you. No motive can excuse the unjust and ungenerous part you acted _there_. You dare not, you cannot deny that you have been the principal, if not the only means of dividing them from each other, of exposing one to the censure of the world for caprice and instability, the other to its derision for disappointed hopes, and involving them both in misery of the acutest kind."

She paused, and saw with no slight indignation that he was listening with an air which proved him wholly unmoved by any feeling of remorse. He even looked at her with a smile of affected incredulity.

"Can you deny that you have done it?" she repeated.

With assumed tranquillity he then replied, "I have no wish of denying that I did everything in my power to separate my friend from your sister, or that I rejoice in my success. Towards _him_ I have been kinder than towards myself."

She then brings up his supposed mistreatment of Wickham. Here, he has the opportunity to set the record straight (something which would've saved the Bennetts a great deal of heartache later with Wickham's seduction of Lydia) and instead he chooses to let that story go uncontested.

Who wouldn't feel hostility towards somebody who behaved like that?

 

[Britva415]

"Unreasonable hostility", really?

Lizzy has abundant reasons to be hostile to Darcy. Yes, her hostility is exacerbated by Wickham's lies, but even without Wickham in the picture, Darcy repeatedly makes himself obnoxious to her. On their first encounter, Lizzy overhears Darcy's reply to a suggestion that he dance with her:



Later on, he takes it upon himself to break up Jane's budding romance with Bingley based on his mistaken assumptions about Jane's motives. This is a very serious thing not just for Jane but for the entire family: the situation with the Bennett family entail means that as soon as Mr. Bennett dies they will become homeless unless they can marry well, Jane is approaching an age where she'd be considered unmarriageable, and it's against convention for the younger sisters to marry before the older.

He then makes a very patronising proposal to Lizzy in which he mentions "His sense of her inferiority, of its being a degradation, of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination", taking it for granted that she'll accept because he's doing her such a huge favour marrying down. Instead she rejects him, pointing to the harm he did to Jane, and he doubles down:



She then brings up his supposed mistreatment of Wickham. Here, he has the opportunity to set the record straight (something which would've saved the Bennetts a great deal of heartache later with Wickham's seduction of Lydia) and instead he chooses to let that story go uncontested.

Who wouldn't feel hostility towards somebody who behaved like that?

Were there both?

I haven’t read it, so, I believe you when you describe the grounds for reasonable hostility. Was there any of that other thing @The Arsonist mentioned, namely misunderstanding leading to any unreasonable hostility, at the same time?

I can imagine a novel in which both are present, and both are obstacles to be overcome. I don’t know whether P&P is one of them.

 

[TheArsonist]

Yes, there is, and Lizzie is not perfectly in the right. In the first place, there is justification for Darcy's attitude (the Bennett women are acting like gold diggers trying to snare any eligible bachelor), as she ultimately acknowledges, and Elizabeth grievously misjudges his character. They are both proud, and they both form mistaken prejudices against each other, which causes all sorts of miscommunications, errors of judgment and complications. Hence the title.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

I certainly got more than my share of complaints about the FMC in my Winter Holidays event (Snow Fall in Love to be precise).

As I said in my comment, it was like being stuck in a car with my wife when she is being particularly bitchy or after a fight. It was rough, but the payoff was completely worth it.
I think, on reflection, that you made the right choice. It gave her room to grow. However, I think if a little more effort had been made to make her sympathetic you would have retained more readers. Don’t excuse her behavior, but have her acknowledge to herself that she’s being a bitch and she should stop, then have him do something that irritates her all over again. I think you actually did that a little later on, but it should have come sooner.
All this being said, you may have done it early and I’ve just forgotten. I’ve slept and read other stories since then.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

Everybody says do conflict, you ain't got no story without no conflict.

Screw that.

I don't read here for conflict. I read for people having fun doing odd things real people may or may not do.

Even a 750 word stroker should have some kind of conflict, even if that conflict is just “should I pull out?” Without some kind of tension, there is no point.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Were there both?

I haven’t read it, so, I believe you when you describe the grounds for reasonable hostility. Was there any of that other thing @The Arsonist mentioned, namely misunderstanding leading to any unreasonable hostility, at the same time?

I can imagine a novel in which both are present, and both are obstacles to be overcome. I don’t know whether P&P is one of them.

Lizzy has two good reasons for disliking Darcy (his personal rudeness to her and general snobbishness; his sabotaging her sister's relationship) and one bad reason (Wickham has lied to her about Darcy's supposed injustice toward him). At the time of his first proposal he gives her another good reason, when he makes a point of underlining the inferiority of her family.

I'm in two minds about whether "misunderstanding" fits Wickham's lie. In a narrowbroad sense, yes, it fits a dictionary definition. As part of the general "misunderstanding fuels tension in romance" trope, I'm not sure it applies; I'd usually expect that to be something like accidental communication failure rather than this very deliberate falsehood.

But even if it is a misunderstanding, it's not one that leads her to hostility; she's already there, and the magnitude of her hostility is justifiable from the good reasons alone.

From a Doylean perspective, the purpose of Wickham's lie isn't to create hostility between Elizabeth and Darcy. Rather, it's there to give Darcy an opportunity to show his good side: after she rejects him he comes to realise that he's fucked up badly by letting his wounded pride stop him from warning her about who Wickham really is, he overcomes that pride enough to send her a warning, and when the warning arrives too late he does his utmost to fix the resulting damage, which gives him a chance to recognise and remedy his other failings.

Yes, there is, and Lizzie is not perfectly in the right. In the first place, there is justification for Darcy's attitude (the Bennett women are acting like gold diggers trying to snare any eligible bachelor),

There are six Bennett women, all with very different personalities. That particular accusation would be fair towards Mrs. Bennett, Lydia and perhaps Kitty, but it's way off the mark for Lizzy and Jane. (And Mary wouldn't know a feminine wile if she tripped over one.)

Darcy mistakes genuine affection between Jane and Bingley for manipulation, partly because Jane's a shy soul who doesn't make a big show of her feelings and - not having taken the time to know this woman - he misinterprets that for coldness. (But surely an actual gold-digger would have been happy to make a big show of love? Darcy should be the first to understand that still waters can run deep.)

It's worth remembering that in that day and age, women of that social stratum were expected to take a hard-headed approach to marriage that would probably look a bit "gold digger" to modern eyes. They couldn't just go out and get a job to pay for their own living expenses (governess maybe?) and in many cases, as with the Bennetts, they couldn't inherit; their options were basically to marry somebody who could provide, or to depend on charity.

Lizzy is actually unusual in how much she pushes back agains that pragmatism. Far from "trying to snare any eligible bachelor", she refuses Mr. Collins - from a mercenary viewpoint, he would have been a very good catch, perhaps the best she could have hoped for - and then she goes on to refuse Mr. Darcy, an even bigger catch, because she's not willing to settle for a husband she can't respect.

In the end, Lizzy comes to understand that there's more to Darcy than her first impression. But that doesn't mean she was wrong to be offended by his early behaviour towards her and her family, and part of the path to the happy ending is his learning to be less of an arse.

 

[Erozetta]

Lizzy has two good reasons for disliking Darcy (his personal rudeness to her and general snobbishness; his sabotaging her sister's relationship) and one bad reason (Wickham has lied to her about Darcy's supposed injustice toward him). At the time of his first proposal he gives her another good reason, when he makes a point of underlining the inferiority of her family.

I'm in two minds about whether "misunderstanding" fits Wickham's lie. In a narrow sense, yes, it fits a dictionary definition. As part of the general "misunderstanding fuels tension in romance" trope, I'm not sure it applies; I'd usually expect that to be something like accidental communication failure rather than this very deliberate falsehood.

But even if it is a misunderstanding, it's not one that leads her to hostility; she's already there, and the magnitude of her hostility is justifiable from the good reasons alone.

From a Doylean perspective, the purpose of Wickham's lie isn't to create hostility between Elizabeth and Darcy. Rather, it's there to give Darcy an opportunity to show his good side: after she rejects him he comes to realise that he's fucked up badly by letting his wounded pride stop him from warning her about who Wickham really is, he overcomes that pride enough to send her a warning, and when the warning arrives too late he does his utmost to fix the resulting damage, which gives him a chance to recognise and remedy his other failings.



There are six Bennett women, all with very different personalities. That particular accusation would be fair towards Mrs. Bennett, Lydia and perhaps Kitty, but it's way off the mark for Lizzy and Jane. (And Mary wouldn't know a feminine wile if she tripped over one.)

Darcy mistakes genuine affection between Jane and Bingley for manipulation, partly because Jane's a shy soul who doesn't make a big show of her feelings and - not having taken the time to know this woman - he misinterprets that for coldness. (But surely an actual gold-digger would have been happy to make a big show of love? Darcy should be the first to understand that still waters can run deep.)

It's worth remembering that in that day and age, women of that social stratum were expected to take a hard-headed approach to marriage that would probably look a bit "gold digger" to modern eyes. They couldn't just go out and get a job to pay for their own living expenses (governess maybe?) and in many cases, as with the Bennetts, they couldn't inherit; their options were basically to marry somebody who could provide, or to depend on charity.

Lizzy is actually unusual in how much she pushes back agains that pragmatism. Far from "trying to snare any eligible bachelor", she refuses Mr. Collins - from a mercenary viewpoint, he would have been a very good catch, perhaps the best she could have hoped for - and then she goes on to refuse Mr. Darcy, an even bigger catch, because she's not willing to settle for a husband she can't respect.

In the end, Lizzy comes to understand that there's more to Darcy than her first impression. But that doesn't mean she was wrong to be offended by his early behaviour towards her and her family, and part of the path to the happy ending is his learning to be less of an arse.

Me being half asleep and reading the first line through "snobbishness":

"Who the hell is Darcy and why don't I like them? Definitely sounds like someone I wouldn't like though." *Continues reading* "Wait... Oh. God damn I need more sleep. But excellent breakdown."

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Not every character needs to be "perfectly deserving" and have little to no part in the bad things that have happened to them, but the opposite also doesn't have to be true. Not every real person is directly responsible for their own tragedies and trauma, and being fucked up due to something which was not your fault certainly doesn't make you perfect.

Danish cinema has for decades mostly gone in the opposite direction of what you describe. Every movie is about sad and deeply flawed people living miserable lives in which everything is and remains shitty, mostly because they're too flawed and sad to do something about it. This is why I almost never watch movies in my native language, I'm sick of it.

Sometimes the journey can still be interesting, even if the destination is obvious and the hero is generally a good person. Sometimes it's more interesting to follow someone who is genuinely an asshole, even if they stay that way. I feel like there's space for both, especially on a free site for amateur writing.

Exactly, did anyone read LOTR and not realize Frodo was going to manage to destroy the ring somehow?

Yes, the problems a character has are things that aren't their fault, but how they deal with that is the challenge.

A good person who got dealt a shitty hand and is working to get past it is more interesting than an asshole who has to figure out how to stop being an asshole.

Readers prefer it because they see it as more relatable.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

And apparently there is a fight over PP. Will the AH Wonders never cease?