It's always interesting to me how one of the first examples of "so perfect it's awful" characters is Superman. I always thought he was actually a really tragic character, and one that's just as flawed as any other superhero. Here's a guy who is (or thinks he is) the very last of his kind. He can't hope to have the kind of kinship or relationship he wants with others (read humans) because he will always feel and always be different. So he puts on a brave face and saves the world. But at the core, he's still very much alone. To me, his "let's save the world, this is important!" was less about being a hero than it was about trying to hold onto that "perfect" life. It feels fake because it was fake. It's like those situations where people pretend their life is fine even though they're hurting because they don't want others to see it or judge them for it.
That's a very interesting way of looking at Superman. The fact that people can draw perspectives like these even from comics like Superman, to my mind, is one of the reasons I can't take seriously people who try too reduce certain characters to their basic tropes and criticize them. It really says something about the intellect of the reader in question, how well they manage to deconstruct a character.
To keep the ball rolling though, I do think that the flaw of Superman is very relative to the comic-book issue or movie in question. I can see your point in certain contexts, but in others, it seems sorta irrelevant, because while being the last of your race intuitively seems like something we'd struggle with, the majority of the time, Superman isn't shown to be, the same way he isn't shown to struggle physically when fighting.
I guess what people mean with perfect characters, are characters who's flaws are inconsequential for the most part, and where the flaws actually never result in lasting negative consequences, or effect change in the character over time.
Son-Goku to my mind, is a good example of a "perfect character". He has "flaws"(being naive, and childlike etc.) but he is never punished for having them (and even when he looks to be, he simply reverses the situation and comes back again, unchanged and as strong and as naive as ever). He get's beaten down, but he always stands back up, and simply beats the enemy down with superior strength in the end.
He progressively gets stronger, but he's essentially the same character now, as he was when he first appeared to us - and that's because he doesn't need to change, because he doesn't have any real flaws that would demand correction in order to face new challenges. He only needs to get physically stronger - which he inevitably does.
In a sense, I think this is often true for Superman as well, although not always. It really depends on which movie, or which comic-book arc we're thinking of when talking about Superman.
I personally find that writing a "flawless" character is much more difficult than writing a flawed one. It would be difficult to always find the perfect dialogue, perfect reaction and an answer for every situation. It would feel like there was never any actual conflict - and that would get really boring really fast.
If you wanted to write the perfect character, it doesn't really matter what he or she says, you can just write it so that it is always well-received by the other characters.
Generally, that's what people do anyway - I mean, if you read a romantic novel and see the protagonist wooing another character with some really "great line", I think we can honestly say those lines wouldn't work on a real human being most of the time (if ever), they just work in the narrative because they author has decided they should.
You're right that it would be really boring though. I do think a lot of superhero comics, fantasy books etc. toe the line a lot, with the above in mind. Often I feel that the conflicts aren't real, because I don't see how the conflicts in any way shape or form represent a real and credible threat to the main cast.
Real character-flaws to my mind, should represent a tangible threat to the continuation of the narrative I.E if Superman was really struggling with alienation, I would expect large chunks of the narrative to deal with problems born from that flaw (granted I think Man of Steel did just that), and the result of Superman failing to address the flaw meaning that the story would end, or drastically change direction.
If the story was the highlight of the game, it needs conflict and challenge. However, it can work if the story was a basic backdrop. For example, a perfect superhero with no flaws works in a platformer where you might see 15-second blips of story between levels.
Very true. It's all context after all.
@thread in general
Linking together with what I said earlier about romance novels, I do think Nio has a point - that many people will, as they write, whether they're aware of it consciously or not, "over-protect their characters" - by which I mean to say that they'll make things convenient (their personalities included) for the sake of a smooth narrative, and that can be a real problem.
If you're trying to write a "smooth talker", the difference between good and bad writing in my opinion, is whether you end up writing it "conveniently"(or making your character "perfect"), or actually writing a smooth talker.
The point here is that, as the writer, you're at liberty to decided not just what your character says, but how other characters react to it as well.
You don't need to write a smooth talker, you just need to write characters who react like the character in question is a smooth talker.
Similarly, you can give your character all the flaws you want, but if that never really introduces real problems in the narrative, and if other characters are all more or less fine with those flaws, those are not real flaws in the context of the narrative.
This goes back to what I was saying about writing personality/mental disorders - if the character you gave bipolar is just walking around, humming all day, never in conflict with the characters around him or her, you're not writing bipolar correctly, and that's no longer a flaw. Instead it's become a tasteless take on a serious illness.
So to summarize - if you want to make a good character, don't write "convenient" narratives. If you decide that your character should have a flaw, you need to make sure that flaw actually has consequences.
