Characters as ego-fulfillment

[I, Brian]

Are characters sometimes too much a case of ego-fulfillment?

Having read about Goodkind, Eddings and Fiest creating effectively walking gods on earth of main characters, only for them to conveniently forget their abilities for a bit of rough and tumble at key moments - I wonder if perhaps the author isn't placing too much of their own persnal ego fantasy on at least some of their characters?

If so, doesn't this lower the tone of the genre entire?

Although some degree of fantasy is going to be inherent in any heroic characters, let's not forget the fascination and real storytelling you can get with flawed and limited characters.

I guess it's like role-playing games (for those familiar with them). To some people, role-playing is wish-fulfillment - to others, it's simply fun storytelling.

Ultimately, the point is to ask the question as to whether authors put too much ego wish-fulfillment into characters - and are there issues where suspension of belief becomes diffifult because of this?

Or - is the question even based on a misperception/misunderstanding?

[Neon]

I think it's important to have stories which include both "real-life" people with natural faults, and others which include superhuman people which never make a mistake. We're reading fantasy, after all, and the question of their magical abilities, ableness to go across worlds, etc. doesn't matter. I think it's sometimes boring to have a character make the same mistakes I would, and nice to see somebody who gets things right the first time. I'm sure in some cases these characters are a case of ego-fulfillment, but I don't believe it entirely lowers the genre because it is FANTASY and anything goes.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Oh, good question, Brian.

I've seen Characters as Ego-Fulfillment lead to some very bad writing. It's almost as bad as Using the Story to Justify Your Life and Get Back at Everyone Who Did You Wrong. (You can end up reading a lot of both if you spend too much time in writer's groups.)

On the other hand, a few years ago I read a book by someone I knew, and it was patently obvious, knowing the author as well as I did, that the main character was an idealized version of himself -- and it was quite the best thing that he had ever written. So I think that it can work, where there isn't TOO much wish-fulfillment involved.

Neon, I like even superhuman characters to have some faults and make some mistakes. Only I agree that they shouldn't be the same faults and mistakes the rest of us might have or make. A heroic character should make heroic mistakes, not petty, small-minded ones. A superhuman character should make mistakes of superhuman size, with consequences to match.

[Circus Cranium]

I like to see the super human types have flaws, but they don't have to be flaws of action. They can be the old 'internal conflict' kind of thing. As for the willing suspension of disbelief, I'll run with any character, no matter how bizzarre or outlandish their attributes, as long as the author can get me inside their head and let me get to know them well.

As for the other part of this; what Kelpie was talking about with authors actually injecting a bit of themselves into their characters...yeeesh. I'm sure it happens, but for me personally as a writer, and as discussed with many other authors I know, I don't come anywhere close to my own life when crafting characters. Sure, as it's said, we all pull something of our personal experience and put it into a story, even if it's sublte. But I HATE when someone reads one of my stories and says "So who does this character represent? Is that such and such? Did you write this part because you hate your mother?" and whatnot.

[polymorphikos]

Well, I do it a bit. The three longish things I've done are all pretty much day-dreamings, and so I'm basically putting myself into the position and living the events. Of course, I change it here and there contrary to my own self, but I'm guilty of it. Never the walking gods or infallible Don Juans, though. I'm not that kind of guy.

As to seeing it in others, the projection of personal fantasies when writing purely-escapist fiction works fine, because half the time you want to be that person too. Like with super-heroes. It doesn't really lower the genre, provided you keep it where it belongs and don't over-step your bounds.

[hodor]

I think it could go either way. I used to love the "super character/walking god" sort of book. I suppose a reader can attribute some of the same things to themselves as you mentioned in relation to writers Brian. However, at the moment, I prefer reading books that are not such the case. One of my favorites of late has been Pillars of the Earth though that is mainly a historical fiction. The characters in this book were well developed and were normal people and for some reason at the moment I find this type of story more intriguing.

[dwndrgn]

Is wish fulfillment in a character a bad thing? Not necessarily, as discussed above, as long as the character is a true character, not a flat list of attributes, where it came from is no matter.

You mention that some authors create characters that are inconsistent, ie they forget that their magical abilities would have worked perfectly in a certain situation and end up working around the problem. That is just poor creation, and really has nothing to do with the fact that the character is the author's dream of him/herself.

Fantasy is fantasy after all, as long as the characters stay true to their own personal universe of rules and codes, they can do whatever they want. That being said, I will add that flawed characters are easier to relate to since we all have flaws ourselves. Sure, god-like characters may be fun for a bit but an entire book of them would get tiring and there would be nothing interesting to read about. Variety being the spice that makes life tasty, as it were.

I'd imagine that authors use a wide range of things to define characters; take a bit of your old maths professor Smith, mix in the babe you saw at the grocery yesterday, add a touch of glamour seen by chance on the telly and you've got Trillian...
or, accentuate your dad's best characteristics and top it off with the style of speech of the guy who couldn't stop talking at the table next to yours at the diner last night and you might have some other character.

I'm sure some characters come wholesale from the imagination...what if there was a guy who could disappear at will, what would he act like and what kind of situations would he encounter?

And some are just complete copies of people you know well enough to guage their reactions to situations.

It really doesn't matter to me where they come from, who they're based on or what fantasy/dream the author is living vicariously from as long as they are interesting.

[Teresa Edgerton]

But I think that Brian is right -- that sort of problem IS related to the author identifying a little too much with the god-like character. In return, the character identifies a little too much with the author, as you might say, and ends up doing things not because those are the things he or she would naturally do under the circumstances, but simply in order to help out the author and move the story in a predetermined direction.

I hate it when characters look to be working overtime to further the plot.

The best stories seem to be born of a tension between the author and the characters. The author says, "This is what I have planned," and the characters say, "That's all very well, but this is what we are going to DO."

[malko]

Circus Cranium's post reminds me of being a kid and writing about what kind of parent I would make.
Then my mum read the book and thought that the parents in the story were
my parents
People assume that main characters are like the author
and parental analogues like the writer's parents.
I think that imagination that simplistic wouldn't be enough to make you write in the first place,
unless your real life was staggeringly odd.
some real people do bestride the world like a colossus,
they do breeze through life without the problems that smaller, more twisted people suffer.
Heroes are self-selecting , they are by definition 'better' than the writer.
I used to like flawed characters but more and more I like smooth heroes,
who don't care if they are living life or fiction,
they are going to rinse out their reality whatever the truth

Personal flaws are a trough to wallow in,
it has always been the case.

[TK-421]

Yes, such characters do indeed lower the tone of the genre, especially when they are written by Goodkind.

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by malko

People assume that main characters are like the author
and parental analogues like the writer's parents.
I think that imagination that simplistic wouldn't be enough to make you write in the first place,
unless your real life was staggeringly odd.

Not sure we can rule that out completely

Really interesting discussion. However, I find it's going a bit the other way with a few of the books I've been reading. Certainly found that in Bernard Cornwall's characters. They were flawed to the point of annoying and the same with Hobbs's Tawny Man etc series.

I think some writers would probably tend to "live" a little through thier characters, I know I do. And who doesn't want to be a hero. But of course larger than life heroics or flaws are going to bring the genre down.

The very worst case of wish fulfilment I've come across is Wilbur Smith's latest one The Quest. As I was reading it I was actually embarrassed for the author.

[Lith]

I don't know if it's so much the flaws in the character as the fact that with a god-like character, nothing's at stake. Nothing frightens them, because they are god-like. Anything they want, boom! They got it already. There's no story there.

The rest just boils down to bad writing- forgetting your character's superpowers, for instance. Unless the character suddenly gained those superpowers, in which case they might forget they have them, momentarily.

[Connavar]

Sometimes ? almost all the time :P


I like gray characters, they might be a stereotype these days but much better than bigger than life characters. Same reason as why Superman always bored me. An ubeatable main character no matter which lame weakness he has is unacceptable to me.

Anyone ever read Gemmell here ? I dig Jon Shannow type. Gully Foyle type if you know Bester.

Or normal characters that are as interesting normal people without being too boring. Give them enough trouble for them to grow. Aka side characters in DG stories


Oh i agree about Feist. I liked seeing Pug grow from the orphan kid but when he became you know what later i wanted to strangle him. Such a cop out. So clichè it almost ruined a very good book up that point. I liked the dwarfs,the asian characters in Magician. Seemed more real than the uber main characters...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Lith

I don't know if it's so much the flaws in the character as the fact that with a god-like character, nothing's at stake. Nothing frightens them, because they are god-like. Anything they want, boom!

Except that ego-fulfillment characters often have to suffer as their human counterparts have suffered; in fact, sometimes the more the writer identifies with the character, the more extreme the character's suffering. The challenge then becomes finding ways to make this happen, in spite of their inherent perfection and the fact that all good people love them.

I think this is where some of the memory lapses come in.

[Kissmequick]

Have I ever written about myself? Yup, one of my POV characters is me - or me when I was young and stupid anyway. Not ego fulfillment, because she has all my flaws , though she has one or two gifts I don't have, but I wrote her because - well it was my first bit of writing and writing about yourself is easy - because getting into chracter is a doddle when the character is you. No asking yourself *would she do this?*. If I'd do it, so would she.


That said, I prefer flawed characters - all mine have rather serious flaws and I'm constantly amazed that people like the complete git I put in my first work - because he's bad tempered, sarcastic, and probably a bit on the evil side ...but that's somehow his charm. He was great fun to write, and that probably comes out when it's read. Characters who can do no wrong are boring.