Character Imbalances - Revisited!

Hey all!

This year in January, I made a resolution to read way more than I did last year.  That said, I've been spending a grand amount of time at my local library on rainy spring days, picking up and skimming through random books that hold interest to me.  During one of these bookshelf scavenges of mine, I ran across a book by Ye Grand Writing Master James Patterson called "Run for Your Life".

As I was reading and my little analytical brain was scouring for elements that could be mimicked in my own writing, I realized that something was missing in my knowledge of character imbalance.

In case if you need to get refreshed, I've previously written two posts about character imbalance, one explaining what it is and one explaining how to use it.  I won't go over those again, but I definitely do need to clarify what I said when I wrote those posts over two years ago.


Earlier, I basically implied that character imbalances must all be character flaws.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.


In "Run for Your Life", the main character Michael Bennett is an inherently relatable character, and yet he doesn't have any personal character flaws.  I felt instantly connected to him, but not because he was struggling in some personal way, such as self-doubt, anger, or pride.  Rather, he was humble and hard-working and extraordinarily likable.


Here's what James Patterson did differently:

1.) He exchanged character flaw for circumstantial pressures.
Rather than giving Detective Michael Bennett a personal inability or inner conflict for character imbalance (like a demented leg that keeps him from getting around while on the job or an inflated ego that blinds him from crucial clues), Patterson gave his main character circumstantial pressures for character imbalance.

As the story opens, the detective comes home for a long day on the field and must instantly care for his sick children...all bleeding ten of them.  That's when you learn that Bennett is a single man whose wife passed away from cancer a little while ago, and he's the only one who can provide for his kids, along with the help of a sweet Irish nanny.

I haven't gotten that far in the book, but you can already tell that Bennett's children will serve as an obstacle to him.  He seeks to protect his children and to care for them, and yet his antagonist is a highly-volatile, psychopathic killer.  Bennett's desire for his children's safety, placed in opposition to his dangerous work, is just as relatable to the reader as any other character-flaw-type issue Patterson could've given Bennett.  After all, which of us haven't struggled in a small way to keep those we love safe from harm?

2.) Simultaneously, Patterson pumped up the "no-bum" characteristics.

In my first post on character development, I talked about a main character like Sam who has it all: brain, brawn, and beauty.  I basically warned against giving your character everything in his favor, as those characters tend to be 2-dimensional and predictable.  Yet, as I thought about it more, Bennett is actually Sam.  He's a detective and a natural problem-solver, definitely no mental slob.  From all of his field work, you know he has a strong physique, and his mixed Irish genes give him above-average looks.

However, because Patterson still gave Bennett character imbalance (albeit in a different form), he is able to keep all of those strengths without making Bennett over-powered, contrived, or arrogant.

In summary, I earlier suggested that you ought to write a flawed character placed in hard circumstances custom-made to fix said character's flaw.  But Patterson writes a well-rounded character placed in hard circumstances that are so difficult, you don't know if even the great character will be able to handle all of the stress.

Now, let me be clear.  I'm not advising that you should only write "circumstantial pressure" character imbalances from this point forward.  In my other posts about "character flaw" character imbalances, I mentioned some fantastic Disney/Pixar movies that have successfully used the "character flaw" character imbalance style.

However, in my current opinion (this could always change, hehehe), I really like circumstantial pressures best, as I've been experimenting with that type of character imbalance in Where The Broken Things Are.  I've been free to up the intensity of the plot while still retaining respect for my main character (or so I hope, hehe), and that's been working best for me.

But, as always, every author is different, so do what works for you.

Any thoughts or comments?  Let me know your preference in the comment section below!

Write on!

Clove