Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sara da Encarnação's avatar

You’re circling something important here, especially in the contrast between problem-solving and character-building. What stood out to me is that flaws aren’t just “endearing” because they make characters human. They function structurally. A character without flaws moves efficiently toward a solution, which closes the narrative too quickly. A flawed character creates delays, missteps, blind spots and those are exactly what allow the story to exist in the first place.

In that sense, flaws are not decoration, they are engines.

What you describe from your own background is also very telling. A scientific mindset is trained to reduce error, to move toward optimal solutions. Fiction often does the opposite. It preserves error long enough for meaning to emerge from it. That’s not just a different technique, it’s a different relationship with problems. You’re not failing to transfer your skills. You’re encountering the limits of a system that values resolution when fiction often depends on resistance to resolution. And perhaps that’s why flaws feel so difficult to write. Not because they’re hard to invent, but because they require the writer to step back and allow something imperfect to continue longer than feels comfortable.

That tension you describe is probably not something to “fix,” but something to learn how to use.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?