Should antagonists have convenient flaws or inconvenient?

Post Reply New Topic

Before when I was writing my story, which is a crime thriller, I found that the antagonist was too un-catchable for the main detective character, because he was too perfect. So I had to give him flaws to make him more catchable. But now after reading the story again after putting it away for a bit, I find that perhaps the antagonist's flaw maybe too convenient to get him caught in the end, and maybe that's bad.

So that makes me wonder, perhaps antagonists having convenient flaws is bad, and they should only have flaws that inconvenience the protagonist? Or it not be a flaw then, if the protagonist was inconvenienced as a result, and therefore antagonists having convenient flaws is good?

Inconvenient flaws, in either the antagonist of protagonist, can make for much more of an interesting story.

Oh okay thanks. Would I need a convenient flaw too in the antagonist, in order for the protagonist to use to his advantage and win?

It may be more helpful to not look at things in terms of flaws, which is a judgment call, anyway. Characters are more interesting as a specific mindset, and as the audience we try to understand their logic even if we don't agree with it. For example, Hamlet is called to revenge, though he does not value revenge. If revenge was easy for him, the story would not be interesting. If he were merely afraid, it would not be very interesting either. It is interesting because we understand why he wouldn't value revenge, yet we relate to his need to revenge his father, which becomes more complicated because they obviously weren't close. He also appears to study stoicism, yet stoicism doesn't necessarily apply to his unique situation. Or, at least the audience can ask them if that is a product of Hamlet's intellect, or stoicism. He also expresses emotions through different roles, and less so directly, depending on the person he is dealing with. None of these are necessarily flaws, but can be detrimental, depending on the situation. Think of what kind of personality would make for an interesting villain, especially in regard to the protagonist, and the situation they are in.

To me, the idea of a "fatal flaw" is kind of a superficial short hand, much like we talk about a character's "arc" today. I think they're simplifications that don't really make for great stories.

Also, maybe your character has flaws and you haven't realized it. All coins have two sides, everything has advantages and disadvantages.

Confidence is mostly regarded as a quality. But being confident can you lead you to make mistakes because you didn't plan ahead, because you were confident you would succeed. It may just be a simple mistake, but it can also be a display of arrogance.

Insecurity on the other hand is regarded as a flaw. While insecurity can prevent you from doing good things, it can also prevent you from doing things that could hurt you, and make you more prone to plan ahead and consider different factors before taking action.

If you think your character is flawless, perhaps it is time to reexamine their characteristics and figure out which of them could lead to his downfall. Maybe he is too confident in his abilities, and the detective can exploit that. Maybe he is too rigid, and can be outsmarted in some creative, unique way. Maybe he is too specialized, and can be caught off-guard when dealing with stuff he does not know much about. That kind of thing.

Just remember that every characteristic has advantages and disadvantages.

Oh okay. Well in my story, the villains need a flaw to all get them caught and arrested in the end. I wrote it so that the leader of the villains, has leverage evidence on all of them, that's a dead man's switch, so if they turn on him, he will bring them down with him, especially if he is killed, hence why it's a dead man's switch. The leverage evidence on everyone is the flaw or mistake, that gets everyone caught in the end.

However, looking back, I don't like it cause it feels like I put it in there, just because I need the villain leader to have something, for the main character detective to find, just to get all the villains caught. It feels like it's just there, just so the story can end. So should I try to perhaps come up with something else? The problem is, I cannot find a mistake that would get the villains caught. Everything in their crimes and planning just seems perfect. Unless I add a flaw that is sure enough to get them all caught like leverage evidence on all of them, that the leader has hidden away, or something like that. But is adding a flaw good, or is it bad, as oppose to trying to find a flaw that is already there, but in this case isn't? Or is the antagonist having a convenient flaw, that gets them caught, good?

I'm not sure I understand your post. The watch is the flaw? The flaw would be part of the villain's personality, which causes him to make a choice which eventually leads to capture. It would be the motivation for choosing the watch, for example.

It all depends on how you introduce the flaw.

If you just casually mention or show that flaw in a subtle way (like, you reveal it during a particularly busy scene) and then have that flaw lead to him getting caught later on, it is great (basically a Chekov's Gun).

If you don't mention the flaw or introduce it too late, it comes out as cheap.

Keep in mind that the flaw has to match his personality, his physique and such, or it can also come out as cheap.

I like the leverage idea. Say you establish in an early scene that the villain is extremely unwilling to trust literally anyone. The "dead man's switch" comes to light much later in the plot, by which point you've seen how paranoid the guy can be, so it makes sense. Bonus points if the protagonist somehow finds it BEFORE the main antagonist is caught!

Oh okay thanks. Yes the protagonist would have to find it before the antagonist is caught because finding is what leads to his arrest.

I can introduce the dead man's switch about half way through where the main character finds out about it, and then has to find out where it is.

As for estasblishing the villain being really paranoid beforehand, would he be the paranoid type more than most people though? I thought that any leading a group of criminals would want leverage over his people, just in case. It's not just something only a paranoid person, would want, is it?

There are degrees of paranoia, I think. In your classic Mafia-type large gang, loyalty is more of a factor. Gang members earn some trust from the bosses after they've thrown in their lot with the gang for a while. And bosses feel some loyalty to gang members- they wouldn't want to take the whole gang down with them, just the ones who betrayed them. Admittedly, the loyalty is enforced by the lifelong risk of being hunted down and killed by other surviving gang members, but it's a different dynamic!

I get the impression you're talking about a much smaller gang where the Mafia approach wouldn't work. If someone rats the boss out, he doesn't have expensive lawyers to keep him out of jail and hundreds of loyal followers to kill the rat for him. So he either needs people he knows can trust, or people he can scare into obedience. That's why your leverage idea rings true for me.

Every character must be flawed, just like real people.  If a perfect character is ever portrayed, it is likely a Mary Sue -- a fictional character, usually female, who is seen as too perfect and almost boring for lack of flaws, originally written as an idealized version of an author in fan-fiction.  This character is useful only as the murderer's first victim.

Reference: The First Mary-Sue.

Have you read about the Burial of Genghis Khan?

You could make it so that he would have the group of criminals but also insist on doing some things himself.

Oh okay. No I haven't read it.

Well when it comes to character flaws, I am told by readers that the flaws make the characters stupid. They take too many risks, and foolishly dig themselves into holes. So I have to make the characters smarter. But if I do this, and the characters do not make these mistakes, then story doesn't go anywhere much. How do I get characters to make mistakes, and have flaws, without them coming off as foolish to the reader?