The "perfect" love interest: yay or nah?

[WooHooMan]

So, I had a discussion with a friend of mine the other day about the merit of this one character.

The character is outgoing, optimistic, cheerful, strong-willed, compassionate, totally selfless, overtly maternal and is universally seen as very attractive in a very conventional way. She doesn't have any faults (it's said that she's shy but there's no indication of that in her actions) and any questionable or poor decisions she makes is done in service of others (such as lying on the behalf of others).
Her role in the story is that she's the love interest who helps the main character through his emotional struggles while having no character arc of her own save for her devotion to the MC.

I argued that the character was wish-fulfillment meant to act as a fantasy of a perfect love interest. She has no traits - character-wise or physically - that prevents her from being anything other than the perfect love interest. And a character without conflict, development or faults is a bad character.

My friend argued that she didn't need any kind of internal conflict or development as the overall plot didn't call for it and that kind of subplot would've been unneeded fluff that would presumably have no impact on the story's ultimate resolution.
He also argued that a totally virtuous, flawless character can be engaging just by being so admirable.

I'd like to open this topic up for discussion: is it bad writing to create a (major) character who is totally defined by their relationship to other characters? This could extend past love interest and include main character's family, friends or antagonists.

And at the risk of starting a discussion on gender politics: is it bad writing to create a character who is only meant to act as a "dream girl" for either the writer, character or reader?

 

[Penpilot]

And at the risk of starting a discussion on gender politics: is it bad writing to create a character who is only meant to act as a "dream girl" for either the writer, character or reader?

Generally speaking, I don't think it is. As always, it's about the execution. In story, there are many characters that fulfil roles and if there is a specific purpose to this character and the way they are, then I don't think it's automatically bad writing.

But I do think it can be tricky, especially when you define this character as a "dream girl" not just for the character, but for the reader. That's because each of us is different in what we find attractive and what we would consider to be a "dream girl".

Describe this "dream girl" in a way that is suppose to appeal to everyone, some people will roll their eyes and wonder what the character sees in her, while others will sigh and wistfully stare into the distance.

 

[Deleted member 4265]

I don't think a character who actions are always for other people is very believable, at least not for me. Why is she always trying to help people? There should be a reason there. Is it her own feeling of inadequacy that makes her strive to be perfect? Is it because something bad happened to her, and now she doesn't want anyone else to suffer the way she did?

I also think her flawlessness makes her seem at best unmemorable, and at worst annoying. Very few people are attracted by perfection in the literal sense. Flaws are usually what make people memorable and likable and loving someone because of or in spite of their flaws is a lot more powerful than a 'perfect' love. She doesn't have to have major flaws, but it'd be nice if she had a trait that made her not instantly likable to everyone. Maybe she has a weird sense of humour, maybe she uses her looks to get free stuff, maybe she's really smart and dumbs herself down so people don't think she's a snob. It's okay if she doesn't have a whole lot of development, the way I see it she's playing both a love interest and sort of mentor role, but I do think she needs some flaws or else the reader will likely forget about her.

As for whether or not its bad to create "dream girls" over "dream guys". I don't think it is. I find both equally distasteful.

So, I personally would probably hate your character, but perhaps you're writing a kind of book that just isn't for me and it works for other people.

 

[FifthView]

Generally speaking, I don't think it is. As always, it's about the execution. In story, there are many characters that fulfil roles and if there is a specific purpose to this character and the way they are, then I don't think it's automatically bad writing.

I agree with Penpilot on this. If the character fulfills an important role, then it's probably okay. Much will depend on the rest of the book and how that character is executed. For instance, if the character is not a POV character and the MC is greatly in love with her...well, yes, sometime rose-colored glasses cast a perfect light on a beloved–or love might even be blind. In other words, we never really see inside that character and the MC, rightly or wrongly, only sees the good in that character.

The description in the 2nd paragraph of the OP reminds me of Queen Kettricken from Robin Hobb's Farseer books. Kettricken's home country has a culture in which the royalty defines itself by service to others. The King or Queen is called the "Sacrifice;" the ruler and his family are considered sacrifices for the people and generally live up to that role.

I do wonder about this statement:

And a character without conflict, development or faults is a bad character.

I am somewhat interested in the way the OP has suggested that this character is fundamentally flawed; her fault is that she's too perfect. This could actually cause her problems. Beyond that, when I think of Queen Ketricken as an example, I see how a character who is genuinely good and selfless can still have conflict in her life. For instance, if/when her beloved is in danger or when various antagonists or a villain impedes her do-gooding. Perhaps not much of this sort of thing happens to that particular character. But for me it's possible to imagine a character who is totally virtuous nonetheless having trials and tribulations due to exterior events.

 

[WooHooMan]

So, I personally would probably hate your character, but perhaps you're writing a kind of book that just isn't for me and it works for other people.

It isn't my character. It's a character that actually exists in a work that is published worldwide and is critically acclaimed (though polarizing among audiences).
I didn't specify who the character is because I was afraid of upsetting fans who may be on this forum.

 

[Miskatonic]

It certainly happened with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and other books of that series.

 

[ascanius]

This sounds a lot like the MCs love interest in the daylight war by peter v. Brett. She was basically the mc's lap dog who followed him around. Any character she had in the first book was destroyed. I have never had a character I found more annoying than her.

So for me any character who is there simply to fill a slot is a faulty character.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I don't understand the question. You're including a popular fictional character into your world, to be the love interest of your MC, and you're worried that the popular lady character isn't a good fit because she's too perfect and may rub readers the wrong way?

I'm just not understanding the question, sorry. I'll try to weigh in though. I think writing a love interest is a great idea. It makes a MC more human, more driven toward something (so he has to weigh what he's doing, whether to impress her or whatever), and it also gives him a weakness, because we all know how far we'd go for someone we love/ are smitten with from afar.

The choice to include a love interest can be made for any number of reasons, but if you're writing it, it'd be helpful to understand whether this is a dream woman that is in the MC's head (as in, "I'm so in love with Catwoman, shoe's the epitome of perfection to me") or a real person in the world (I'm so in love with the inn keep's daughter, but she doesn't know I'm alive") and therefore not a "dream woman", but his dream woman he hopes to one day talk to without stumbling over his words or whatever.

I wrote a rather innocent romance quest in which a young man meets a young lady, and they're both clerics, and over the course of their journey, they share a lot of experiences and gain a lot of trust, but in his mind, she's not "perfect" as in, doesn't live up to his standards of what a "good girl" should be. He rejects her a few times and then once she's made a very hard decision to leave his group, he realizes how much he misses her. The story isn't about romance, but the love story develops throughout the story. Are you writing something like an adventure where two people are interacting like that? Or are you writing a MC guy on a quest of some sort, and this figment woman is repeatedly in his thoughts?

 

[ScipioSmith]

As Penpilot said, it's all in the execution.

What Penpilot didn't say, but could have, is that you need to have better writing chops to execute perfect well then you do if a character has flaws. Witness all the Mary Sues cluttering ffnet, it isn't that they're bad characters per se its mostly that the authors can't write for toffee.

I know I couldn't pull it off, but if this character comes from a bestselling series beloved of millions then that suggests that her author could.

And of course the personal taste of the individual consumer comes into play as well. A lot of people rag on the early Disney heroines for being... pretty much as you describe, but Cinderella is one of my favourite movies and I prefer the character to some of the later heroines.

Can't you give us a hint as to who this character is? This is like reading a murder mystery with the end torn out.

 

[Xitra_Blud]

I think this is dependent upon what kind of character you have and what kind of role they play.

A major or central character is going to be expected to have depth as they are important to the plots development. If she is this sort of character, it may not be such a good thing. This particular character is going to need to be three dimensional and believable with a back story and real life in order for her to care about what happens to her and enjoy her story.

A minor character doesn't serve as important as a role. This character is only here to complement the major characters. They have a part in moving the plot along, but they're lives and what happens to them is not so important to the reader. If this is the kind of character you are referring to, then you might be okay because, from what I understand, this isn't really a character we care about but more of just somebody whose there when we need them.

I've got an article on the different types of characters if you guys want to look at it. I found it to be very interesting myself.

Types of Characters in Fiction

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Knee-jerk reaction without knowing the story itself... no. That said, it could work. Anything can work. It just depends.

 

[WooHooMan]

I don't understand the question. You're including a popular fictional character into your world, to be the love interest of your MC, and you're worried that the popular lady character isn't a good fit because she's too perfect and may rub readers the wrong way?

No. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm writing.
I just want to see what my fellow amateur writers think about the idea of two-dimensional, idealized love interests in fiction since I'm against it and my friend is in favor of it.

The choice to include a love interest can be made for any number of reasons, but if you're writing it, it'd be helpful to understand whether this is a dream woman that is in the MC's head (as in, "I'm so in love with Catwoman, shoe's the epitome of perfection to me") or a real person in the world (I'm so in love with the inn keep's daughter, but she doesn't know I'm alive") and therefore not a "dream woman", but his dream woman he hopes to one day talk to without stumbling over his words or whatever.

I'm using the term "dream woman" to mean that the character fits into an ideal. She is what the writer presumably feels is the perfect romantic partner.
Her "perfect" traits are presented as objective fact in the story. Not the MC's perception of her.

text

Good insight here.
I personally would argue that a love interest should be a major character (the character I was referring to in the first post is a major character).
A minor character love interest seems pretty shallow to me. Like they're a reward for the main character. Or a tool to create drama.
I don't think I can get into a romance unless both the characters feel like actual people and not plot devices.

Can't you give us a hint as to who this character is? This is like reading a murder mystery with the end torn out.

You could've just asked me outright and I would've told you. But if you want a hint...
She's from a video game that's mostly praised for its story.
I didn't want to specify she's from a video game since that brings in the dimension of "video games are a 'lesser' medium so it's allowed to have bad characterization".

 

[glutton]

Does the 'perfect' character ever come into conflict with the MC maybe not because she is necessarily wrong, but they just disagree on something where both viewpoints can be seen as valid, or even where the MC turns out to be in the wrong? Is her perfection ever used to shine a light on the imperfections of the MC himself? Or is she always perfectly supportive and follows along with the MC without fail?

I'm thinking if the 'perfect' character is the source of some conflict despite not having notable flaws of her own, it might be less offputting, if not she sounds like she could be pretty boring and not add much.

Another more shallow factor for me would be, is the 'perfect' character presented as cool and awesome in her own right, or just perfect in a relatively mundane manner? XD

 

[Caged Maiden]

Ah, I get you now. You're not asking whether a character you're including in your work is right for her part, you're asking whether a character ought to have a background, mind of her own, etc. if she's included in a work of fiction. Or whether it's okay to make a love interest and main character simply exist as an ideal partner to another character for the sake of a story.

Well, I think this is a fine line to tread. I would imagine if your focus is on a quest of some sort, we see tons of characters who don't have a ton of personal traits that affect the story. I think in some ways, it's almost expected. Take Ginny Weasley. She had one important role to play, when she was unwittingly used by Voldemort, but little else of her story was as riveting as Hermionie's. In that regard, I would call Ginny exactly that type of character. She's a tool in the book, used for a plot purpose and then becoming a love interest because of her friends and family. Like, you don't get the depth of background on her because you're already getting it through her brother, Harry's best friend. SO I felt very strongly that while I loved Hermione, with all her awesome traits and interactions and conflicts, that Ginny had none of that (to me). I didn't like Ginny and didn't understand why Harry did, either. I felt like maybe she was just there, and that's why he fell for her?

SO in that example, I think it partially worked, because at least it had some context given, but to me, it wasn't enough to make her a fully formed character like Hermione, or even Luna, who was also more unique.

I'd imagine that if a story was about a MC male character, and he had a perfect dream girl love, that the story might revolve around him and his quest (whatever it is), and the love interest would take a back seat, almost be a secondary character. I feel strongly that if there is a true love interest, and that person is supposed to engage a reader and give them some personal feelings, that the character ought to be fleshed out in some ways. If she doesn't ever want to talk about her background/ family, fine. But maybe that can be a point of conflict?

I mean, I don't think we ever knew Gandalf's background, but we certainly knew how he felt about certain things. Or we were at least afraid about what information he told and what he kept to himself (sneaky wizard). But the story wasn't about Gandalf. It was about Bilbo, and then Frodo, and his fellowship. They were the main characters (the fellowship), and they might not have had their backgrounds bashing us in the face, but they were mentioned in context to their journey, and we certainly had conflict between the fellowship members.

I think either side has validity (either make her a real person or let her be furniture...a nice, beautiful piece of furniture), but the more important point is the main goal of the story. I remember when Harry Potter remarked something like, "Ginny was just my best friend's sister, but then I started to take a real notice of her," and I was like, Really Why? and I think that's where the believability ends for some readers. Other people, who maybe ended up with their high school sweetheart, or who fell in love with their best friend's brother, might not feel so jarred by the sequence of events in Harry Potter. I was, though, because to me, it felt like a cheap tactic, rather than a natural progression to true love. In my youth, I tended to date men who didn't frighten me (like my first boyfriend). Most of them had few really strong traits, which made me feel safe. But the guy I ended up with definitely wears the pants in our household. I don't men that in any kind of negative way. I needed someone strong and assertive, and in control, because I'm rather too much an artist sometimes. I guess that's why when I write romances, I expect there to be tension and conflict, rather than happiness and idealized personalities. Because that's what I'm attracted to. I wouldn't have any use for my "ideal man" because it wouldn't be interesting enough to keep me engaged for long (I've been married to my husband with whom I have plenty of conflict, for almost 13 years).

I see conflict as the precursor to love. At least it is for me. Maybe I've missed out on something other people will call true happiness, but I guess it just didn't work well for me, always being in agreement, or being smitten for years with how perfect my mate is. I would think that readers respond differently to this subject, because we all have different views of what kind of mate we want or need. I read a lot of historical romance, and the general undertone is one of being perfect and pleasing your chosen mate, trying to win his affections and respect. I don't really agree with most of the morals of those stories, but I find them entertaining nonetheless. I would imagine a large percentage of readers of those kinds of stories buy into the message or are positively affected by it somewhat more than I am.

If you want to know whether a woman could be a perfect specimen of womanly grace and still be interesting, I think so. I think she might be a terribly dull MC though if her goals and personality don't make it into the story. Maybe it's like Cinderella (who was mentioned), the beautiful step-daughter who is treated cruelly despite her award-winning display of compassion and humbleness. We love her as a character because she's who we want to be. We want to smile when someone insults us, or turn the other cheek when we're treated unfairly. Her story is rife with conflict, though she is a victim. But her story isn't a novel, it's a fairy tale. A short story which progresses thorough a few days of watching her be victimized. I'd imagine if that went on for a novel, it would become uninteresting in a few chapters. As modern fantasy readers, we crave characters like Katniss, who are victims and oppressed, but who do something about it. Characters who try to affect change in their own lives. Characters who don't wait for a prince to save them, but who slap the cruel stepmother and call her a tyrant, and who take their destiny into their own hands.

Hope that helps.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

I think it depends on how often the character is present in the story, whether she is ever seen on her own and if you want her to be seen as an equal in the relationship to the MC. If she is an equal then she needs to have her own opinions and actions that are decided on her own and not simply based on the MC's say. It is also harder for a reader to care about a character with no personality, but again this may not be needed due to their small involvement.

 

[Cobwebs]

I may not be as lengthy in text as some of the folks who answered you here, but my short answer is this: no, not really.

I'll explain further, but take gender out of the equation because it's just a secondary attribute for this type of character and plot.

If they are a character who is designed to fill in the main protag's plot holes, then it's a cop-out romance. It has no substance and leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of those who were looking for more than flat, cardboard characters. I find these types of characters (once what was called to me the "Mary Sue/Gary Stu" archetype- though I think this term is becoming outdated over the years) to be underwhelming and actually neutralize any interesting points that the main protag might have.

Love, romance, relationships are very intimate and delicate things. Even the strongest couple can have a single thing snowball out of control- the partner shapes the world around them, not the other way around like a poorly written character might be. On top of that, personally I'm tired of seeing perfect romance characters come along like this. Romance in general is a large turn off of mine especially if it's not made to be the main objective in the book/comic. I sort of wish there were more platonic relationships where there is love, but certainly not "let's get married after we save the world" types.

Most of this is my opinion and what I've observed over the years, though!