Is a flawless character interesting in literature?
Does anyone else dislike Raffi?
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
Having re-watched all of TNG in 2019, I came away thinking the "flawlessness" of these characters has been exaggerated on this board. They were all flawed, just not to a degree that it would make them damaged people or stop them from being able to function in their duty... except for when Data mal-functions.
Oh dear.
Fireproof, that was a very thoughtful response above. Thanks.
Since Freud and the rise of the very prevalent therapeutic drift in our culture in the last century, we are inarguably more into feelings and thinking about past events that may have affected our psyches adversely than in the centuries preceding.
Not to sound like a hardass, but staying and being alive was a lot, lot harder for most folks and contemplating and/or working through emotional scarring was, from my reading of lit and history, not much able to be done.
Think about things unthinkably wrong now that people went through commonly just a few decades ago and prior. One kept one’smhead down, nose to the grindstone, plow, spinning wheel, childbed, whatever, worked really hard six days a week and died in your 40s.
Life was hard, then you died, got the pie in the sweet bye and bye. Until then, grinned and bore it.
Without doubt we are in a much more psyche-centric, therapeutic age. That not everyone has subscribed to it, is certainly true.
Since Freud and the rise of the very prevalent therapeutic drift in our culture in the last century, we are inarguably more into feelings and thinking about past events that may have affected our psyches adversely than in the centuries preceding.
Not to sound like a hardass, but staying and being alive was a lot, lot harder for most folks and contemplating and/or working through emotional scarring was, from my reading of lit and history, not much able to be done.
Think about things unthinkably wrong now that people went through commonly just a few decades ago and prior. One kept one’smhead down, nose to the grindstone, plow, spinning wheel, childbed, whatever, worked really hard six days a week and died in your 40s.
Life was hard, then you died, got the pie in the sweet bye and bye. Until then, grinned and bore it.
Without doubt we are in a much more psyche-centric, therapeutic age. That not everyone has subscribed to it, is certainly true.
I mean, from what I'm told, the lead character in the world's best-selling book didn't have any.
So arguably, yes.
Warp drive; transporters; phasers. Show me how?
I think we all accept that advances over three centuries don't require a blow-by-blow in fiction.
Similarly, we're never told how the Federation moved beyond money as a system or motivator, but we are regularly told that post-scarcity economics are a thing.
I don't have a problem accepting any of it in the context.
Which character was this?
I don't care about tech or economics. Human psychology is something I do care about. Yes, show me how. Otherwise it comes across as elitist bullshit.
"I'm better. "
"At what?"
"Everything."
Jesus?
I don't think it comes with elitism; I don't see 24th century humans depicted as snooty.
If trying to imagine that things in a fictional future that aren't possible today - WITHOUT a full back story - doesn't work, maybe sci-fi isn't your genre?
Riker and Picard definitely were.
Quite the interesting conclusion. The scifi I grew up reading usually did sufficient work that I could follow it fine. So did TOS. But, perhaps you're right. Which genre would you recommend for me?
I can't say that came across to me and I don't think they were ever intentionally written or acted that way (from any of the myriad interviews I've seen) but the beauty of art is, you can see things how you see them.
Whodunnits. You can get all the steps of how they got there by the end
We were discussing interesting fictional characters in literature, not the deities of world religions, but thanks for playing.
Intentional or not there was an attitude that wasn't present with TOS.
Which has very little to do with the psychology of future humanity.Whodunnits. You can get all the steps of how they got there by the end
Have you met Starfleet? Seriously, their psyche evals are just a rubber stamp.
I feel Gene Roddenberry would have backed me up on this!
Regardless, he's clearly an attraty character with an attractive message. And the drama comes from what he goes through rather than what he is. I think that qualifies.
Christian theology strikes me as too off-topic to delve into in this thread. I'm just going to put a pin in that and return to the topic at hand in the real world, which has to do with a character that was created and written for without AFAIK any claims of divine inspiration.
In my studies of Jesus he presents with not only what he does but why. As Paul would later write here is a more "excellent way."
I would anyone to watch "The Chosen " on Amazon Prime for a really interesting interpretation of Jesus, including a lot of human qualities, like humor, and fatigue and righteous indignation.
According "Bread and Circuses" Jesus really got around.
Last edited:
Maybe we found out what God really needed with a starship?
But okay, let's move on from the big JC and go to our next character with no inner turmoil.
Spock.
I'm talking TOS of course, not any retconning since.
Spock of TOS has no inner turmoil, no identifiable flaws. Are we saying this makes him a pretty dull character? Does we need a lengthy backstory as to how Vulcans actually managed to conquer emotions to accept him as-is?
Easily TOS's most popular character and yet not a broken man.
Perhaps drama doesn't have to come from broken people, but can come from bad situations unbroken people find themselves in, where they are tried?
Similar threads
