Too Perfect vs. Too Flawed

[KayArr]

It's interesting to me that the characters on TNG are called too perfect, too pc; but than Archer is called an ass, no captain should act that way, etc.

What's an acceptable amount of "human frailities and weaknesses that characters must battle" vs. "I hate that character, he's weak and bad"?

I love Enterprise, but if there's an episode that I really hate Archer in it's Daedalus where he yells at Trip for bringing up perfectly valid concerns. That's not struggling with human flaws or hard decisions--that was just being an ass. But I think in the majority of the episodes, they did o.k. with Archer being a flawed character who I found interesting.

It just seems like there's an awful amount of contradiction in what people expect from Trek characters and character development--many characters are hated for being too perfect or too flawed. What's just the right amount of flawed?

I suppose that many will think that TNG characters are too perfect, and ENT characters are too flawed, and TOS is perfect.

I'd like to see some comparisons of the various crews--who's too perfect, who's too flawed, and who's just right, and why? What are some examples of each kind of character?

 

[-Brett-]

If you were a Starfleet bigshot, would you hire someone like Archer to captain a ship for you?

I wouldn't hire him as a janitor.

Human flaws that a character has to struggle with are fine, within the context of that character's job. Would you have a pacifist security chief? An engineer that sucks at math? A doctor that's squeemish at the sight of blood? Matching those jobs with those character traits isn't "human frailities and weaknesses that characters must battle", it's just lousy writing. Archer's general lack of intelligence and professionalism falls into this catagory.

If Archer had been merely an ass, but intelligent and capable, it's be a different story.

 

[KayArr]

Fine--but which Trek characters are "properly flawed"?

 

[JiNX-01]

I love Enterprise, but if there's an episode that I really hate Archer in it's Daedalus where he yells at Trip for bringing up perfectly valid concerns. That's not struggling with human flaws or hard decisions--that was just being an ass. But I think in the majority of the episodes, they did o.k. with Archer being a flawed character who I found interesting.

Here's the difference:
Flawed Archer ignores T'Pol, his own choice for science officer, and rushes in where Vulcans fear to tread in "Strange New World.'' That's the act of an inexperienced captain.
Idiot-ass Archer ignores his own CHIEF ENGINEER -- who has no agenda other than the safety of the ship and its crew -- to side with a man who lied about his personal agenda and got a crewman KILLED.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Fine--but which Trek characters are "properly flawed"?

 

[Red Ranger]

KayArr: It's quite simple. We're fans. We're always bitchng about something! -- RR

 

[C.E. Evans]

The term "Perfect Humans" is something that someone just came up to describe everybody from TNG, DS9, and VOY. But the only thing I see are people who don't hit or scream at each other when they get into disagreements...but the thing is that they still get into disagreements. I can't think of a single character in any of those shows that didn't make one really big godawful mistake that landed them in major trouble later either (including Miss Janeway).

People in the 24th-Century probably need to scream, punch, and throw heavy objects at one another more...

 

[-Brett-]

Fine--but which Trek characters are "properly flawed"?

The main three in the original series. Most of the DS9 cast.

 

[Trekwatcher]

Fine--but which Trek characters are "properly flawed"?

The main three in the original series. Most of the DS9 cast.

I agree with you about the big three in TOS, but in the DS9 cast, I really feel that only Odo, Quark, and to a lesser extent Sisko were "properly flawed." Bashir, Kira, and Dax were, IMHO, written too simply for too long to catch up with the others in terms of development.

 

[Anwar]

So basically, to be properly flawed they have to act exactly like 20th century people despite the 23rd/24th Century not being like the 20th century.

 

[JiNX-01]

Fine--but which Trek characters are "properly flawed"?

I think Trip fits the bill. He sometimes gets out of line (Shockwave II, yelling at the Vulcans for wanting Enterprise recalled); his heart is in the right place, but he sometimes acts impetuously (Cogenitor); he isn't malicious, but he can get pretty mad.

Yet, he is still someone you could like and respect and whose company you would enjoy.

 

[KayArr]

So basically, to be properly flawed they have to act exactly like 20th century people despite the 23rd/24th Century not being like the 20th century.

Lol!!! I think we've got a win-ah!

 

[alicelouise]

So basically, to be properly flawed they have to act exactly like 20th century people despite the 23rd/24th Century not being like the 20th century.

I think that people are the same regardless of time. If food, clothing, and shelter aren't a major concern most people are civil or less inclined to throw things at you. Those aforementioned needs aren't as urgent in the 21st century as say the 16th or 17th century;more nasty and brutish. In the Trekverse people can almost take these needs for granted at least in the Federation. So to quote a DS9 character, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise."

 

[Anwar]

So to quote a DS9 character, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise."

You know, it's funny but that line had exactly the opposite effect on me that Ira Behr was likely going for: to me that line says that humans are an intrinsically good people capable of rising above their flawed selfs to try and be better, that when our basic needs were fulfilled we WOULDN'T continue to lust for more wealth or power but try to make things better for everyone.

 

[Malcom]

I can't think of a single character in any of those shows that didn't make one really big godawful mistake that landed them in major trouble later either (including Miss Janeway).

People in the 24th-Century probably need to scream, punch, and throw heavy objects at one another more...

I agree with your general thesis here, but am puzzled as to why you single out Janeway.

 

[Sci]

It's interesting to me that the characters on TNG are called too perfect, too pc; but than Archer is called an ass, no captain should act that way, etc.

Well, there's a difference between being a flawed and morally imperfect character, and coming across as an overgrown 12-year-old. Sisko is a deeply flawed character, but he doesn't come across as a whiney manchild.

What's an acceptable amount of "human frailities and weaknesses that characters must battle" vs. "I hate that character, he's weak and bad"?

I love Enterprise, but if there's an episode that I really hate Archer in it's Daedalus where he yells at Trip for bringing up perfectly valid concerns. That's not struggling with human flaws or hard decisions--that was just being an ass. But I think in the majority of the episodes, they did o.k. with Archer being a flawed character who I found interesting.

It just seems like there's an awful amount of contradiction in what people expect from Trek characters and character development--many characters are hated for being too perfect or too flawed. What's just the right amount of flawed?

I prefer the mature moral flaw of the adult -- most typically embodied in the conflict between what Hannah Arendt call the "good person" and the "good citizen" in On Civil Disobedience. That is, the conflict between the desire to be a good and moral person and the necessity of committing immoral acts in the name of a greater social good -- this theme is reflected as far back as Machiavelli's times, where he noted that he loved his native city more than he loved his own soul. We saw that in ENT in such episodes as "Damage," where Captain Archer chose to steal warp coils from innocent people, stranding a ship in deep space in the name of protecting United Earth from the Xindi threat.

I have comparatively little interest in things like Archer telling T'Pol he's doing "the breast he can" or acting like a whiney emo bitch because someone hurt his feelings.

 

[bluedana]

I think a lot of the analysis has to do with whether one has already decided that one likes or dislikes a character. We can excuse "human flaws" that make a character interesting if we generally like the character, or we can point out the same behaviour as instances where the character is an ass. So, if you like Archer, as I do, you can look at Daedalus and come to the conclusion either that it wasn't an unreasonable decision to give the rescue one more try, or that you disagree with the decision but you see where he's coming from. If you dislike Archer, you disagree with the decision and he's an immature brat (or whatever). But the same analysis holds with Picard (arrogant busybody/wise leader) or Janeway (I haven't watched enough VOY to characterize her either way) or Kirk (inconsiderate cowboy/hero prototype).

For example, JiNX, above, gave a good synopsis of Trip as properly flawed. Someone who dislikes Trip could use the same behavioural examples, notably, Cogenitor, and support an already held conclusion that Trip is an immature brat.

To me, it falls under the rule of thumb that just because you hate something doesn't mean it's bad, and just because you love something doesn't mean it's good. Personally, I'm fine with most flaws my heroes as long as they have some basis in the person's already established character, or some reason why he or she is acting out. I don't have to love everything about a character to love the character. (If that were the case, nobody would ever stay married.)

 

[hokstein]

When you see a character doing something bad (as per your own judgement) because of plot concerns, or because you think the writers think the audience will like the character if he does it, then he's an ass.

Otherwise, he's just a real character with his own flaws.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The rules for good Star Trek characters are the same for good characters in any story: they should be surpassingly good at whatever is their "thing" in the story. By "thing" I mean: what made the writer want to put that character in the story to begin with? Why could the story not be told without that character? (And if the story can be told without the character, the character should end up on the cutting room floor; good stories don't have excess lard.) So it's a role in the story, rather than simply a job description (tho it can be a job description.)

Other than that, they can be as flawed as they like, and the flaws of course are necessary for us to believe that they are real people and to identify with them.

I'll use an archetypal character as my example because those types of characters are nice and clear cut: Luke Skywalker. A puerile, naive, whiney little punk, but he's surpassingly good at one thing: using the Force. And that one thing is his "thing" in the story - the one thing that justifies him being in the story in the first place.

Or let's take Kirk. He's no role model. He subordinates all relationships to his job (except for on-the-job friendships, but that's just part of his pathology!) Is that any way for someone to live? Of course not. But his role in the story is to be the starship captain, and as long as he's good at that one thing - not just good, but better than anyone else - he justifies his existence in that particular role in that particular story.

Which is why it was fatal for Archer not to be a good starship captain. He can have flaws, but not that flaw, not given the role he plays in the story.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I can't think of a single character in any of those shows that didn't make one really big godawful mistake that landed them in major trouble later either (including Miss Janeway).

People in the 24th-Century probably need to scream, punch, and throw heavy objects at one another more...

I agree with your general thesis here, but am puzzled as to why you single out Janeway.

The reason why I singled out Janeway was solely in response to her comment in "Flashback" about how 23rd-Century Starfleet captains wouldn't cut it in the 24th-Century. And yet Janeway and other 24th-Century captains didn't always do things by the book either...