I've always heard criticisms that character immersion is what's important for a reader when reading the story. It doesn't matter how explosive the narrative is. If you have no 'characters' the reader can immerse into, your story is screwed.

But how does a person go about doing that?

In fact, sometimes asking your readers for how to do this is a dumb decision. As they will always give you answers like showing 'realism' and making them relatable by showing more aspects of them.

However, that way of thinking is only for trashy novels that don't have an understanding of 'story'.

Don't misunderstand my intent, I'm not thrashing the readers. I'm disappointed that there are so many writers who run out of inspiration on this platform due to the way they write their stories.

Rather than focusing on 'realism', a writer must first keep in mind that they are not writing an essay.

Even if you believe your character is the greatest there is, you'll never attract your audience if you reveal everything about a character in their first introduction. Conversely, feigning depth also doesn't make for a good story if the pay off is either predictable or bland. You need to realise that reader's don't want to understand 'people'.

After all, regular humans being are flawed and don't work by logic sometimes. They aren't that interesting and can't come up with witty dialogue on the spot. Even our lives put into story format wouldn't attract readers as their is no 'purpose'.

You need to be deliberate in what side of your characters you show to your reader, and which part is important when making the story flow. But above all else, you must take the main character into account when introduce new side characters.

There are stories that break reader immersion by becoming too 'realistic' at the most unneeded moments like making the character suddenly taking a dump before a climax (because apparently realism is suddenly important now) or trying to add a sense of 'time' and 'location' with too much detail to the point that every second is graphed out.

Anyway, just remember that what you are writing is a 'story' rather than an 'incident'. You are allowed to be dramatic and bombastic in your narrations in order to emphasise on character emotions. Take creative liberties to show what you're visualising.

And through the character's actions, the reader will understand just what they are about. As long as you know the kind of story you want to tell and what specific aspects of your characters are important to tell that story in that moment.

Some writers get too excited and start rambling on about the wrong characters that don't need to be focused on or over-explain things to the audience without leaving room for other interpretations. This is the crux to why characters seem bland at times.

Now onto the main topic, which is: Why do both readers and writers alike consider 'relatability' and 'flaws' to be two different things? If this was going to be a debate, then it should be about whether bad qualities would ruin a person's character,

The answer is 'No' with a capital N. If humans can be interesting because of their flaws, then why can't fiction characters be improved by having a flaw? Of course, if this 'flaw' isn't important in the narrative or is forgotten later, then don't write it.

Flaws in characters are best when the writer uses all the opportunities that 'flaw' creates. Weave it into the narrative so it isn't as of the character is defined by their flaw, but how they treat it.

For example: A short-temper is a flaw when in the context of a work environment. Getting angry to easily and maybe even acting on it could lead to being let off. However, that very same flaw can also have its good points if it allows the character to fight back against thugs who are trying to do a crime. The good and bad depends on perspective.

In the Manga called Revival Man, the main character has no defining characteristics other than being a short-tempered goody-two-shoes who rushes into dangerous situations without thought of the consequences. Ignoring how common it is for the main character to be an average 'good guy', the short-tempered nature of his becomes his greatest strength and weakness.

The strengths obviously come in the form of him not fearing thugs or getting injured, while the weakness coming from the danger such a reckless trait ensures. This trait can even be easily manipulated as long as one is smart enough.

But don't misunderstand this:

A 'flaw' isn't the same as bad personality trait or a full-on evil action. Just because they have a flaw doesn't mean they can't be redeemed or even seen in a better light, unlike actual 'bad people' who get no redemption arcs due to being so unlikeable.

Those people with flaws often have those qualities cultivated through isolation or a bad environment around them. They mostly never even consider that aspect of them a flaw in their own perspective.

A good example would be in Masamune-Kun's Revenge where the main character considered his vanity to be natural, not because he was a bad person at heart, but more due to how he had painstakingly earned his right to be proud.

Of course, just because a flaw is justified doesn't mean it's okay for them to do things without regard for other people. If you want this redeemable characteristic to change, just show him a reason why he should overcome that 'flaw' of his.

Once the character is hit by realisation, then this is where 'relatability' plays a crucial role. As most people would like themselves to think that they could fight and overcome their negative traits should they come to a realisation of them.

In The Second Coming of Gluttony, the main character's realisation of his flaw is one of the initial draws to the story, and throughout the story he evolves from someone with a chaotic personality to someone worth putting faith in.

If he hadn't chose to confront and control his negative trait, then he'd either have become pathetic or downright evil depending on the circumstances, and both these paths would be relatable to at least one person among readers.

Though in the end of the day, it's not about whether you redeem your characters or not, but whether you can narrow your vision to look less at the entire picture you're visualising for your story and more on the 'characters' you are portraying.

Don't be scared of using cliches or tropes as long as they work in favour to that 'vision' you have of your characters. Different scenes used by others can work wonders in your own story as long as you get the timing right, making your characters great.

Even Rem from Re:Zero was basically a flawed character that overcame her guilty conscience towards her sister in order to work with the Subaru to save her. If you want to find a good way of introducing and making your own characters memorable, then all you need to do is dissect the scenes that made you interested in this waifu.

How the the writer made her seem ordinary at first before letting Subaru peel off layers of her personality through trying to understand her. Even his 'Return by Death' was used as a plot device for characterisation as we saw different aspects of this fully realised 'character' who was practically made to be sympathised with due to her tragic past.

Readers who are immersed in her character will forget that the author had laid a carefully devised ploy, as the scheming mastermind he is. To think he made us feel 'feelings'! What a sly author~!

Anyway, don't go too overboard and have faith in yourself if you want to be an author. If you have clear goals while writing chapters and aren't being blinded by your own ego, there will be someone who will share your interpretation of your story.

Thank you all for sharing your time~ Be sure to request any new Analysis blogs if you want it!