I have been thinking a lot about problematic characters recently after reading Normal People and finding Connell to be exactly this. And it occurred to me the true reason a character is problematic and that this has perhaps become lost over recent time, so naturally, I thought I’d chat about it in a blog post.
Problematic: a thing that constitutes a problem.
Voldemort is a massive baddie, one of the first my brain jumped to, to use as an example in this blog post. Voldemort was written by J. K. Rowling as the villain of the Harry Potter books. Voldemort’s ideals involve genocide of a whole group of people purely because of their heritage, discriminating against people who aren’t like him and the obsession of a young boy whom he wishes to kill. Doesn’t sound good, does it? Maybe a bit problematic?
But really, when we look at Voldemort, we see a villain. We know he is the villain of this story, not the only one sure, but he is the bad guy *queue the Billie Eilish music*. But is he problematic?
No. As a character, he is not problematic because we as the reader/viewer know he is the villain. It is made very clear to us that this is the guy we’re not meant to like.
So what’s my point here amidst this ramble? Well. The reason a character is problematic, the thing that makes them problematic and perhaps a flaw to the books they feature in, is the lack of intent to make them problematic. Of course, authors control every section of their books and everything is deliberate, but that doesn’t mean things don’t slip through the gaps, character traits that resonate with some readers and problematic, but not all. So I think for me at least, the definition of a problematic character should look a little like this: a character that constitutes a problem due to their representation of negative traits that are not apparent to all readers, therefore glorifying this behaviour to those who aren’t as susceptible to it.
Okay so maybe I shouldn’t be writing dictionary definitions just yet. But my point being. Are authors accidentally glorifying some negative elements of a character’s behaviours because not all readers see them as negative?
To use Connell in Normal People as an example, he is abusive. He may not be physically abusive, but he is emotionally abusive and manipulative. Now a lot of people don’t see this. They see him as a loveable, romantic young man. HERE is where he becomes a problematic character. Because some readers, and no fault to them because we’ve all had different experiences that make us notice different things. But some readers, will not see the abusive side to Connell and this therefore almost romanticises his character and potentially ignores the problems he brings.
I suppose what I’m trying to say here, through this discussion with my own brain, is characters are only problematic when the reasons they are problematic are not picked up on by all readers. Therefore essentially glorifying them and not acknowledging their more negative traits. Does this make any sort of sense? Probably not, but I had a fun time writing this blog post. This is all my own thoughts and I’m not saying this is a fact, so please don’t get mad if you don’t agree. But I fancied a brain dump, so here it is!
I completely agree! While I enjoy some problematic characters to the extent of making them realistic, because humans are not perfect – I don’t see them as problematic at that point. I just see them as flawed. I see problematic when, as you stated, readers don’t pick up on their flaws or romanticizes them. Good examples of this is Severus Snape and Peter Kavinksy. Their negative traits are seen as romantic, when in actuality it is verbal and emotional abuse, or in the case of Snape – actual abuse. There are flaws and then there are problems. If the characters do not recognize and grow from these problems, they then become problematic. At least in my eyes. Alongside Voldemort, I don’t see Draco Malfoy as problematic. He himself was a victim of abuse and saw what was wrong. If he had a better redemption arc, he could’ve been a very well rounded and well written character. I believe there is definite distinction for sure! This topic needs to be discussed more!
Interesting. The question is, do we really want characters that are all bad or all good? Can’t a villain have some good qualities and can’t a hero have bad ones? Shouldn’t character reflect real life? Yes, I know, there are some people who really do exist who do things that are unforgivable and hateful, and some people really are practically saints, and it is hard to get past those overall qualities to see anything else in them. Even so, I think we need characters to be at least a bit problematic or they sound stereotypical and maybe even boring.