But coudln't it be argued that that attribute of the books is one of the most endearing to flawed people? I know that if the characters never made any sort of mistake, the books would be much more boring, for it's the mistakes, and the consequences that come from making those mistakes that make the books applicable to our lives.

It must also be considered that perfect characters who never make mistakes are incredibly difficult to write. As an author myself, I can scarcely imagine how C.S. Lewis was able to write Aslan as well as he did. Working with flawed characters is much easier, and it also allows readers to relate to them.

Digory,

So true. Flawed characters are much more relatable. Having them make mistakes is a natural part of the writing process. I'm sure that was the case for Lewis as well, though he seem to have put a bigger point on it by having them learn how they are wrong when they meet Aslan. I should also point out that most of these are more than merely "cute" foibles. Even Aslan tells Reepicheep if he does not put too much store by his honor.

I'd like to discuss other examples of characters being wrong, and what other posters think about them .

All characters except for Aslan ARE to have flaws. This is another clue by four as to who Aslan really is. May not be the most obvious reference, but yes it is a hint.

Anyhow, one of my favorite ones is when Caspian becomes all arrogant somewhere in VDT, then comes back crying after seeing Aslan's face.

Aravis Narnia,

Quite! It was also somewhat humorous, since Caspian had been pretty aloof throughout the book .

Indeed, it does endear the books to me. I hate it when characters in books say something very certainly and are always right. It's maddening!

It's important to see that these characters do have flaws and make mistakes. It makes them feel more human and real. It just may be why fans are so drawn to these characters, they make mistakes just like all the rest of us no matter how good or perfect they seem. The important thing is that they learn from these mistakes and continue to grow in understanding. To me, that's a much more enjoyable read in character development than a character who already knows the answers and how to approach a problem.

I completely agree - I consider this a major theme throughout the books.

Whether it's big mistakes - Edmund in LWW, Eustace and Caspian in VDT and Jill in SC - or small mistakes like your Lucy/Tirian thing about misunderstanding Aslan. It all highlights the humanity of the characters to us, as well as showing us how much they really have to learn about Aslan (even Lucy!).

Also, as other people have pointed out, it makes the books a whole lot more interesting. Lots of people's favourite characters are the most flawed characters in there!

Yes, in stories when a character is flawed it creates conflict within that character, and that is what interests the reader. Add a twisty plot and you've got the reader hooked!

Of course, there are stories in which the character is completely flawless, like Beowulf, and these sorts of characters are interesting because they represent the greatest ideals of a culture. In a sense they are Christ-figures. Of course, the Christ-figure in Narnia is Aslan, but he is not the main character in the series.

Lucy P.,

True that, about Beowulf. He wasn't completely flawless though. He let one of his guys get eaten by Grendel just so he could launch his surprise attack. Good tactics, but perhaps not such great morals .

Now, if you read "The Song of Roland," you get a main hero who is not only flawed (he was too proud to call for help for his army), but self-righteous and arrogant as well. It takes him about 30 stanzas to die from the time he is mortally wounded until he is actually dead . Not my favorite character, but a vastly entertaining story. Medieval version of the comic book.

MOD NOTE: Try to stay on topic guys. If you want to talk about Beowulf or other flawed characters that are outside the realm of Narnia, then it will have to go to another part of the forum. Try keeping your conversations about Narnia, and the characters therein.

DiGoRyKiRkE: Talk About Narnia Moderator.

It's true that when characters have flaws it's more interesting to read. But sometimes certain characters and their flaws really annoy me, lol.
Like Aravis and some of the stuck-up things she said/did, or the kids not believing that Lucy saw Aslan in PC (seriously, she was right about the wardobe in LWW, and you're going to doubt her again?). Things like that make me want to reach into the book and shake sense into them lol

Working with flawed characters is much easier, and it also allows readers to relate to them.

Exactly the way how i was going to put it. A character cannot not have flaws otherwise you'd be stuck reading about an all perfect character which by the way is not interesting.

It's true that flawed characters are more interesting, because one of the important components in a plot is conflict within a character. If a character is morally perfect, he will make the right decision all the time with ease, and the story would not catch anyone's attention.
I think it's for this reason that some people prefer Scrubb and Pole to the Pevensies-- Eustace and Jill make more mistakes, and therefore are more interesting and easier to relate to.
Not that you can't have an exceptionally good person who is also interesting in real life. It's just that for book and movie production it's easier to captivate audiences with less-than-perfect-characters.