Awful Writing Handbook

This course is about the specific ways good intentions produce bad characters, and it uses one of the most common failures as its central example, because seeing exactly how a well-meant character dies on the page teaches you more than any amount of general advice. The lessons come from watching writers build people who should work and do not, then diagnosing the precise mistake, so you can recognize it in your own drafts before it kills your characters too.

This course teaches character failure by dissection, starting with the most instructive corpse in modern fiction.

The invulnerability problem

Consider the character who walks into a room full of adversaries already smarter, tougher, and better than all of them, delivers a quip, wins effortlessly, and never once doubts herself. The story wants you to cheer. You check your phone instead. This character fails for a reason that has nothing to do with the noble goal behind her, strong representation, a corrective to decades of helpless damsels, a figure young readers could admire. The goal is good. The execution kills the character before she draws breath.

The mistake is confusing strength with invulnerability. A character who cannot fail, cannot doubt, and cannot be hurt has nothing at stake, and a character with nothing at stake generates no tension and invites no investment, because the reader knows she will be fine no matter what. Strength that has never been tested is not strength, it is a given, and readers do not connect with givens. They connect with people who could lose and choose to fight anyway. The invulnerable character is boring not despite her power but because of how it was built, as a wall against weakness instead of a quality earned against real resistance.

Weakness is what makes strength legible

Strength only reads as strength against the possibility of failure. A character we watch struggle, doubt, and nearly break, then push through, is powerful in a way the invulnerable character can never be, because we saw the cost and the choice. The reader measures strength by what it overcomes, so a character who overcomes nothing registers as strong on paper and flat in experience. Take away the possibility of failure and you take away the meaning of every success.

This is why the fix for a flat, invincible character is not to make them weaker in ability but to make them vulnerable in stakes, to give them something they can lose, a fear they have to face, a doubt they have to overcome. The competence can stay. What has to change is that the competence now operates against real resistance, real risk, real interior struggle, so that when the character prevails, the reader feels it as an achievement instead of a foregone conclusion. Give your strong character a genuine weakness, and paradoxically you make them stronger on the page, because now their strength means something.

Good intentions are not a method

The deeper lesson underneath the invulnerability trap is that good intentions do not produce good characters, and writers who lead with the message instead of the person reliably kill the thing they meant to celebrate. Wanting to write a strong woman, a noble hero, a positive representation, is a fine motive and a terrible method, because a character built to embody a virtue becomes a symbol, and symbols do not bleed or fear or doubt, which means readers cannot connect with them. The intention was to inspire. The result inspires nobody because it forgot to be a person first.

The discipline is to build the human being before the message, to make a real, flawed, vulnerable person and let whatever you wanted to say emerge through them instead of replacing them. A strong female character who works is first a specific person with specific fears and failures who happens to be strong, and the strength lands precisely because she is a person we believe in instead of a statement we are being asked to applaud. Lead with the person and the message takes care of itself. Lead with the message and you get a Girl Boss, admired by nobody, cheered by the movie and ignored by the audience checking their phones.

Diagnose before you fix

The value of studying failed characters is that it teaches diagnosis, the ability to look at a character who is not working and name the precise reason, which is the skill that lets you fix your own. Most writers can feel when a character is flat but cannot say why, and without the why they flail, adding traits and backstory that do not address the actual problem. Learning to see the specific failure, invulnerability, symbol-over-person, stakes that do not exist, turns a vague sense of wrongness into a solvable problem.

This is why dissecting bad characters is more useful than admiring good ones. A character that works hides its mechanics, but a character that fails exposes them, showing you exactly where the construction went wrong. Once you can diagnose the common failures on the page, you start catching them in your own drafts at the point of writing, before they harden into a finished character nobody connects with. The goal is not to memorize a list of mistakes but to develop the diagnostic eye that sees why a character is not landing, because that eye is what separates writers who can fix their people from writers who only sense that something is off.

Using AI as an assistant here

The characters are yours and the diagnosis is a skill you build. No tool decides who your people are. But a tool helps sharpen the diagnostic pass. You can use AI to flag characters who face no real stakes or cannot fail, the invulnerability trap. You can have it check whether a character reads as a person or as a message wearing a person’s clothes. You can use it to test whether a character’s strength operates against genuine resistance or floats free of any risk. It surfaces the failure. You build the person.

Frequently Asked Questions