What is wrong with writing a character who has no flaws?

It depends on what you mean by flaws and how you use them. If they're the focal point of the book then of course no one will care about it.

did i hurt your feelings aw

Having no flaws is a flaw itself. If you have no flaws you're not human.

There's a very popular book where the main character has no flaws.

Can you guess what it is?

>not human
>bad

Flatland?

If you mean the bible, there's no main character.

the odyssey

uhm

god?

great gatsby

nick is perf

It's not about god, it's about god's creations/followers.

But he's a faggot

What about the Gospel according to John?

so are you tho

i don't agree

The flaw only exists in the face of an ideal of what it means to be flawless. It's not that it's wrong to write a character without flaw, just that it is impossible anyway. A flaw is not a characteristic in itself, but a gap in between possibilities that you can perceive as a character flaw. A trait, any trait, can be presented as a virtue or a flaw. You can write a character that is so good in an ethical sense that this becomes a problem to the other flawed characters around him or her(and by comparisson they have to be), or to the very setting he is inserted (unjust law, brutal nature, etc), this would create the "flaw" of displacement, the unadjusted character. He would be seen by the others as extremely flawed. However, in this story, you'd be siding with the character (because you'll show him as flawless), and all else would be trouble. If you tried to erase that gap in between the characters in a story, what you'd get is something so smooth nothing can be said to have happened at all. That is so because language, and therefore all subjects, emerges from a flaw, from a lack, from this gap.

Kino was flawed . RIP Coyotito ; _ ;

>The truth is that anything you can say about the diamond is in the nature of a flaw. A perfect diamond would be composed simply of light. Remember, you're not looking for merit. This is a cynical business. We seek only imperfection. The stones themselves have their own view of things. I suppose every diamond is cautionary. It's not a small thing to wish for, however unattainable, to aspire to the stone's endless destiny. Isn't that the meaning of adornment? To enhance the beauty of the beloved is to acknowledge both her frailty, and the nobility of that frailty. We announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives. That we will not thereby be made less. You will see.

Aeneas is irritatingly perfect in every single way.

Nothing

adhominem fags will think youre a frustrated fag venting it in his writing, and normie fags will need the ambiguity inherent in daily life to identify or at least see something identifiable in the character.

well stories usually need conflict, and characters need flaws to overcome and change at the end of the story.
Its like the difference between superman and batman, superman is perfect, batman is a mentally ill billionaire riding around in a bat shaped car while wearing s&m gear with his underage sidekick and trying to rid the city of crime.

Too bad. If the character has a flaw then he isn't flawless.

(OP)
Flawless characters are boring as fuck. I want to read about someone I can connect with, whose personality is human. I care about what happens to and within Phaedra, Raskolnikov and Holden Caulfield, not Superman.

There's a difference between a flawless character and a mary sue.

>wanting to be dominated by foreign investors

I'm guessing Harry Potter because it's popular and he's partially a Mary Sue, but he does have flaws.