Audiences excuse much for the sake of entertainment. Good too for anyone who expects perfect reason is infuriated in life and disappointed with art. With the humility in traipsing on that line, I can’t stand a character who’s always right. Yes there must be conceits in the greatest stories, but I’ll concede where my weakness lies.
Everyone will pick up on the most common story conventions, coding, shortcuts, etc. with enough experience (and it doesn’t take much). What cuts me with the always right character is the concentration of conceits under one shining billboard. There’s no tension when they’re in the scene because every statement has a singular outcome. It abandons logic and turns guesswork into gospel. Some authors double down as a joke and have the protagonist’s wildest predictions come true but that overtly turns the character into their mouthpiece.
In a thriller it’s the secret agent’s surety that they can interrogate the correct information out of a suspect by any means. If mistaken they’re a monster but fortunately neither they nor the audience has to grapple with those ugly thoughts because they’re right. The information was divulged and it happens to be perfectly accurate. In fantasy the protagonist knows exactly how to lead an inferior army to victory without possessing any martial experience. The battle passes exactly as they assumed and if there are any surprises they have an instantaneous solution.
Particularly aggravating are modern renditions of Sherlock Holmes. The point isn’t to showcase how cool the detective is for always having his initial hunch be proven true or scrap together a perfect recreation of a crime scene based upon one flimsy string of evidence. Holmes was right most of the time but this played out over the entire story where the audience had as much of a chance to learn the facts as the detective. No information is pulled from the detective’s back pocket at the last moment to show why each baffling decision was really genius. It’s much better to suspect and later prove or disprove. It’s okay for them to be wrong initially and then try again, perseverance is an admirable trait. If the audience is only interested to find semblance with someone who’s always right that says much more about a mutual insecurity than it does finding carefree indulgent entertainment.
The fault of the author (I know from experience) is a desire for credibility. You want to be sure in your abilities and have people enjoy what you’re making but there’s no guarantee of either until it’s finished and the latter doesn’t always inform the former. Thus comes an aversion to any perceived flaw in the story. Combined with a natural connection to the protagonist (as well as the rest of the characters) and any flaw of theirs becomes a flaw in the story itself and the author’s abilities. Here the author triples down and the character becomes right about everything. The detective knows the exact amount of water to pour over every type of coffee grounds. The special agent can fix a radiator with a hairpin while playing three games of chess. There’s a savant rationale and then there’s fairytale perfection.
Being right builds confidence and is important in living. No one would get out of bed if they didn’t believe they could walk downstairs without tumbling. Being proven right builds credibility in one’s skills, beliefs, and knowledge. The sum total becomes your ego and self-identity. Where this breaks is when one piece is challenged and if you can’t separate that incorrect piece from the rest of your constructed outlook. This is especially difficult when years’ worth of assumptions and actions were made based on those challenged beliefs. Here we find mental gymnastics and psychological breaks in action as someone tries to pull sense from a collapsing worldview. If you’re going to show a character dealing with that I’ll pull up a seat. If the story’s universe has to bend around the character so they were actually right the whole time I’ll see myself out.
Colin Klawans 