I've sometimes wondered how writers (of books, TV scripts, plays, etc) often write characters who are better than the writer is.
I think I figured out the answer: it's non-interactive. The characters can be extremely fragile, and unable to adapt to any surprises, because they only exist is very controlled circumstances. They aren't complete people. They just show to the world a few traits the writer selects, and not others wehre he would do worse. But in real life, one has to deal with the unexpected and uncontrolled. In real life, problems come up. In fantasy, only problems chosen by the writer ever come up, and not other ones that his characters would be worse at dealing with.
> I've sometimes wondered how writers (of books, TV scripts, plays, etc) often write characters who are better than the writer is.
Like Rand and Roark. I thought it was because Rand made Roark to be what Rand wanted to be.
If you have a criticism of Rand, explain it. Don't just make some flaw of Rand's an unstated premise and act like you expect me to know and agree with it (and read your mind about what flaw(s) you have in mind).
I didn't have criticisms of Rand in mind. but ya i see how what i said means that i have criticism of rand.
i got my idea from somewhere else. i want to be better, and that imagined better person is mostly me, with some changes. those imagined changes are criticisms of me now.
i figured that i'm not the only person that does this. that Rand is another one.