Talk:Author Authority/@comment-5265497-20141031215352/@comment-5265497-20141102004204

"Don't you think Alfred could have been vastly happier, if you just so allowed it ?" My character is not an avatar of the author and is, in the cosmic scheme of things, a "no-name" in every sense as well (it all depends on perspective). When you talk about an absolute such as an author stand-in or any other omnipotent being, they are the top on the cosmic pyramid so the standards become A LOT higher when writing a story for that character.

Almost every writer strives toward a happy ending with their protagonist overcoming barriers that hinders pure goals (Featherine did exactly the opposite for the protagonist in her story). Without strife or a problem to solve, there's barely any chance for a dynamic character to grow or to generally find a solution internally and externally. Writers are not psychopaths, they care about their characters which you will find out when you get to the end of the book and when they reflect upon the hardships or revelations it took to get to their self-actualization, that's when everything becomes worth it at the end. Authors don't strive of strife, they strive to eventually overcome it because that's what truly matters.

And if we're basing this off of realism, you certainly don't have to have riches, power, and stature to be happy especially considering how Nigeria's impoverished and war-torn economy is; however, it is still one of the happiest nations in the world according to multiple polls. It's when a character is rooted in the fundamental nature of his existence and doesn't become too detached from his reality which power honestly tends to debauch for people. Characters can have the best of both worlds (which is why I admire yours), but at the same time, the main character is usually what the author best identifies with, and guess who has the most strife most of the time?