What makes a character good? Basing the character off yourself is not always the smartest idea, nor is making him/her the image of (what you see as) perfection.

So what makes a good character?

Also, I like them to be believable. Relating to them isn't really necessary. Them being consistent is important, I don't like to see it OOC.

Perfection is bad. Although I see it as a flaw and like flaws, this one is different and I just don't like to see it. Being a total cliché is boring if only because it's so overused and one-dimensional (usually).

An interesting question. If you've ever read Ender's Game by Card, you can already guess the answer. The book won many awards, because the reader can connect so shockingly to Ender that you feel for him. You care what happens to him. How did Card give his characters depth and dimension, so they are not just cardboard cutouts but actual people that live and breathe like us?

It helps to analyze the novel: Ender is like many of us. Brilliant, young, and reckless, he is the embodiment of a genius. But that in itself doesn't get Card anything. Card presents Ender with situation after situation, hammering away and never stopping. Game after game, unfairness after unfairness is shoved at Ender. We as the reader watch him solve all of them perfectly, and FEEL for him. It is because Card presents these situations that we begin to love Ender.

So to answer your question. How do you build a character? You don't need him to say anything. Just imagine you were him. Think of ALL the unfair situations and impossible ones that you've been in. Throw them all at the character. Eventually the reader will start to grow a connection. That's the most surefire way I can think of.

Where was I? Validity of the character. There has to be a solid reason behind the crap you're throwing their way as well as people understanding why they need to pile crap on this unfortunate soul. In general, though, sufferers don't make good characters. They tend to be whiny and cry a lot. What makes the reader like Ender is the fact that he understands why he is being put through the paces. He understands and, on some level, agrees with it. Ender doesn't whine, he doesn't complain, he doesn't ** like the other students do, and that sets him apart from the rest of the characters. But no, throwing all the unfair situations you can think of at a character is not a good way to make a character sympathize with him or her. How about piling a little bit of crap on them, just enough that they can handle it but still strain themselves, and let the reader see how they act. Then, pile more and more on it until they can't handle the weight of the world they're holding up and see how Atlas falls. How would your character act when they couldn't handle the pressure? That in itself tends to be more interesting that seeing them overcome unsurmountable odds. Ender faces odds like that, and when he does find a way to win it burns him out almost completely.

I will admit your analysis of Enders Game is more valid and a better point than my analysis. But consider this.

Ender was torn from his childhood by Colonel Graff. That is a SITUATION. Did you not begin to feel anger at Graff and feel deep sorrow for Ender at that point? Well, maybe not then, as you barely knew him, but later at the end of the book when he mentions it briefly, you feel a pang of love for the way Card weaves his plot.

Battle School was Card's way of presenting SITUATIONS to the character (Ender) without arousing the reader's suspicions of noticing reoccuring themes, motifs, and all that crap. You contradict yourself in the second paragraph: "Ender doesn't whine, he doesn't complain, he doesn't ** like the other students do, and that sets him apart from the rest of the characters. But no, throwing all the unfair situations you can think of at a character is not a good way to make a character sympathize with him or her."

That is EXACTLY the point I wanted to say. Perhaps I should have worded it this way:

'It is the character's RESPONSE to the situations that hook the reader's attention'

Do we have a compromise?

'The girl reached forward and kissed the boy.' There, that is initative, but it still a situation. Who is the reader more interested about learning? The boy or girl? I would say the boy, because he is the direct object that it's happening to. If you can develop enough, the reader will care about him enough if that it is the boy that next time kisses the girl, they will also feel for the girl.

That's true, but the point isn't to let the reader know the extent of the author's imagination. Think of it this way, if the reader knows that every situation that the character is in is merely a creation of the author's fancy, then the character's actions have no effect. If the reader thinks that the situations are a result of something instead of being part of the author's over active imagination then the story and the characters become more believable.