so many posts describe Lyra as perfect but she still has imperfections and flaws? If they are acknowledged for every other character why not Lyra?
I don't see it exactly like that.
I think the difference is not that Lyra has absolutely no flaws, but that her flaws are not explored with the same depth or narrative weight as the flaws of other characters.
Every major character in this series has been defined by contradictions: their strengths and weaknesses often come from the same place, and their flaws create conflict that they have to confront. With Lyra, I personally felt that the story was much more protective of her. Her trauma and her past are explored in general, but we don't see her make mistakes, hurt someone, have to confront an uncomfortable side of herself, or question the way she sees the world.
She is kind, loyal, empathetic and understandably affected by what happened to her, but those qualities are not challenged. The narrative tends to validate her perspective rather than put her in situations where she has to grow through conflict.
A well-written flaw is not just a tragic backstory or a vulnerability. It is something that actively affects the character’s choices, relationships and the way they interact with the world. Grayson, Jameson, Gigi, Savannah, Rohan, etc. all have flaws that create problems for themselves and others, and the story forces them to face those parts of themselves.
I think she had a lot of potential but the story doesn’t allow her to be as messy, contradictory or complicated as the other characters are.
I think one of the most important aspects of creating a three-dimensional character is balance. A well-written character cannot be defined only by their strengths or only by their flaws. They need both, and the complex characters are the ones whose strengths and weaknesses come from the same place or exist in contradiction with each other.
A character who is only kind, understanding, correct and never makes mistakes can eventually feel unrealistic because they lack the complexity and contradictions that make people feel human. Of course, some readers may appreciate characters like that because they feel comforting or easy to admire, but for others, the lack of imperfections creates emotional distance because it becomes harder to recognize themselves in them.
On the other hand, a character who is defined only by their flaws becomes equally difficult to connect with, because the reader has no reason to empathize with them or care about their journey.
The most well-written characters are those whose flaws actively influence their choices, relationships and growth. Their positive qualities do not erase their mistakes, and their mistakes do not erase their good qualities. That balance is what creates complexity.
It is also why readers naturally connect with some characters more than others. Just like in real life, we are not drawn to every person we meet: sometimes someone’s flaws, behaviors or ways of thinking clash with our own values and create distance, while with other people we can recognize their imperfections without being pushed away by them. Fiction works in the same way. Characters feel real when they are allowed to be complicated, contradictory and imperfect.
The problem with Lyra is that I personally felt the narrative emphasized her virtues and her trauma much more than her contradictions, mistakes or less comfortable sides. The other characters are often defined by the tension between who they want to be and who they actually are; with Lyra, I felt that tension was much less explored.
Obviously, this post is not meant to generate hate, especially because I do not hate Lyra. This is a narrative critique