Princeofdoom, that's true. And it's not always what you expect to be good at either. I didn't expect to write action well, but according to the audience, I do. Where I'm weaker is at depicting the softer emotions and I know I can't convincingly depict characters who are indecisive or full of self-doubt. Possibly this is because I find such characters annoying, even if they are well written. For example, other readers keep recommending the Thomas Covenant stories. I slogged my way through the whole series, because a dear friend insisted that it would all fall into place once I'd read the entire story arc. It didn't.
The tales had many virtues: the language, the author's vocabulary were all a delight. His descriptions, especially of landscapes, have the same numinous quality as Minna's art. He can write completely sympathetic characters, including many of the ones in this tale other than the hero. And I know the redemption of a flawed hero is a traditional theme of great tales. But Covenant is just so annoying! My pleasure in the story is spoiled because I want to pick him up and shake him and tell him that characters more interesting than he is are being destroyed while he ditzes about having an existential crisis.
Not all conflicted characters are so irritating. For instance, Jeffrey Farnol's character Martin Conisby and Shakespeare's Hamlet both hold my interest and my sympathy, even on rereads of the tales. Part of that is the writing skill (especially Shakespeare, obviously), but it's also the interactions of the characters: Martin's interactions with Joan, Joanna and Richard are what makes the stories, even against the background of a swashbuckling adventure story. And while both main characters are morally conflicted and totally confused about what is going on, and the ways they deal with the conflict are very different, both of them follow the rule of 'being himself, what else could he do'.
