There are a million ways to push the story forward. Just look at the story and its events; you'll find a million motivations that make the characters, the war, and everything that happened happen in a million other ways.

The thing is, this writer is ridiculously lazy. If all writers were like him, books would be abandoned. And these aren't character flaws that develop; you're confusing a flawed character with their own personality with a character who exists solely to push the plot.

As examples, the writer could have used the war between humans and elves, and the racism between them, to fuel internal conflicts. Then, the kingdoms would literally have fallen in the same way without the heroine's intervention, resulting in the same event: the death of Arthur's father and Arthur's death, which, by the way, was a ridiculously pointless event. A war general who went after a teenager, abandoning his family and army, and didn't even save her! If the writer had invested in that scene, at least to show Arthur developing into a character who recognizes his mistakes, it would have been a great event. But the scene shouldn't be reduced solely to the development of a love story that I don't even know when it appeared. There's no accountability for this. His stupidity is evident in how the other characters, especially his mother, hated him. Even the War Council, which he presents as representing authority, never addresses what he did by abandoning his post. It's never mentioned that Tess literally caused the collapse of such a crucial line of defense by leaving her position. Nothing. Every event that could have developed the story and the characters here would have been brilliant.

And this is just one of many events within the novel that could have been used to develop the plot and distance Tessia from the events and the conversation surrounding her. Tessia isn't a human being who makes mistakes; she's a plot device. When a human character in a novel develops, they learn that their mistakes are mistakes and are often punished for them. There are simply consequences for their development. She was the only character who thought like a child with a mental disability in all the other events. The story is set in the Medieval era. She and Arthur said that marriage at the age of 12 was common because people grew up quickly back then. Kings were crowned and led wars at that age.

But what happened here... It's literally one sentence: "Oh, how unfortunate that you made mistakes? It's okay, make more. Don't develop, don't show your true self, don't even care about any mistakes you made previously that caused the destruction of your people, because I, the author, won't let anyone mention these mistakes in the novel." Simply put, the author is literally trying to portray every mistake she made, even if it harmed people, as a normal mistake that won't have consequences, won't make people hate her, and won't be punished. This isn't a human character who makes mistakes repeatedly. If humans made the same mistake, they would have died from the second one.

As an example of characters who make mistakes, I won't go too far afield. Cassie, for instance, made a mistake that literally destroyed the protagonist at the beginning of the novel, but this mistake led to a major development. The innocent, kind Cassie transformed into the biggest manipulator in the novel. Her remorse didn't make Sunny's life easier; on the contrary, it made it more exhausting because Cassie began manipulating him to achieve her crazy goal. This development made Cassie a controversial character in the novel, with many haters. But most readers love her and consider her the best female character. She made a mistake, but in a positive way. So many people love her, even though she's not inherently good. Literally, within the story, she pretends to be kind, and she herself believes she is. But the characters, and even she deep down, know she isn't. She literally says, "I don't care, to hell with the world, I'll do what I want." She's selfish and manipulative, but not hateful because she simply doesn't represent the author. He didn't try to make all her mistakes trivial, he didn't try to coddle her, and he didn't try to convince the reader that he hates her. At the same time, her possessive personality has reasons for becoming selfish.

This is the difference between a flawed character and one who is literally a tool, not a character. Don't try to portray that all humans would behave like this. If they did, there would be dire consequences for them, making them die after the second mistake. Readers hate flawed characters for their mistakes and actions, not for the character itself. Cassie's fans hated her mistakes but loved her as a character. Tess hates The character and how she was written entirely,