posted
Someone brought this up in another thread and I thought I'd ask what you thought about this...can a hero lose?
Personally, I think so or there wouldn't be any such thing as tragedy. But obviously, they just can't be beaten to a bloody pulp throughout the book and then die at the end.
posted
I think the biggest challenge with tragedy is that it can easily become glib. As to the Rocky example, he always wins in the end. In nearly all of the movies, he is either beat or disqualified at the beginning of the movie, and then he stages a comeback and wins in the end.
The reason that this worked for the original Rocky is that Stallone's script was more of a character examination than a boxing movie. Rocky was a nothing, working out in a nothing gym, and was protrayed as a less than intelligent loser shoving meat in a locker on the south side of Philly. The crux of the movie is that people believe in him and his dream. And they believe in it enough that he somehow finds the will to win.
But, if we turn to two other examples, we might have a better idea of what makes a good tragedy. We can already discount the Sophoclean plays in general. The overall premise of Oedipus is ludicrous in modern society, because we don't have a lot of foundlings adopted by a royal family, and then finding out that they kill their father and take their mother as a lover.
However, I think Lear or MacBeth is a good place to start. Both of these are an examination of the faults of the MCs. Lear's jealousy and need for "buying" the love of his daughters, and MacBeth's greed (and inability to stand up to his domineering wife. Anybody who says Shakespeare was a misogynist should re-read MacBeth with an eye for finding the strong woman in the story. Insane, yes... but strong).
Each of these is a key human frailty that is the crux of the story. Then we look more deeply into the character development, see what the motivation for each of these frailties is, and then continue to exploit them. So, you need to create a flawed character, then put them in a stressful situation where they choose the wrong thing. This then creates additional decision points where they also choose the wrong thing. And they may choose the wrong thing for a very good reason, but in the end, we all know it's the wrong choice.
So, can a hero lose? Can that loss be tragic? I think Yes. But you are going to have to know about the tragedy going into the development, and then make sure that you have large enough and well characterized flaws that you can exploit those flaws through the length of the story.
That's my dime's (too dang long for a nickel) opinion....
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited January 22, 2008).]
quote:Isn't that the plot for at least a couple of the Rocky movies
I was just thinking about the movie Predator. It was the first-ever time we got to see Ahhhhhhhnold get his rump kicked.
I'm perfectly OK with seeing a hero lose. Christine's 'tragedy' reasoning is justification enough, but I personally cannot stand stories where you know going in that a hero is figuratively---and, seemingly, literally---bulletproof; when I'm reading, its the character's dealings with his/her own mortality that determines whether or not the 'hero' tag has been earned, meaning he/she can still very much be considered a hero even in defeat, or death.
posted
Here's a list of about 50 movies, some of which were in novel form, in which a hero dies. Many are not sword-wielding warrior-type heroes; they're main characters or important characters, e.g., Love Story and Old Yeller. Eleven died in Dirty Dozen. Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think you're missing the point a little bit with these two questions. Yes, a hero can accept help - as much as is needed to accomplish whatever task is at hand. And yes, a hero can lose, indeed the possibility of losing should be foremost on your mind since a foregone conclusion makes for a boring book. The key here is to empower your characters to solve these problems rather than making the story itself solve the problems.
If your character is strong enough to solve a problem himself, empower him or her to do so. If your hero requires help, have them acquire help in whatever way seems most natural to them - either by asking for it, or inspiring loyalty and having people assist of their own free will. Similarly, if your hero is going up against something that he might win against and he might not, then yes, you as a writer should entertain the idea that they will not succeed, or will succeed through personal sacrafice and empower your hero to go and find out which it is. Give them the resolve to do the tough job knowing that their failure or death might await them.
Of course, that being said, a book should end with some note of success: if the hero fails to survive the final encounter or ends up in a state where he has lost everything even while the cause he fought for won, then there is some success present which will give the reader a sense of fulfillment. Even at the end of 1984 when we realize that Wilbur is completely and truly brainwashed by the Party, we do get a sense of success since now we know that Wilbur is at peace with himself and will life out the final days of his life in relative happiness.
Stop worrying about what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, it's time wasted that might be better spent writing.
posted
Consider what you mean when you say 'lose.' There are plenty of instances where characters appear to win, yet lose what is important; or appear to lose, but win. Death is not the only way to measure. A character's development can be enough that the character considers it a win, even if they die.
A couple of examples of winning, while losing: Frank Herbert's Dune series... viewing the longer story, over multiple books, Muad'Dib grows as a character from a young boy into the leader of a holy war and eventually into a prophet. The Arraki people, under his leadership, win the war and his prophecies give him near Godhood standing with the people. Yet as a character, he sinks into misery at what he's unleashed, and the loss of most of what he holds dear. When death comes to him, he welcomes it. Muad'Dib wins, but he loses his humanity. You end up pitying him.
Ender's Game is another story example of winning, and losing. Ender wins, only to find out what his winning has cost. He doesn't consider having been the unwitting instrument of genocide (insecticide?) a win, even though everyone else does.
Rocky was a good example of losing, yet winning... Rocky's character grew a great deal during the story, and even though he was defeated in the final fight, he had achieved a series of personal victories.
It's an echo of the Christ-story when seen in hero mythology terms, I suppose... what looks like defeat to the antagonist ends up being a win to the protagonist, givging her/him the ability to become a martyr or a figurehead with far more power to change society than ever before. Losing the battle doesn't mean you've lost the war.
The short answer to your question (after I've given you a long reply) is that yes, a hero can lose... and remain a hero.
quote:Stop worrying about what is right and what is wrong. Frankly, it's time wasted that might be better spent writing.
I don't see this as wasted time on Christine's part. Sometimes you get a niggling question come up, and throwing it out for discussion helps the creative juices flow and aids in your own clarification. It is part of the writing process, and this forum gives us a safe place to ask those questions that no one but other writers really understand. (Family and friends might be supportive of the writing thing, but they've probably never woken up in the middle of the night thinking about characters in a story.) In Christine's defense, the fact that she's a published author (yay Christine!) means she already knows where that fine line is between wasting time worrying and discussing plot nuances to gather a few additional opinions for perspective.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited January 22, 2008).]
posted
This particular question actually has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my current projects. Someone asked the question in an unrelated topic and so I threw it out there, hoping to stimulate discussion.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited January 22, 2008).]
posted
Anyway, there have been some good points mentioned here, which lead to more questions. I definitely like stories in which the hero succeeds in something at the end, even if he dies or if it turns out that in some way there is loss involved. Ender's Game is a great example of that.
Occasionally, people have asked me about a story in which the hero dies and the world comes to an end...a complete and utter failure. I have to admit, that type of book just doesn't work for me. "Life sucks and then you die."
posted
In a way, I think that we have finally hit on the core of the question here...
What is the cost of victory? How does an author best create a cost that is large enough to challenge the main character, but not so huge as to become a melodramatic nightmare when the fists, swords, light sabres, or bombs start dropping.
Sometimes this can be REALLY hard to do. In a way, though, this is different from Tragedy. I strongly believe that classical Tragedy is a character examination. Yes, MacBeth occurs during a war, and Burnham Wood does move itself towards the castle. But the real keys of the story are the contemplative decisions that MacBeth makes.
I think that Ender's Game explores the depths of a hero, but isn't a tragedy.
posted
I don't see why a hero could lose, if you mean a hero could fail. After all, Frodo took the Ring all the way to Mount Doom and then deliberately chose not to throw it in.
(This opposed to the Hero being a Loser, which is all too depressingly common in literature...)
posted
Sure a hero can lose. Read "The Trial" by Kafka. The poor main char is arrested at the start of the book, spends the entire novel trying to find out why, and is then killed in the end by thugs.
Despite this, the book is still great.
I think characters are much more important than if they "win" or "lose." Would Lord of the Rings be any worse of a book if Frodo hadn't succeeded in his mission? I don't think so.
Not sure about a "hero", but the main characters in two of John Carpenter's movies died at the end - The Thing and They Live.
A little off topic, but one of my favorite Doctor Who episodes is the two-part season finale of Season Two. It begins with a narration from Rose, the Doctor's companion.
The episode begins with Rose Tyler narrating how her life changed when she met the Doctor, and that she thought it would last forever. But then came the ghosts, Torchwood, and the war.
She then says, "This is the story of how I died."
Quite an opener (and probably was under 13 lines). I was hooked.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited January 23, 2008).]
posted
A hero can NEVER lose. That's what it means to be a hero--overcoming all odds. It's not just semantics either. When I read "hero", I don't necessarily read "protagonist". I expect a certain kind of story in which a hero is involved. A hero can die, just so long as he/she gives his/her life to complete the colossal goal--for a hero also must have a colossal goal, or the conflict resolution would not require a "hero" in the first place.
However, a protagonist can loose. And in the right circumstances (he learns something profound about life/ we, as the audience, learn something profound about life) it can be a more emotionally poignant story--something that stands the test of time and affects changes in our lives.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited January 23, 2008).]
posted
rcorporon, I'm afraid I disagree with you on the Lord of the Rings point. If Frodo hadn't won, then ultimately Sauron would've prevailed and had an eternity of terror. I don't find that a very satisfying ending to an epic trilogy.
If he had died while destroying the ring, or if the ring was destroyed in another way (as, I guess, it ultimately was) I would find the story just as satisfying.
posted
What do we mean by hero? Are we just using the word loosely to mean MCs or protagonists? Some of the posts seem to indicate that this is what we are doing (I have a hard time looking at MacBeth or Lear as heroes).
For fiction to be meaningful, something (or someone) has to change. IMO, a hero can die if his death changes things for the better (sacrifice). The change can be in the situation (he saves the world - think Bruce Willis in Armageddon) or the character himself changes (think several of the characters in The Dirty Dozen).
Of course, you can also go dark - the only heroic character in The Night of the Living Dead doesn't change for the better - he just dies. But this is a risky proposition - I might accept something like this as a reader in nonfiction, but it rankles in fiction. Something positive needs to happen or I feel cheated.
BTW - In both MacBeth and King Lear, the MC gets what he deserves, which I see as a positive ending. Justice is served.
posted
IB, I know what you're saying, but what about, say, a modern soldier/hero who saves his platoon through heroic action. Then, later in the story, the author makes a tough, ironic ending about war in which the hero is killed by friendly fire from two miles away in another skirmish. I don't think the previous heroism is erased from the record. I think it has to do with rising to the occasion, and not with good or bad luck.
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point about the distinction between a hero and a protagonist. The protagonist is not necessarily the hero and in fact, can even be the bad guy, in which case we might be rooting against them the entire time.
I think though, that I'm more curious about the true hero or would-be hero, at any rate. The person who is trying to save the _____(whatever). I agree that such a person dying for his cause can be tragic, sad, and satisfying, but that's not a loss. It's a sacrifice.
I'm trying to think of some ways in which it might work. I agree that if in a classic adventure "save the world" story like LOTR, the bad guy ends up taking over the world, it would be pretty disappointing. If you're going to tell that story, it almost has to be from the bad guy's point of view, which means the protagonist would win but the hero would fail. Even then, I'm having trouble seeing it play out well.
I could see it more easily in something like a courtroom drama, where the would-be hero is a lawyer trying to save his innocent client from the electric chair. Hmmmm...the only thing like it I've seen is an episode of Matlock in which it turned out his client was actually guilty. But he basically tricked the guy into confessing so justice was still served.
quote: IB, I know what you're saying, but what about, say, a modern soldier/hero who saves his platoon through heroic action. Then, later in the story, the author makes a tough, ironic ending about war in which the hero is killed by friendly fire from two miles away in another skirmish. I don't think the previous heroism is erased from the record.
That's a protagonist--also called an MC.
A protagonist can be heroic and do heroic deeds, without being a hero (other than to those for whom he did the deed).
A hero is someone legendary: Beowulf was a hero. Not just any man could defeat Grendel (hell, no man between 15 and 50 from Hrathgar's lands could), it took a hero. It took Sigurd to slay the dragon. It took Jason and the Argonauts to get the Golden Fleece. It took Achilles to defeat Hector, Samson to defeat those many Philistines...