posted
For those who've missed the "Green Door" thread, some amusing stuff is transpiring. While Sachant started it to discuss feelings about appropriate and inappropriate levels of detail in a story, it quickly mutated into a discussion of Tolkien's "greatness." This brought both insight and anguish, as Rahl22 observed:
quote:Oh dear.. I hope we don't start that whole "Good vs. Great" convo again.
And yet the discussion brings up a very deep subtext. Survivor said it well:
quote:We live today in a world that trivializes greatness, that more often than not marginalizes and destroys it. We frankly live in a world that does not want want great men, as a contemporary of Tolkien predicted would come to pass. Most of the modern world does not even understand what greatness is, except that they don't like it.
Christine made this point:
quote:Great people are better than we are, and no one wants to know that there might be people who are better.
I find this whole discussion alarming. In my writing, I want to create heroes! I've assumed my readers are hungry for characters that are larger than life, oozing with greatness, with cunning and bravado to the Nth degree.
If our society doesn't like heroes, then I've gotta toss out my novel and start over.
What do you folks say? Do you like heroes? Do you want heroes? Does society want heroes? If not, then why not?
posted
I could say a lot on this, but for now I'll just offer that people may not like to think that there are others greater than them, but if a writer can let a reader imagine (by identification) that the reader is the hero, there should be no problem with the greatness discrepancy.
I believe that part of the appeal of Tolkien's books is that the reader experiences LORD OF THE RINGS through the points of view of those who aren't all that great (mostly the hobbits--simple, ordinary "folk") and not through the points of views of the big heroes. And when those simple folk manage to do great things, too, the story is more satisfying to the reader than when someone you'd expect to do great things does them. It lets readers see that even if they are merely ordinary, they, too, can do great things if they really have to.
posted
I like heroes, but I'm not sure that I like them larger than life and oozing with greatness. The kind of heroes that I like the best are the ones that start out as ordinary people with strengths and weaknesses, just like the rest of us, but who do heroic things when the time comes, who call on reserves that they never knew they had, such as endurance or patience or whatever, and where there are actual doubts about whether they will succeed or not. To my mind, that makes them more heroic than people with super powers where there is no doubt that they can just go zap, and the problem will be solved.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted
For me, the best character is one I can identify with. If you make them into a hero, but leave them with human frailties just like I have, I will pretend, while I read the book, that I am them and thus not be intimidated by their greatness. I agree with what's been posted so far...the best books often involve ordinary people who achieve greatness, although I can handle an ordinary person with one or two spectacular talents.
Larger than life heros, though....be careful. I read a book recently (ok, about 1/3 of the book) that made me want to puke from the larger than life attractive woman in the book. The author spent PAGES describe how absolutely perfect every square inch of this woman's body was. My reaction...I have nothing to do with her! I like to think I'm pretty, but no one will write epic ballads about my beauty. I actually hated her. (Yes, I was jealous!)
posted
I think everyone else has touched on what I'd like to say, in one way or another, but I'll recap.
Everyone wants to read about heroes. They are what make things interesting. But it really all depends on how you define a hero. Wouldn't you say that an orphan, who has known nothing in life but systematic and institutional mediocrity but then goes on to write a concerto or a sonata, is a hero? He didn't cut through a vast army of orcs with his sword, or defend a helpless client in court against a whole team of blood-thirsty lawyers, but he did something that wasn't expected of him. He rose above his situation and circumstances to create something beautiful. I think that's pretty heroic.
But there is room in the literary world for superheroes too. It's entertaining to read about people who have the ability to blow things up with their minds, or run faster than you can see them. But then the story doesn't typically pivot on the use of those powers -- they are typically just an interesting aspect of the character. In these situations, the story is typically based on the characters other struggles, something that his powers can't save him from. Maybe he is internally fighting the ghosts of his past, or perhaps what he needs to do is just beyond the scope of his abilities.
Either way, any character can be seen as heroic, no matter their situation or their cirucmstances, if they act heroically.
posted
To echo some of the points all ready discussed:
For a story to be interesting, the hero must have a good chance of losing (or else there is no suspense) and needs to have some flaw (or else the hero will not seem realistic and will not have a chance to grow or change). These qualities can be found in a Conan character who can fight off fifty swordsmen at at time, or a Hobbit who couldn't fight off a rabid rabbit if he had to.
So although you can write about heroes (and it is fun to read about them), you eventually have to make them people anyway. Even Hercules in Greek mythology was just a flawed person in the end. And you don't get much more heroic than him.
So there is nothing wrong with writing about heroes. Just be sure to make them people in the end.
posted
On the other hand, I don't care for today's anti-hero -- the hero written with so many flaws, supposedly to make him more "human," as to make him disgusting. And I don't mean it's done to allow him to change and grow. He doesn't. He may save the day, but he never changes. It's that view to the seamy side of life that I guess is supposed to be "on the cutting edge."
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
quote:Larger than life heros, though....be careful. I read a book recently (ok, about 1/3 of the book) that made me want to puke from the larger than life attractive woman in the book.
Perhaps this points to a gender difference. James Bond continues to be popular with men everywhere. Of course Indiana Jones is a very similar character, and he seems to be popular with women as well as men.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited June 03, 2003).]
quote:I believe that part of the appeal of Tolkien's books is that the reader experiences LORD OF THE RINGS through the points of view of those who aren't all that great (mostly the hobbits--simple, ordinary "folk") and not through the points of views of the big heroes. And when those simple folk manage to do great things, too, the story is more satisfying to the reader than when someone you'd expect to do great things does them.
That's an excellent observation about point of view in storytelling, but the example just deepens the question. Would The Lord of the Rings be better if Tolkien had completely removed the big heroes from the story? Suppose he pulled out Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, then just told the story Frodo, Sam, Merri, and Pippin defeating Saruman, Sauron, the Black Riders, plus a zillion Orcs and other monsters. Would that have been a better story?
But if the heroes do have some value to the story, then how do we reconcile this with the general concensus that our society prefers to "marginalize" and "destroy"* its heroes?
* marginalize and destroy are Survivor's words, but the opinions expressed so far don't disagree with them.
posted
Actually, it's not attractive women in general I have a problem with. To a certain extent, I *expect* the heroine to be attractive, even far better than average. In this particular case, however; the author literally spent 5 or 6 pages going over every square inch of naked perfection on this woman's body. (The main male character, who was also as nauseatingly handsome, got another 5 or 6 pages later on.)
As for James Bond, his attraction is not so much dashing good looks (although he has them) as incredible charm. The same is true for Indianna Jones. Actually, most attractive men in movies have a an appeal that does not solely rely on their physique. This is not necessarily true for women, but I will not open up that can or worms...
Another difference between James Bond and the romantic heroine I described is the medium. In the movies, you simply put an attractive person in the main role, that's just the way it is. In books, however, you devote time to describing the physical appearance of the main characters and somehow it comes accross differently. I'm no expert on the difference between movies and books, but I have read (I think it might have been in one of OSC's books on writing) that while it is ok to have an attractive character on the screen, shoving their attractiveness in reader's faces in book form will only remind the average person of the people they hated in high school. (It was in Characters in Viewpoint, and I should probably find the passage and quote it, but I'm feeling lazy.)
posted
Christine, I believe that a writer who uses physical description alone to make a character larger than life is doing a poor job. They've cheapened the reader's experience. But agreeing on that point doesn't help us to evaluate the usefulness of larger than life characters. Harry Potter is a scrawny kid with a scar on his face, yet he has fantastic adventures and defeats powerful evil. I'd say that he's larger than life based on his actions, not his stature.
posted
"Do readers want stories with heroes or not?"
There is no simple answer. Everyone who has posted so far has made perfectly valid points. And there are a lot of aspects to heroism. A person can be heroic in one dimension, or just the embodiment of perfection. The former, in my opinion, works far better than the second.
I didn't mean to focus on physical appearance, but let's be honest, it is one part of the answer. Let's take Harry Potter as an example. Frankly, I don't think he's a larger than life hero. Harry Potter works as a scrawny kid because he is aimed at children who frankly are all insecure about their looks at the target age. And while he does heroic things he has all the normal doubts of adolescence. Another very important point is that Harry is only an average performing wizard. Hermoine is the brains. Harry succeeds through courage and compassion that take him far beyond his otherwise very average performance.
So, maybe this is just a matter of definition. What is "larger than life"? for me it's not about performance but about attributes.
Will we love your hero? I don't know, it's all how you write him/her.
posted
I'm afraid we've gotten away from a really interesting question for writers. Do strong heroes weaken a book? Why or why not? Don't bother with the former question unless you you've got something to say about the latter.
If readers prefer to read about Frodo, then why did Tolkien include Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas? You could apply this to other stories / genres, but Lord of the Rings makes a great example because it's easy to discuss the stark contrast between its heroes.
posted
I want heros to be strong and yet have their flaws. I want to be able to relate to them in some way. If they are in fact "greater" than I am, how am I to feel sympathy or create a rapport with them?
Take Spiderman for instance... great yes. His mutant powers are amazing. However, we can still relate to him because despite his great abilities he still has to deal with having a life in which there are problems in relationships etc. Daredevil is blind. Superman lost his parents and his whole world etc etc.
I met the creator of the H-Bomb once on an flight(Dr.Edward Teller). He is truely a great mind and a great man. I was ten years old at the time yet we connected still by the fact that my maiden name is german and he being german. He was warm and kind and instantly I felt sorry for him and a comraderie. (I was ten at the time.) There he was constantly surrounded by security to make sure he wasn't harmed. He created a truely destructive monster and yet the man himself was kind and caring.
A great man yes. Someone that could be related to despite his greatness, yes.
While there are many great people in the world, I don't feel jealousy. I just know that I am different than them and have my own moments of greatness even if they are just between me and my daughter.
So, do I want to read about heros? Absolutely. Make sure they are 'human' and touchable however.
posted
Weak heros make a weak story. think about this: is frodo the weakest hero in lord of the rings? I think definatly not. He is the strongest. He is the only one out all of the rest that can resist the ring. the hero doesn't have to be phisicaly the strongest.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted
Let's ask it another way: Do weak heroes strengthen a book? Every writing book/article I've read say no and I would agree. The only way a truly weak hero might work is in a comedy, I would think.
Actually, "weak hero" seems an oxymoron, unless we carefully define "weak." Or maybe we should carefully define "hero." Or both. Maybe no one wants to read about a doormat housewife who puts up with an abusive husband, but what if she's sticking with him because she knows he'll take her daughter away if they divorce, and she's only biding her time till the daughter is 18 and beyond child custody battles?
Or are we equating "weak" with position in society? Frodo's a nobody but Gandalf's a great wizard, yet each could be carved out of LOTR with the story told only from their individual POV and each story would work. Each is a hero in his own right, and though each has strengths and weaknesses, Gandalf is the larger-than-life hero of the two. So what?
Do strong heroes weaken a book? The type of strength and how it works in relation to the whole story would make a difference, but overall the answer would have to be no. Otherwise, just imagine the ad blurbs trying to sell some of these babies: The lackluster head of Elgin, Illinois's most nondescript lawfirm carefully avoids the most dramatic lawsuits that cross his desk.
For the life of me, though, I never thought of being jealous of a fictional character. I thought the whole fun of reading fiction was that the reader got to be someone he isn't, if only in his mind and only for the length of the reading. Escapism, pure and simple. And writing is even better because you're in charge of everything.
posted
As a comic book addict, I have a certain fondness for larger than life good guys with such strong moral cores that they never have to agonize over right or wrong. Give me the moral clarity of a Superman or Captain America, put them up against truly deranged I-want-to-rule-the-world bad guys, and I will always take deep satisfaction when the good guy escapes the bad guy's ingenious death trap and puts the world back into order with one good punch to the jaw.
On the other hand, what I love in comic books isn't what I enjoy in literature. Here I like my heroes to be seriously, deeply messed up. I'm not talking about merely average people saving the day, I like it when people who are way, way on the downside from average make good. Give me a hero who is warped and broken, but who gets the job done anyway. I just recently reread "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett, and the hero of this story is a washed-up, corrupt, dispirited alcoholic captain of the guard leading a motley group of equally corrupt guards. They care nothing for the public safety, and are regarded by the population as a joke. When the town is menaced by a dragon, they are the last people the citizens would turn to for help. Which, of course, makes their eventual triumph over the dragon all the more satifying.
posted
I haven't read that particular Terry Pratchett novel, but I have read a lot of others. If this novel follows his others (and I'm sure it does) he is trying to make light of the situation. I bet it's quite amusing.
In a serious work, however, I would say "Yeah, right!" to aomseone who was way, way, way worse than average making good. They do have to have some strengths. In comedy it works to have messed up people bumble their way to success -- it's funny...but otherwise I need someone who could really get the job done.
posted
This is a very interesting turn of events. Now we all seem to agree that strong heroes can be good for a book. I'm glad to hear it.
But this leaves a wide gulf in the reasoning. Why would society want to read about strong heroes, when society also likes to watch strong heroes fall? Perhaps it's a different form of entertainment?
Consider this: I bet Superman has had more adventures than any other character in human history. He's been in comic books, newspaper strips, animated and live action TV shows (I believe on of each is in production today). America must love the guy.
Of course Superman is fictional. But what if he were real? Suppose you lived in Metropolis, how would you feel about Superman? Would the people of a real Metropolis love a real Superman as much as you and I love the fictional character? Or would tabloid reporters constantly be trying to make him a controversial figure, alleging sex scandals, financial misdeeds, and political intrigue?
posted
Yes, Superman would be the target of all kinds of scandals if he was real. The press would have had his real identity within 24 hours of his first apperance, too (silly pair of glasses).
Why? Because people love drama. And the media, in their infinite drive to make a buck, loves to give it to them. In stories we create drama by putting the hero in one tight spot after another, building suspense and making the reader think that maybe, just maybe, the hero will fall prey to deaeth or his internal demons or whatever else is after him (her).
In real life, though, we can't get inside the hero's head. If Superman was alive and fighting bad guys we would soon grow tired of the headline "Superman Saves the Day!" We were not a part of that drama, we weren't inside his head seeing the near misses he encountered on the way to victory. We would read that headline and go, "Yeah, yeah, good for him. So what else is new?" And the media would give us something else new...by making Superman into a real life guy with sex scandals, political intrigues, and whatever else they can dig up or make up.
posted
Personally, I like very strong heroes, but giving them a proper challenge is critical. I hate heroes who refrain from using their full powers because it makes the plot more suspenseful (this is my biggest gripe with _The_Matrix_ -- kung fu may look cool, but it's a very stupid way to fight when you have reality-bending powers).
This leaves two general approaches. You can give an antagonist similar powers. This works, but is awkward to repeat (why are so many super-villains trying to conquer earth? Are we right near the bus stops or something?), prone to cliche, and must be reflected in the outside world. If superman were really battling super-evil-man every week, I suspect world governments would start getting together, putting aside their differences, and working to restore their collective sovereignty. Insurance rates would go up because you never knew when a battle was going to take place on some given property. Cities would design real evacuation schemes. Small copuntries would stand down there militaries, counting on superman to prevent any real atrocities against them. The world would be effected. One could write an interesting story about those effects, but it would have a different cast of characters.
Alternatively, you can give them a more difficult task to which their powers are ill-suited. Alvin Maker is an excellant example of this. The plots can become far more complex, as can the characters (as different sides of them become strained) and they can go through the world without so much effect on it. Of course, you can question how extraordinary such a character is, if his extraordinary nature isn't helpful to the task at hand.
Really? Or does society like to see a deserving person finally "get his." Someone who's been "playing the game" and getting away with it who gets caught is different from a true hero falling or failing. The latter would more likely evoke shock and sympathy.
If it was discovered that Mother Teresa was siphoning off money from her order into a Swiss bank account, people would probably be happy she was exposed, but if she lost several orphanages despite her best efforts, she'd have the world's sympathy.
The difference is whether a person was actually a hero at all, his public persona notwithstanding.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited June 04, 2003).]
posted
That depends upon how you mean "like". I think humans like feeing strong emotions, whether they are good or bad. So if Mother Theresa turned out to be money-hungry we would be angry at her and no longer like her, but the drama of the situation and the emotions we felt, that is something we would like.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
Are you saying if Mother Teresa lost the orphanages we'd like feeling sorrow and sympathy, which would be no different than our liking it if she swindled her order and we felt outraged and glad? I don't think we enjoy our emotions that much. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Oh yeah...I think we do. I think we get a rush from sadness and mourning, otherwise why would we bother to do it? This is all just personal opinion, of course, people don't always agrees with me but that's ok. : )
Think about it, though...if we didn't feel anguish or despair, longing or pain...how could we ever understand the sheer contrast of bliss or joy? I read that, as a writer, one device you should use is to pick the mood up just before you smash it down or bring it down just before you bring it up...this creates a contrast. We enjoy the good all the more for the bad.
Of course, now you say, but we still don't enjoy the bad. Well, to a certain extent we do. How else would tragedies ever sell? I love movies that hit me hard enough to make me cry. I don't cry at movies all that easeily, but when I do I authomatically put that movie on my "good" list. It was so real, it was so moving.
Of course, personal tragedies are different from external tragedies, but here we're talking about other people's tragedies that we are simply becomming a part of through news or drama.
quote:In real life, though, we can't get inside the hero's head. If Superman was alive and fighting bad guys we would soon grow tired of the headline "Superman Saves the Day!" We were not a part of that drama, we weren't inside his head seeing the near misses he encountered on the way to victory. We would read that headline and go, "Yeah, yeah, good for him. So what else is new?" And the media would give us something else new...by making Superman into a real life guy with sex scandals, political intrigues, and whatever else they can dig up or make up.
You know Christine, this is really deep. I think you are exactly right. I've always though that all forms of news media seek to show us dramatic things, the same sort of events that movies depict when they can, but maybe that's not right. The news can show us violence and suffereing and scandal and horror, but they can't show heroism. At least they can't show it the way a book or movie can show it.
Consider the example Rahl22 suggested near the top of this thread:
quote:Wouldn't you say that an orphan, who has known nothing in life but systematic and institutional mediocrity but then goes on to write a concerto or a sonata, is a hero?
This would make a great novel, maybe even a bestseller. The reason is because the plot is charged with emotion and drama. Readers everywhere would shed tears of pain and joy, and the book would probably win an Pulitzer Prize.
If it happened in real life, it could become a feature in the newspaper. But it probably wouldn't make the front cover. I think the reason is that we want news that has consequences for our own personal lives. This story wouldn't affect my life much, but a scandal about an elected official or corporate executive - that would affect me. I'd lose money or change the way I vote or something.
We don't expect the same thing from drama. Drama is about other people, even ficticious people.
My conclusion is that a realistic story about a dramatic character must automatically include scandal. It may be inevitable.
posted
As an experiment, does anyone have an opinion about Martha Stewart? She's been indicted now, and she's resigned as chairman of her own company. Martha Stewart was a hero to many, much moreso than the likes of Andrew Fastow, Ken Lay, and Jeffery Skilling. Yet now her name is mentioned in the same breath as theirs.
There are plenty of insider trade investigations going on all the time. Sam Waksal, for instance, has been found guilty of much worse insider trading that Martha is accused of, but you seldom hear his name on the news. Based on the theory I posted above, Martha must make headlines because she affects us. I'm trying to figure out how Martha affects me more than Waksal, and I just can't do it.
Apparently a familiar hero caught in a small scandal affects me more than an unfamiliar tycoon caught in a gigantic scandal.
I wonder why?
Maybe Survivor was right. Maybe our world doesn't like greatness after all.
posted
I'm not sure that Martha Stewart is or was "great" at anything other than marketing, nor would I imagine many people describe her as a hero, before or after this scandal. There's a big difference between a celebrity and a hero. There are people who are both, but there are also heroes who aren't celebrities and celebrities who aren't heroes.
I would say a better example of a "hero" falling is Sammy Sosa. Sammy is a celebrity because he hits baseballs well, but he became a hero to a lot of people because he was a good sport and a nice guy who used his celebrity to promote charitible causes. I don't think you'll find many people celebrating that he was caught with a corked bat.
posted
Sammy Sosa is a fine example. I agree that most people won't celebrate the fact that he was caught with a corked bat. But I can think of one class of people who would celebrate that event: news editors.
They'd celebrate because the scandal has some kind of dramatic news value. People would follow the story in the papers, television, and radio news. The scandal would be just as "newsworthy" as the homerun hitting, if not moreso.
So even though we ordinary people weren't celebrating, we would be the ones making the scandal "newsworthy." I wonder why?
BTW the Martha Stewart as hero concept is not original to me. I've heard it over and over on the news lately. She gives hope to a certain demographic, hope that it's possible to get rich by making a few cookies and setting a few tables.
posted
The Martha Stewart stories and the Sammy Sosa stories are both good examples of why many people prefer fictional heroes over real ones. Superman is just never going to be caught in an insider trading scandal or corking his bat.
posted
But James, Martha Stewart hasn't been found guilty! The scandal is over an accusation that has yet to be proven in court.
I'm sure you're right, Superman wouldn't get caught insider trading or corking his bat. But he doesn't have to do it, he only needs to be accused of it.
For a good example, see the movie Tucker: the Man and his Dream. By the time Tucker was acquitted of the false charges his empire was already ruined. Something similar happened to John DeLorean.
An even better example might be John Glenn. He's probably the best example of a real life hero America has ever had, yet the media continues to associate him with the Keating scandal. In case you hadn't heard, the accusations of wrongdoing were proved false many, many years ago.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
