posted
As was hopefully obvious by the title, this thread is inspired by hoptoad's about stupid guards.
Me? I can't stand the stupid heroes (or heroines) that plague fantasy. They show their stupidity by walking into obvious traps, naively going along with the Evil Overlord's scheme, or - and this is a bit more shaky - not doing what needs to be done because of ideals. (You can be idealistic and non-violent without being stupid about it.)
Stupidity seems to be a common plot device to get the main character to fall into some sort of trap that they then need to use impressive -but improbable- magic or weaponry skills to get out of.
What impresses me is the opposite: any character that solves their problems by outsmarting the enemy (by use of impressive but improbable magic or weaponry skills if necessary).
Anyone else been nticed this trend or been bugged by it?
posted
Okay, so I have my hero do a couple things in my book. I worry they might be stupid. I have faith my readers will tell me if they are being too stupid--same for my antagonists. I tried to make them all clever whenever possible, but also varied. Some are only mildly competent, others are surprisingly so (I hope).
All I can do is try and hope my readers are honest
posted
I hate murder and killing in general, I don't even like capital punishment. SO, for a reader I would think I'd be one inclined to want my hero to avoid killing when necessary.
However, sometimes it is necessary. Especially if the setting is war. Kill or be killed situations often don't have other options. I hate characters who obsess over not-killing so much that it causes problems for our heroes later, (sort of like Harry Potter) that seriously annoys me.
I don't want the main "problem" of the story to be a consequence of somebody's fanatical personal ideals. If someone is shooting a gun at you, for goodness' sake, shoot him back.
Sort of like how cops don't shoot if they don't have to, but they carry guns anyway, because--guess what--sometimes they have to...
Anyone else bothered by this sort of ridiculous heroism?
posted
I hear you, Zero. Sometimes I think that having the MC be that way is just a cop out by the writer, because he or she couldn't think up a better way out of the situation. That said, I think that I would be very skiddish to pull the trigger, myself. The idea of killing someone creeps me out.
Unless of course that person threatened the lives of my children. In that case, they'd better run because I wouldn't think twice.
posted
this can be pretty annoying. OK not pretty, very annoying. When I was little I would always leave the room when they did stupid things, and I don't like it any more now that I'm all grown up. A story is so much stronger when you don't have to rely on the stupidity of the main character to move the plot along. Not killing someone is not considered stupid in my mind, but there have been times when I wish authors had just killed off extraneous characters.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not killing someone I don't consider stupid"---is that meant for any circumstances?
I remember watching a re-enactment ( a long time ago) of a cop with a drawn gun trying to arrest a known killer. The killer got in his car and hit the gas, aiming his vehicle directly at one of the cops. This cop, call him Dumbass Joe, pointed his handgun at the driver but didn't fire. Instead he froze up, and the car ran him over and killed him.
That's just stupid. And true, I can empathize with anyone who can't even imagine wanted to pull the trigger, but I think evolution has taught us that self-preservation is our primary instinct. And anyone who doesn't follow it is either a martyr or a moron. In fiction, it's usually the latter. Because what (inevitably) happens, is that our hero doesn't kill and somehow conveniences his way out of the situation. Sort of like having your spell ricochet off of another one...
When I see a hero who chooses to not win, that means he chooses to lose. And when he wins anyway, that makes me feel cheated as a reader.
So, I guess a better question is, "Are any of you ever put off by a hero in a life or death situation choosing to kill in order to live, rather than choosing to die in order to not kill?"
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited September 22, 2007).]
quote:So, I guess a better question is, "Are any of you ever put off by a hero in a life or death situation choosing to kill in order to live, rather than choosing to die in order to not kill?"
Well, I think when not killing is a core part of the hero's morality or ideology, then I think yes, I would be put off by the hero killing someone to survive. At the very least, I'd expect him or her to have to face some dire consequences, spiritually or emotionally, because of this choice. The only example I can come up with right now is super cheesy-I'm thinking of Kwai Chang Caine (David Carridine in the Kung Fu movies). If he had killed, even to save himself, that would have pretty much negated the whole point of the movies, in my mind.
As for a cop freezing as a car backs into him--this could be the result of a variety of emotions, not just hesitating to kill someone.
Finally, it is hard to balance modern sensibilities with hypothetical or historical attitudes. Life in many cultures and eras simply was not as valued as it is today. I'm currently struggling with whether to let my MC condone raping and pillaging, a very common practice for conquering armies, but pretty brutal. And slavery--the way my civilization is set up, I can't really think of a valid reason _not_ to have slaves, except that I find it horrific. What to do?
I guess that's a bit off topic. However, a few weeks ago I finished Megan Lindholm's The Wizard of Pigeons (a book highly recommended by OSC, but very hard to find). In the whole middle section I felt like throwing the book across the room because the MC is so durn blind to the obvious. Argh.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited September 22, 2007).]
quote:So, I guess a better question is, "Are any of you ever put off by a hero in a life or death situation choosing to kill in order to live, rather than choosing to die in order to not kill?"
No - unless it's poorly done (but isn't that the caveat for everything?).
lehollis - it makes a difference whether your characters make honest mistakes, or act on misinformation as opposed to deliberately wandering in a trap, or ignoring, shall we say, the writing on the wall right in front of them. Even so, a few stupid mistakes doesn't matter. It's when stupidity of the hero drives the entire plot that I really get irritated.
posted
My pet peeve is stupid enemies, in fact enemies so stupid they have to rely on a Deus Ex Machina so powerful it not only accommodates their stupidity but requires an even bigger Deus Ex Machina in turn for the heroes to win - Stormtroopers, Klingons, etc., they've become (unfortunately) a sci-fi archetype. Posts: 87 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
And I do hate it when characters miss the obvious.
I just read Pullman's The Golden Compass. I was really annoyed with how many times characters would go through chapters, thinking, "Gosh, I remember hearing that name. Where did I hear it?" and I'm thinking, "It was in chapter 1, you moron! Pay attention!"
posted
Obviously some people don't like the stereotypical fantasy hero/heroine here. Put yourselves into the standard readers shoes and think about what they like in a story. Don't be so analytical when reading others works otherwsie it'll show up in your own writing.
I know everyone wants to be different in the way they write, but stick to the formula until you get published, a few publications under your belt then write the story you want to write. I know what I'm saying is a bad thing, but think about it, is a reader going to read a book thats like this:
"Haha, I am in a dungeon where there are obvious booby traps! If I step on this stone a giant spear will impale me! If I step there I will be crushed by spiked walls closing in on me! I'm too smart for this place! I'll step here, and oh there!"
^^ That was deliberately written like that to be honest!
Readers like to be kept in suspense.
Then again, not everyone likes the same thing.
quote:So, I guess a better question is, "Are any of you ever put off by a hero in a life or death situation choosing to kill in order to live, rather than choosing to die in order to not kill?"
I have no problem with that Zero, if you have to kill to live and to protect the ones you love then so be it. Choosing to kill because of your honour/integrity/morality is a pretty selfish way to die, especially if the person thats killing you is a murderer themselves. What about the ones that love you? What happens to them if you die? Sometimes morality should not be involved in certain parts of life.
[This message has been edited by Leigh (edited September 22, 2007).]
posted
Just to add another dimension to this thread, please check my latest post to Stupid Town Guards, re the Washington Post article! Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stupidity to the rescue....I don't buy it. I think some people fail to understand how intelligent characters are not only prone to do stupid things, but do them more spectacularly. I'll borrow from HP...Dumbledore made the point that he could make mistakes, and his were usually larger than anyone else's. So, while the character shouldn't fail to remember something pointed out time and again, they can, and will overthink the problem, or just forget something simple that couldn't be important because it is too simple. So what if the hero knows that certain rocks will set off traps...what happens when he gets past them all to find the door isn't a door....it just looks like one, and as he turns the handle all the booby traps go off at once?
I agree, don't make characters stupid to satisfy readers...not if you want me to be one of those readers. Should the main character die for his morals? Only if the story is over and you want to ensure there isn't a sequel...go right ahead. If you have done your job well I might even feel for him/her as they bite the big one.
I think we do our readers a disservice if we allow our own personal prejudices derail the story. If a society would have slaves, and you don't have them because you object to it, then you hurt the story. Put in the slavery, and the main character can even go along in his life thinking nothing more of it. So he/she doesn't beat the slaves, or maybe they treat them a bit nicer than they have too...if the society finds it acceptable, why can't the character? Face it, the human race is only civilized when we decide to be. Deep down humans are just the top of the food chain of animals. While people keep wanting to believe that humans have progressed past the point of being animals....look at the arrest section in any major city newspaper (if they still have them anymore). There are lots of people who do whatever impulse strikes them when it strikes. Look at what is going on in parts of Africa...the middle east. We have a long way to go before we will rise above the animal still very much inside of us. When we write, it is only a reality that the ugly side of humans can and will be there. We don't have to like it, or agree with it, or even pretend it is something that should ever be done...but if your story is to be believed, then it must ring true.
Dumb hero's are possible, as are dumb villains. If we strive for something that is believable, then we have a chance of writing a good story. If we place all our own personal issues on top of it...then it probably will lack the believability. I think it isn't that a villain or hero are always stupid, I think it is a lack of willingness to make it real to the reader because of personal beliefs. While the character can share those beliefs...don't give it to them if it won't fit the world.
posted
My pet peeve, when it comes to stupid characters, is the hero who does what everyone has warned him/her not to do so that there is a plot. (I believe this is also called the "idiot plot.")
If a character is going to do something stupid, or against everyone's better judgment, there ought to be an extremely compelling reason for the character to do it. ("It looks easier" is not a compelling reason, nor is "it's a shortcut." Those are stupid reasons.)
The heroine only goes into the dark, broken-down house because she is injured and it's the only place for miles and it's hailing with lightning and thunder, and she hopes there is a phone, or at least to get out of the weather. No way does she go down into the basement, unless the author is lazy and doesn't have any other ideas for a plot.
posted
What about love? Is love a "valid" reason for doing something stupid? I realize it's going to depend on the story, but I'm curious to see what you guys say.
Posts: 2185 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say yes. Love can make you do crazy things, and I'm more willing to believe that a hero (or heroine), say, tries to sneak into an enemy castle all by themselves, despite all the odds, becasue a loved one's life is on the line, even if deep down they don't think they'll survive the ordeal.
Now if they do the same thing just to kill the big bad guy, or something less personal, it get's less believable.
posted
Yes. But that depends on how the hero justifies it. If there hero uses love as a motivation to cut off body parts and mail them to somebody, no that doesn't fly. Or if the hero sees his love being captured on a moving train and he jumps on the tracks to stop it with his bare hands, and he isn't superman, no that doesn't fly. That's just being stupid and I won't buy it. (what he's doing or the book)
But, if he is roped into a situation where circumstances are out of his control, and he has no other choice, and it is a conflict of heart and mind... I will completely empathize with any character taking a bold risk simply because "I have to try," knowing he couldn't live with himself if he didn't. This applies not just to love but to dignity and personal values.
For example: Our hero sees an old lady being mugged in the street. The attackers are bigger than he is and they have weapons. Our hero is unarmed and alone, but he goes to her aid anyway. Which is technically a stupid decision, but he knows if he walks his merry way that would make him unhappy and profoundly bother him for years to come. Because that is the character established, he has those values. And yes, I will buy that. Not only that, but I'll expect it from such a character.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
