“That’s not very heroic,” is an ongoing comment during critique or in contest judging. But the hero hasn’t tortured animals or kidnapped anyone. He isn’t unheroic. He just has certain traits that need to be plucked like a stray eyebrow lash or a challenge that will bring out his best attributes.
Does the perfect hero mean our male protagonist is flawless? Must he embody all the attributes of the ideal alpha male to make the readers love him?
So, I ask, should our heroes be perfect?
Going against the prevailing philosophy, I say “no” and no again. How boring.
I want to see growth (character arc). Though larger than life and facing extraordinary circumstances, I need to see a semblance of a real person on the page. At the start of a book with a hero that is the embodiment of all that is good, noble and sexy, I’m bored. I can’t relate. Why? For me this epitome of heroism is not an archetype but a stereotype. And of course it follows that the man or women is physical perfection with varying shades of hair, eye and skin color. Gag me.
This doesn’t mean the protagonist should have a disgusting habit or committed a grievous sin. If the main character is controlling or curses or doesn’t go to church… will the reader through your novel across the room in disgust?
I agree wholeheartedly that some unheroic actions or characteristics are unpalatable if not taboo. I don’t want to see the hero pick his nose. I don’t want him to have committed a grievous sin. Many years ago on the recommendation of a friend, I read the start of a series and never finished the first book. The ‘hero’ raped someone. I asked my friend why in the hell would I like this book? Her answer was as the series progresses, he must make redemption. Sorry, he was not redeemable in my eyes. Rape or murder is not an accident. And while this character was not repentant initially (though that wouldn’t have made me like him or care about him either.) His change of attitude made no difference to me. He wasn’t a hero, he was scum.
Therefore it appears that some sins are unforgivable but less than heroic traits are acceptable, in my view. That is why I like Beauty and The Beast. The story was not just about looking past the physical, The Beast wasn’t very heroic at the start of the story. Another example that comes to mind is Laurell K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake. The heroine isn’t always likable, she is prejudiced and unyielding. But as Anita grows she learns to become more accepting. She grows as a person. She’s still tough.
Vicki Pettersson’s Joanna Archer, from The Sign of Zodiac series, has both Shadow and Light sides. She seeks revenge and makes poor decisions. But this is a heroine to embrace as she learns and grows. Rachel Caine’s Joanne Baldwin of the Weather Warden series is vain. This heroine sets out to use a djinn to take the Demon Mark (a parasite) from her. She thinks of the djinn as things, not people. But as she learns, her heroism rises to the top.
These are my examples of the less than heroic but infinitely more appealing, entertaining and intriguing heroic characters. Must our hero or heroine have only heroic personas? I’d like to know what you think.
We Want You!
Your comments and feedback are encouraged and welcomed. Please leave advice, tips, suggestions, experiences and anecdotes.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I couldn't agree with you more and I think it's more accepted in mainstream and literary fiction, which when compared to romantic fiction is a whole 'nother animal. Linda Howard started out one of her heroines as an assassin, but she had the strength of backlist and readers behind it. Me? I love to start with tortured souls...especially the hero.
I think sometimes we pick on personality characteristics, especially in romance. We have defined the HERO and he can't be anything else. I love your redemption of a tortured soul, but what if he was 'controlling' - would our writing partners this him unheroic?
Yes! I think part of the appeal of Romance is the character arc. We want to see the hero grow and become the man the herione always knew he could be.
Flaws are real life, not larger than life. I think we have to be careful with the flaws we assign to our characters. But that's not to say the characters can't be flawed. Because that's sexy.
Does any of that make sense? LOL.
Trouble relating to the characters is one of the main reasons I’m often turned off by romance novels. I’ve read a few gems that I’ve hung on to since my younger days, but I have to admit that most of the time I’m left feeling under-whelmed. I want a hint of realism in my characters. I want to be able to believe that I might be or know someone like the main characters.
How can you identify with a character that is impervious to the occasional lapse in judgment? Where on earth would their humility come from? No, I like my heroes with a little dirt on em. ;)
And I have yet to meet someone in real life who is physically perfect in every way. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t want to meet someone like that because I’m more interested in uniqueness. And I’m not talking about a slight physical flaw that isn’t a flaw at all but in fact makes them sexier. How obnoxious.
I say viva la difference!
I think the Perfect Hero is a flawwed hero. Some of my fave's are guys who traipsed around the darker side.
Love those tortured heroes looking for redemption but too proud to admit it to themselves. I'm talking about characters like Riddick, from Chronicles of Riddick. Or Malcolm Reynolds from Serenity. Even John McClain from the Die Hard series.
All of these guys were doing their own thing when they were presented with a choice to be leaders of men, protect the ones they cared for or because they were the only ones who could protect the innocent, they were the line between good and evil, right and wrong.
They could've headed in the other direction. But because of their core beliefs (justice/freedom--yes, for all of them!) they couldn't walk away.
For me, what makes a hero heroic is his ability to "step up". Even if it means putting their own wants/needs on hold. Especially if it means putting their life on the line when the odds are stacked against them achieving the goal.
My $.02 worth.
Well said, Sherry!
I've written for years, but am new to romance reading and writing.
I've read a lot of romances lately from one of the major publishers, and not long after I've read many of them I can't remember which character was in which story. In the process, though, I've come across some very good writers I would like to see write other than the formula romances. However, those publishers and writers obviously know what sells because they have a loyal readership.
So I turned to "mainstream" romances and have enjoyed them much more. Though I don't usually read "inspirational" books, I am enjoying an inspirational romance titled "Revealed" (recent RITA winner). There are several physically imperfect people - and the main characters have enough complexity to them to keep me reading in hopes they will be different at the end of the story from the way they were at the beginning. Even though I *think* I know how this will end, I'm interested to see how it plays out.
I note, however, that the hero is good-looking and attractive - but he isn't the super-hero of the other type romances.
So I agree that the archetype in many instances is a stereotype. Fun to read at the time but pretty much forgotten in a couple of days.
Tye, thank you for adding in from the reading point of view. And I'll have to pick up Revealed based on your recommendation. :) Thanks
Post a Comment