I'm actually rather surprised that you seem to like my story then- I mean, Edmund is not a hero in any way at all. He's silly, arrogant and a pyromaniac, really, and none of my other characters are straight heroic types either. Even Lieutenant Grey, who is a good person and a devout Christian, is still plagued by indecision and cowardice when it comes to personal choices. (which is weird because he's a perfectly brave soldier)
I guess my long exposure to Jane Austen has made it hard to set things down in terms of pure good and evil, which is part of the reason I have a hard time stomaching stories of perfect heroes and irredeemable villains. I mean, even Jesus had moments of indecision, and that's what made his story that much more realistic to me. (sorry to talk religion or anything, but I think it's a good example)
Though I do like that the article points out how Tolkien came up with a lot of his ideas while in WWI- I mean, if THAT didn't make him dark, depressing and nihilistic, it sure says something about him.
Ok, you have a point, though Ed does have some sociopathic tendencies. I wonder if the difference is that a bunch of people call him on it, rather than letting him stay that way. I don't want to let him to be stuck in that rut, as I find static characters to be really boring, and also know that I personally wouldn't want to read about somebody with no redeeming qualities. ;-)
From what I've read about your characters, though, they sound like they are actually trying, and they aren't running around being complete jerks and not getting called on it. As I said before, there's a difference between a protagonist with some flaws, which get noticed by other people, and a complete jerk who does whatever he wants. I have a character of my own who starts out his story as a spoiled brat who thinks he's the greatest thing ever, but by the end he's matured. I have nothing against guys who start out bad and become better, the only thing I don't like is when they start off bad, and just go on being bad because that's supposedly realistic And the other thing that really gets me is that these people all act like in order to be realistic, you have to show only ugly stuff, and be completely hopeless. I like there to be some beauty or at least some good things among the grit.
So, to me it sounds like the main difference lies in the author- if they aren't content to let their characters remain horrible, selfish people it perhaps turns out better than authors that make excuses for their character's evilness because "that's real life". Maybe it also lies in an author's willingness to acknowledge their character's flaws. I think that Eragon, for example, would be a better story if Paolini had recognized his character's vices rather than trying to play him as the perfect, incorruptible hero. The same goes for Harry Potter, who sure is a jerk for someone who supposedly overcomes Lord Voldemort with the power of love. ;-)
Well, its possible to have someone start out unlikable. The fantasy where I've seen that done well is A Wizard of Earthsea, where Ged starts out rather unlikable and changes over the course of the book.
That sounds like another interesting book to read- clearly I need to compile a summer fantasy reading list, as I am painfully uneducated in that genre. ;-)
Yes, its very good. I won't give you any spoilers if you don't like them, but I think Ged is a great example of a fantasy protagonist who starts out unlikable, but doesn't stay that way. He also has to spend most of the book dealing with the consequences of his actions, which is something that doesn't always get seen in the fantasy genre.
I guess my long exposure to Jane Austen has made it hard to set things down in terms of pure good and evil, which is part of the reason I have a hard time stomaching stories of perfect heroes and irredeemable villains. I mean, even Jesus had moments of indecision, and that's what made his story that much more realistic to me. (sorry to talk religion or anything, but I think it's a good example)
Reply
Reply
Reply
A lot of people seem to forget that little fact.
Reply
A. Trying very hard.
B. They're aren't a bunch of nihilistic sociopathic slimebags.
Reply
Reply
And the other thing that really gets me is that these people all act like in order to be realistic, you have to show only ugly stuff, and be completely hopeless. I like there to be some beauty or at least some good things among the grit.
Reply
Maybe it also lies in an author's willingness to acknowledge their character's flaws. I think that Eragon, for example, would be a better story if Paolini had recognized his character's vices rather than trying to play him as the perfect, incorruptible hero. The same goes for Harry Potter, who sure is a jerk for someone who supposedly overcomes Lord Voldemort with the power of love. ;-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment