Marty-Stuing and the art of superpowers

[m_mcgregor]

I assume someone somewhere has been graciously reminding people that The Wonderland Subject exists, as I've gotten a sudden influx of messages about it. One of them reminded me that I wanted to address something that more than a few people have said about the story, particularly the last few chapters. (That means there are SPOILERS in the upcoming

Comments

[m_mcgregor]

I agree with you on that, although it's a very difficult trope to turn on its head, especially in a sci-fi/fantasy genre. I've been trying to write an original story for a while, and I keep going back and forth between wanting to have the hero or heroes simply be great because of who they are and the circumstances of their birth, or be great because they do things that make them great.

On the surface it would sound like an easy choice. You take the latter option, because they have to earn it. But there is an almost primal desire in human beings, I think, to fantasize about the Sword in the Stone-esque sudden realization of being special. Let's face it: most popular fantasy stories revolve around such characters. Even in cases where the main character has no powers in relation to everyone else, their lack of powers is a "destined" thing or a circumstance of an unusual birth.

Very rarely is the hero or heroine of a story a normal person with absolutely no unique upbringing. On a logical, anti-cliche level we might want that, but as a story it's very hard to make that work. At some point you have to have the main character exhibit some unique skill, ability, personality trait, or other attribute.

And the question then becomes: is it the person that makes themselves the hero, or is it that attribute that makes them the hero? Does it really matter? Where does that line get drawn?

Is Xander's strong loyalty and fairly keen insight into the hearts of his friends a superpower? Is it his unique trait that makes him Xander, or is there something more? At one point does a character become more than the sum of his or her parts?

Because really what we're talking about with a Xander kind of character is just a flipping of the uniqueness of someone with superpowers. In most stories, the one person with a superpower is the odd man out. In the Buffyverse, the one person WITHOUT a superpower is the odd man out. Either way, we'd love to see him triumph.

I've rambled a bit here because this is a subject that really deserves more than what this little comment space can provide, but I hope you get what I'm saying: non-powers and non-destiny can be very awesome, but to me it always comes back to how you're presenting things.

[nocturnalista]

Presentation is the biggest part of the battle. Too often, to me, destiny or superpowers lead to weak storytelling. For example, on BSG, Starbuck devolved from flawed but strong female lead to some pawn of fate who alternately clung to whatever was available or kicked ass. Destiny provided an instant, easy storyline at the cost of real character development, and frankly, I was sick of the character about halfway through the series.

Buffy (during the first few seasons) was probably the best representative of a well-written, super-powered lead. She was ultimately heroic, not because of the powers but in spite of them. In later seasons, the show became more about the powers than the characters, and became a much weaker show because of it. It was lazy storytelling, and like Starbuck, Buffy became a weak, boring and predictable character. I'd suspect that the writers were intimidated by strong women if it didn't happen to male characters as well.

But as you say, good or bad storytelling is the province of the author. A good writer can make even the worst crap interesting. A bad writer can make the best potential plot unreadable.