Creating a Hero.

[Endymion]

What makes a good hero? What makes you adore a character?
I have remarked that most of the heros have some special skill or power. Does it make the person more interesting?
I personally am annoyed that all the heros are extremely special and are like superheroes.
What makes you interested in the hero of a story?
What do you people think? Would like to know your thoughts.

 

[Justme]

That's a good question. I always thought that a good hero was a good leader and cared about what was occurring around him/her. What blows my mind is the idea that some people have that a hero needs to be some sort of a superman or women. That would create nice eye candy but little personal depth. How many true heroes, like the mothers and fathers who remain in the shadows, but really stands out for the individuals that raise.

One thing a person has to have is a struggle to overcome and a goal to reach.

 

[Endymion]

Justme,
a good answer and I totally agree with you.

 

[Ophiucha]

Being well written is pretty much my only criteria. You can have someone who is insanely overpowered if there's a good reason for it and it works in the setting and for the story. You can have a goody two-shoes do-no-wrong character as long as he's got a reason to be that way, and ideally is faced with a conflicting moral situation (I've always found Good vs. Good plots to be fascinating). There's really nothing you can't do well if you give it the right circumstances.

Of course, I like certain traits more than others. I love cocky characters, characters with children or a parental instinct, goofy guys and sassy lasses. I don't think any of those make for a good hero, exactly, but it might make me, personally, like them.

As I am currently reading the entire backlog of Captain America comic books and may have the slightest, tinsiest crush on Steve Rogers (by which I mean, holy crap, I have never loved a fictional character more in my life), I'll take some mild offense to the superhero comment, by the way.

 

[Penpilot]

A hero doesn't run away from the hard choices, and whether right or wrong, they never hide from the consequences. They accept responsibility and do what they think is right even if they don't want to.

 

[gavintonks]

the way you write it the passion and emotion and the planning to have a likeable character through choice of words and story

 

[ThinkerX]

The criteria I use....

1) Bold = somebody who does something that *MGHT* or might not be risky/dangerous, but affects only themselves.

2) Brave = somebody who does something that *IS* risky/dangerous, but again affects only themselves.

3) Heroic = somebody who something that *IS* risky/dangerous, but does so in order to protect/help others - putting them first.

 

[Ankari]

A hero is someone who will do what is necessary at risk of personal loss. As a sub-condition I would say that the hero does this act without personal gain. I don't like stories about Prince Charming slaying a dragon to free his maiden. If it were another woman, say the maiden's elderly mother, would he do it? The character that saves the elderly mother is the hero. Prince Charming is just selfish.

 

[TWErvin2]

A lot of it depends on the context. One doesn't need super abilities or skills or magic or weapon to be a hero.

For a reader, I think it can simply be the reader thinking: If I was in that situation, I'd like to think I'd have done the same thing.

Bravery? Yes.
Doing something for the 'right reason'? Yes.

But it goes back to context. What made Frodo heroic was different than what made Aragorn heroic. What makes Conan the Barbarian heroic is different than what makes Corwin, a prince of Amber, heroic.

The 'hero' in my novels (if he could be called that), what makes Krish/Flank Hawk, I think, is his loyalty. A reader explained it a little differently in a review: "The main character is a young mercenary, who unexpectedly finds himself as a key player in the events shaping his world. While repeatedly becoming a key player in the unfolding events within the book, what makes the main character so interesting is that he is no superman. He is no expert swordsman. He is no talented magic wielder. He is no great intelligence. He is simply a somewhat idealistic man who is just doing the best he can to protect those he serves with the average skills he does have. If he has a "talent", it's survival."

In truth, what we write isn't often seen the same way by readers as we might anticiapte. The various readers bring different experiences and expectations to the reading experience.

A recently interesting read I had was Confessions of a D-List Suppervillain. Due to circumstances, the survival of the world, or freedom at least humanity not being enslaved, fell to this second (or third) string supervillain. He did the best he could with what skills, knowledge and equipment he had available.

What I enjoy reading about are characters that don't set out to be heros, but characters who persevere in the face of hardship and danger. Often it's about choices and consequences of those choices as opposed to simply facing physical danger.

 

[Aravelle]

I think what makes a hero is sacrifice and guts.

However, what makes a good hero... is giving them a voice. Giving them fear, anger, sadness, and flaws. Have them make mistakes that aren't easy to fix; give them regrets. Have them question the world and their motives, as to whether they are indeed doing the right thing. Regardless of their species, make them human. Avoid supercharging them with power, unless they're a Messiah figure [and even then be careful].

 

[Zephon]

I think the main characteristic of a Hero is perseverance. I just finished reading Terry Brook's Sword of Shannara, wasn't too impressed, but I found the most interesting person in the story to be Panamon Creel. He's a criminal and above average road robber, but he has a bizarre sense of principle that he exhibits devoutly throughout the story. He's also extremely loyal, and this loyalty goes hand in hand with his drive to fulfill his promises that he makes to himself and others.

I just think all these characters that fit the classic heroic monomyth have saturated fantasy for to long.

 

[ScipioSmith]

A hero is someone who will do what is necessary at risk of personal loss. As a sub-condition I would say that the hero does this act without personal gain. I don't like stories about Prince Charming slaying a dragon to free his maiden. If it were another woman, say the maiden's elderly mother, would he do it? The character that saves the elderly mother is the hero. Prince Charming is just selfish.

I would argue that doesn't have to be true all of the time. My hero enjoys fighting, and if he lives for anything it is for the praise he gets from winning and the satisfaction of winning, but it doesn't make the things he achieves by fighting any less heroic.

 

[The Dark One]

There is of course the well-worn hero's journey trope, but I'd rather put my own gloss on it...

There have already been a few comments above that identify the features of a hero, but to address the second part of teh question - what makes readers adore such a hero - I would say:

Besides the obvious bit about having a major challenge to overcome, the reader must be able to relate to a character and maybe recognise qualities they regard themselves to have. The hero should not be perfect, should have flaws and weaknesses, at least one weakness which is potentially dangerous so that the reader can come to fear for him/her.

The hero should speak with a touch of humour (in appropriate situations) and his/her ultimate victory should be at some cost to himself/herself.

The hero must be consistent. It's OK to grow/change over the course of a story (in fact it's essential) but the hero should not do anything which is obviously out of character.

My recently published story featured a very unusual hero, in that what makes him a hero is his willingness to abruptly leave the normal course of his life after a couple of small and apparently random events. It's as though the cosmos is endlessly sending us messages in number patterns and small synchronicities, but nothing is ever quite coherent enough to make most people take action. My hero (Lasseter) does. Hopefully the reader likes Lasseter for taking seriously that which we all intuit and sacrificing his old world to pursue the secret world. He gets to have one hell of an adventure which the reader vicariously enjoys while also knowing they would never have had the guts to make the choices Lasseter does.

He's also (I hope) quite amusing with his turn of phrase and encounters plenty of ratbags - all of whom make Lasseter seem pretty cool by comparison.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I wonder how Rincewind (of early Discworld novels) fits into this. He's definitely not a hero in the conventional sense of the word.

 

[Caged Maiden]

My heroes are sort of normal people. In fact, I don't know I've ever written a hero in the sense we normally think of. I tend to write normal who accomplish extraordinary things because inside they are strong. I mean, it's easy to save the world when you are very powerful, but what if you're not? What if you are a broken man whose given up hope? Those are my heroes. They overcome their deep pain to do what they feel is right.

 

[Helen]

The hero is the focus of the story. The hero provokes change and/or is provoked to change. Doesn't need superpowers or anything.

Alvie in Annie Hall is a hero.
Bertie in The King's Speech is a hero.

 

[Ankari]

This thread contains so much potential for discourse, yet doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves.

From what descriptions I've seen so far, the definitions of Hero, Glory Seeker, MC, and the desperate. Also we have to consider the scenario they're in. The scenario they are in is a big contributor to deciding whether a person is a hero or not. If an event is thrust on a person and they are forced to do an action that is thought of a "above and beyond normal" I wouldn't categorize that person as a hero, even if people benefit from his acts. Rather, this person is considered a desperate.

A glory seeker is just that, they seek glory for the actions they take. The actions may or may not benefit anyone. It may or may not be considered "good." You can think of the classical knight in a jousting match. They look the part of a hero, but they really just want the glory. And they may kill truly noble people in the quest for glory.

A hero will do something that promotes the cause of good knowing that the action s/he takes may cost him dearly. The important note is that the hero doesn't necessarily gain anything from the success of the act. If a person does an act to benefit him or her then that person is really just a selfish person taking a risk or a glory seeker.

Another note, your MC may not be a hero. I only say that because someone suggested the two are linked.