Sensitive Male Heroes

[Black Dragon]

Any thoughts on writing a sensitive male hero? Have you tried creating a male protagonist who is simultaneously masculine and heroic but also emotionally open and in touch with his feelings?

How can you do this without emasculating the guy?

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Gay fighter? Yah, not politically correct, but masculine and "in touch with our feelings" are almost a contradiction. Can matter and antimatter exist in the same location...sure...till they touch. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just very unlikely. Heroic and in touch could work pretty well, but the mind screams "I don't believe" when I try to envision a body builder who is sensitive...unless he is gay.

Yep, stereotypes are wonderful things, and sometimes it takes a great deal of effort to break them.

 

[mythique890]

I'm not really a woman who goes for the sensitive type in fiction or real life. I think it could be possible. For example, a man can be aware of what he's feeling and acknowledge it without emoting all over everyone all the time. It would have to be carefully done. I don't know if a woman could do it or would care to. I heard once that the reason women love Edward Cullen and, more importantly, relate to him so easily, is because he thinks and acts like a woman.

I think the best way to get into the emotions a male protagonist is feeling without crossing into girly territory is to get inside his head. As far as I'm aware, men have emotions, they just don't show them (I'm going off of my husband here, who is about as emotionally communicative as a boulder... still love him though). If we're in his head, we can know what he's feeling without him expressing it to everyone else. The femininity (or emasculation, I guess) comes from the reaction to emotions a person has, not the emotions themselves IMO. Others probably disagree.

 

[Leuco]

I think there's a wide spectrum of sensitivity, and on some level all heroes are sensitive-- especially the dynamic ones.

Sensitivity, I think, can be a powerful driving factor for a hero. It can be a trigger that makes him/her want to do good or evil. It's what stirs his compassion, his rage, his desire, his quest. It's only when the hero's constantly crying and whining that it turns into a serious problem. But if our hero can't feel, why do we bother following him? I guess they write those kinds of heroes, but there are a lot of heroes cry. Gilgamesh wept over Enkidu. Achilles over Patroclus, Hamlet over Yorick. Batman over Robin II. It happens quite often.

I think the Byronic hero is a good example of a sensitive, maybe even hypersensitive, hero who is not at all emasculated. A character that comes to mind is Mr. Rochester from Jane Eyre. He's torn and troubled by his emotions, stern and gruff, moody and mysterious, dark and rebellious. He's not at all a sissy.

At least, I don't think so.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Maybe it is the concept, "in touch with his feelings" that is confusing. To be able to express someone feelings outwardly is the concept I have. All of us have feelings. Some of us don't show them outwardly that much, but they do exsist. Women are more commonly thought of to be able to express what they feel, or maybe more likely are prone to show them. Still, if you take most of the masculine male heros and look at them from the inside, they do have quite a few feelings, they just push them to the back while they do what they perceive as what they need to do. This is fairly common in most epic style fantasy, and readily acceptable.

It's hard to imagine any hero, male or female, being sucessful if they break down and cry, or try and stop and discuss with the orc how attacking him or her wasn't a nice thing to do. Impossible, no, harder to make believable, yes.

 

[Amanita]

It's hard to imagine any hero, male or female, being sucessful if they break down and cry, or try and stop and discuss with the orc how attacking him or her wasn't a nice thing to do.

Very true. My heroes, male or female, don't tend to talk about their feelings too much. For one of my important female characters it's actually a plot point that she keeps refusing to talk about her feelings to another woman who thinks this is important. (Which results in this woman distrusting her.) I think, this might actually be a bit over the top with me sometimes, but like Lord Darkstorm I also see heroes as people who are able to put their feelings behind and do what is necessary.
In other stories I also don't like main characters who keep fretting about things they've been forced to do by the plot if there's no really good reason for it. (A good reason would be a story that actually is about something doing wrong and regretting it later.)

 

[Chilari]

Wow, this is a really interesting discussion.

I struggle with male characters. I struggle with men in general. I just don't get them. I've been in a relationship with one for five and a half years and he still manages to say things that confuse me, or which reveal things about the way men think which I never knew before. I try my best with male characters, but I think they come out a little feminine in their thought patterns, if not in their actions.

Though in fairness, I struggle with particularly feminine women characters too. I'm not one of those women who slaps on a load of makeup every day and is obsessed with shoes and handbags. I just write and paint and play video games. But yeah, I struggle to create characters who conform to modern perceptions of femininity too.

I guess I just treat my characters as people, rather than as men or women, and treat gender as a minor issue, where it has an effect on the story, but not on the way they act or think. I guess I have to fix that. I'll be following this thread with great interest.

 

[ShortHair]

The short answer is, men live in the left brain. They think logically, not emotionally. It's not that they don't have feelings or care about the feelings of others, it's that these things often don't occur to them in the first place.

The macho hero is an extreme case. Any emotion he shows is a sign of weakness and a potential lever his enemies can use against him. Still, he has feelings, so it's that much more telling (in our terms, dramatic) when they surface unbidden.

To a man, everything is a life or death struggle. Emotion will cloud his judgment, even get someone killed, so he suppresses it in favor of ruthless strategy or brute force. By neglecting his emotions, though, he becomes vulnerable to manipulation via those same emotions, because he hasn't learned to control them or channel them.

Naturally, there are variations from one person to another. Some men don't develop logic or emotion to any great extent, while some develop both.

I'd say that the best way to depict a sensitive hero is to show how he reacts to the emotions and failings of other characters, not his own. The average man is lost when someone bursts into tears, and he'll typically try to ignore the outburst or even leave the room. A sensitive man will assess the situation and offer help if it seems needed.

 

[Lordfisheh]

The short answer is, men live in the left brain. They think logically, not emotionally. It's not that they don't have feelings or care about the feelings of others, it's that these things often don't occur to them in the first place.

The macho hero is an extreme case. Any emotion he shows is a sign of weakness and a potential lever his enemies can use against him. Still, he has feelings, so it's that much more telling (in our terms, dramatic) when they surface unbidden.

To a man, everything is a life or death struggle. Emotion will cloud his judgment, even get someone killed, so he suppresses it in favor of ruthless strategy or brute force. By neglecting his emotions, though, he becomes vulnerable to manipulation via those same emotions, because he hasn't learned to control them or channel them.

Naturally, there are variations from one person to another. Some men don't develop logic or emotion to any great extent, while some develop both.

I'd say that the best way to depict a sensitive hero is to show how he reacts to the emotions and failings of other characters, not his own. The average man is lost when someone bursts into tears, and he'll typically try to ignore the outburst or even leave the room. A sensitive man will assess the situation and offer help if it seems needed.

I wouldn't say we're that ruthlessly focused on survival at all costs.

I think the key to writing a good sensitive male character is not to focus on making him a good sensitive male character. Bear gender in mind, but not too closely, or you'll just end up with either a stereotype or an anti-stereotype, which can be just as bad. Not all heroes with murdered parents are the same or even similar, and gender is the same - just one of many things that contribute to a character's identity. He might be less inclined to be open about his feelings, but that doesn't mean the shell won't crack under pressure or with someone he feels fully comfortable with. Or perhaps it won't ever crack, and he'll remain resolutely stoic for the entire story; that's the sort of thing that should be determined by character, not gender.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Well Black Dragon I think the question for me at least is a bit...vague. What do you mean exactly when you say in touch with his feelings. Does this mean he is one who knows what his feelings are like and is willing to show them. Or is it someone that is shall we say sensitive in that he not only know how he feels and expresses it but is also a bit more traditionally womanly in being tender to the suffering?

Although I think that having a sensitive character will work if and only if as he sees the horrors of the world around him he becomes a harder individual. Yet near the very end overcomes this and goes back to his old self just far more wise.

 

[Eandorn]

This a very interesting discussion.

I tend to find very masculine characters kind of boring. Often they become "flat" if they are never confronted with anything that might challenge their masculine way of seeing life and the world.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think masculinity should never be a part of a character, it's just that provided some sort of growing awareness of emotion or learning to use sensitivity to solve problems (be that social, political or strategic problems), I find the character to appear with much more depth and his/her personality seems much more complex. The same goes the other way around. A very feminine or emotional character can become equally flat without diversity in my opinion.

So in short I think it's important to provide a character, who's main-attribute is, as an example, masculine, with other possibilities to respond to his/hers environment than just the masculine approach. This could be something the character develops as the story gets on. And of course this goes for all kinds of characters - it's not just a binary setting with masculine/feminine, evil/good etc. traits. To create a good character I believe one has to develop many different assets that constitute that character - even though the most defining trait could still be masculinity or sensitivity.

Don't know if that makes sense at all.

 

[AudreyRose]

I have to agree with Mythique, men have emotions and sensitivities they just don't share them very often. Getting in his head- projecting his thoughts to us while he keeps up the manly exterior works pretty well. Guys just don't show emotion very openly, it's a natural thing for a them to do, evolution needs guys to be strong and tough- protect the women and children pretty much. That doesn't cut down on the sensitivity though, it just hides it inside. Let us know the emotional thoughs he's thinking while being strong on the outside.

 

[EParadise]

Too sensitive and you get a character that is not believable, but I think building up a complex character with hints of this and that will make them dynamic.

 

[Alex Beecroft]

Look at Lord Nelson, whom we Brits tend to think of as the greatest naval hero of all time. He got horribly seasick, he worried himself into fits of hypochondria, he loved his clothes and was very vain. He was described by his compatriots as being 'of a maidenish disposition', and he was a berserker demon in battle. So yes, if it can happen in real life I don't see why it can't happen in fiction.

 

[Sean Cunningham]

You can come at it from a bromance angle.

In the Lethal Weapon movies, Murtaugh shoots a kid he knows. Riggs finds him a drunken mess on his boat and helps him pull together. When Murtaugh is considering retiring, Riggs points out that he'll be losing out too, because Murtaugh's family has all but adopted him.

 

[Ophiucha]

When in doubt, consult the Art of Manliness.

Seriously, though, I like the article's section on the history of 'man crying', as it does take the time to point out that at many times in history, it was totally acceptable and manly to cry. There is a paragraph on Odysseus that may give you some ideas. This is, of course, only one form of sensitivity and emotional expression - but as it is considered one of the most 'feminine', I think it fits what you're looking for. It also reminds modern men that it is okay to cry during The Iron Giant, as you would have to be a soulless husk to not cry at the end of that movie.

 

[Feo Takahari]

A few less conventional heroes, in no particular order:

The dandy protagonist, stylish to a fault, occasionally getting himself in trouble due to his devotion to his look. Case in point: Johnny Bravo. ("My glasses! I can't be seen without my glasses!")

The empathetic protagonist, who takes on all the world's joy and suffering for himself. Often seen crying at some injustice, before setting off to avenge it. Case in point: Kenshiro. ("I refuse to build my future on the blood and tears of others!")

The traumatized protagonist, lashing out against his own inner pain. Case in point: Rambo. ("Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off!")

 

[Jamber]

I suppose when the fire is in the belly, sensitivity might go AWOL, but you'd perhaps have more of a sense of guilt, mixed emotions or grief afterward. You might have shaking hands at the campfire, for instance. As others have said, it's not the emotion but how it's dealt with and portrayed.

As well there's the context within the book: are his comrades grateful that he's slightly sensitive and therefore allows them room to feel, or are they likely to see him as weak and easily penetrated (a military phobia)? In other words it could be that his sensitivity is a soldierly bonus, as he actually cares enough to keep his men out of pointless danger and only send them into battles where their sacrifice might actually mean something. Or it could be that his sensitivity gets in the way of his ability to act (which is still in itself an interesting journey — his battle being both against the enemy and his own feelings).

I guess it boils down to audience, as well. If your audience crave non-emoting firebrands, then a character won't eat rare beef after a day spent caving in heads is weak and girlish. If you want that audience, it might be sensible to portray emotion in as external and minimalist a way as possible. I'd be on the side of arguing that you have to portray feelings at some level, or you've got cardboard, but perhaps that's just me.

One writer I always go back to on this topic is Alistair Maclean, who managed to (mostly) make male main characters who were intelligent and emotional but able to switch between modes effectively, as well as to feel their (often serious) injuries while still getting on with a job. His men were certainly hard boiled, but they didn't pretend that a broken ankle doesn't hurt (not to the reader, though they often pretended this to the enemy). Their way of revealing feelings was often wry, which is perhaps a masculine fiction trait (managing to still let the reader know that, By God, it hurts, and I'm a lousy stupid operative for not seeing the plan of the enemy right up, but here goes nothing...).

I also enjoyed the spare, grim, wry detective characters of Hammett and Chandler, who seemed to be able to convey emotion in fairly artful ways — a flicker here, a wisecrack there, and occasionally an outpouring of loss, regret (actually, often regret) or thwarted desire. Maybe they're a useful resource to go back to when looking for ways to portray sensitivity without compromising traits you want to foreground?

best wishes

Jennie

 

[Anders Ämting]

Any thoughts on writing a sensitive male hero? Have you tried creating a male protagonist who is simultaneously masculine and heroic but also emotionally open and in touch with his feelings?

How can you do this without emasculating the guy?

Well, "sensitive" may not be a good word to use. It carries the connotation of being frail and easily wounded.

A male hero, in terms of the male ideal, should not be emotionally frail but he should be emotional. The hero is heroic exactly because he feels very strongly about things; A man loves with all his heart, rages against injustice, weeps over lost friends and noble sacrifices, and cares deeply about the ideals he fights for. He is passionate, and that is what makes him brave, fierce, caring, protective, noble, self-sacrificing... in a word, heroic.

Gay fighter? Yah, not politically correct, but masculine and "in touch with our feelings" are almost a contradiction. Can matter and antimatter exist in the same location...sure...till they touch. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just very unlikely.

"Thou wert the meekest man," says Sir Ector to the dead Launcelot. "Thou wert the meekest man that ever ate in hall among ladies; and thou wert the sternest knight to thy mortal foe that ever put spear in the rest."

The important thing about this ideal is, of course, the double demand it makes on human nature. The knight is a man of blood and iron, a man familiar with the sight of smashed faces and the ragged stumps of lopped-off limbs; he is also a demure, almost maidenlike, guest in hall, a gentle, modest, unobtrusive man. He is not a compromise or a happy mean between ferocity and meekness; he is fierce to the nth and meek to the nth. [...]

Let us be clear that this ideal is a paradox. [...] The medieval ideal brought together two things that have no natural tendency to gravitate towards one another. It brought them together for that very reason. It taught humility and forbearance to the great warrior because everyone knew from experience how much he needed that lesson. It demanded valour of the urbane and modest man because everyone knew that he was as likely as not to be a milksop.

In doing so, the Middle Ages fixed on the one hope of the world. It may or may not be possible to produce by the thousand men who combine the two sides of Launcelot's character. But if it's not possible, then all talk of any lasting happiness and dignity in human society is pure moonshine. If we cannot produce Launcelots, humanity falls into two sections - those who can deal in blood and iron but cannot be "meek in hall", and those who are "meek in hall" but useless in battle - for the third class, who are both brutal in peace and cowardly in war, need not here be discussed. [...]

The man who combines both characters - the knight - is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium. [...] The ideal embodied in Launcelot is "escapism" in a sense never dreamed of by those who use that word; it offers the only possible escape from a world divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things which makes life desirable.

-The Necessity of Chivalry, by C.S. Lewis.

 

[skip.knox]

I confess I'm a little baffled by this thread, and by a related one about writing female characters. To me, it's the story that matters. I don't think of my characters as particularly male or female but as individual people who are at a particular point in their lives and in a particular situation. Given that situation, they behave a certain way. This one is callous, that one is histrionic, another is flippant. One might be female, another male, but the gender isn't the issue, it's the personality of that particular person.

In touch with feelings? Hulk angry! Now there's a fellow in touch with his emotions. What's the big deal?