• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why should heroes continue to be heroes?

srebak

Troubadour
I've watched quite a few stories in my life, and sometimes, i wonder, why are heroes always trying to be heroes? I ask because, more often than not, the main protagonist of a story is insulted, talked down to and at times, even abused, by a lot of the other characters. Sometimes, even the people they're trying to help give them a hard time. Which, at times, makes me wonder why the "good guys" would even want to continue to be good guys. Personally, if i was mistreated that much by people who thought so badly of me, i'd probably be pushed into showing them just how nasty i could really be.

Yet, despite of all that, i keep seeing characters who continue to put up with this guff, even though they shouldn't have to.


In one show that i like, the main character is expected to accomplish so much and is given endless limits by those around him. He's even expected to show respect to everyone even though no one shows him respect and the one person who makes him happy, everyone refuses to let him get near her. If i was this character, i'd want to push these people out of my life as soon as i was old enough to live on my own.


In another show that i liked, the hero is a group leader who no one seems to respect or listen to. His own brother in particular, while claiming to have his back, mostly just criticizes him and everyone else is right behind him on that. If i were this character, i'd like nothing better than to ditch this band of bullies and start a life without them.


So i ask again, why do heroes try so hard to be heroes?
 

Queshire

Auror
There's no single answer to this. It depends largely on the character in question's motivation. Why do they do what they do? This is doubly important when the character in question is faced with the type of obstacles that Srebak mentions.

Now, due to how much this depends on individual motivation I can only give an example from one of my own characters. She does what she does because she can. All her life her powers served to isolate her, marked her as defective. Now that she's met people with powers like hers, a place she can belong, she wants to prove herself, show that she's not defective. This results in semi-reckless heroics, at least in the first half.

What about everyone else's characters?
 
I agree with Queshire what it all comes down to is the characters motivation and what obstacles they are faced with. Yet I think what makes them heroes is their ability to overcome and that is why they try so hard, to prove a point, that anyone can do great things with enough perseverance.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I agree it's character motivation, but in terms of a authorial choices, when things are made tough for a character, how they react in those situations shows the reader that they're a character worth cheering for. It shows the reader why the reader should consider them heroes. A hero isn't a guy with powers that can kick ass. They're someone who does what's right no matter what's the circumstance. They're supposed to be able to rise above the petty stuff. (This is my definition of hero, and I'm sure others have a different definition.)
 
Ah this reminds me of The Hero's Journey, by Joseph Campbell, an American psychologist and mythological researcher. I took a mythology class when I first went to college, it sounded interesting. Campbell wrote quite a few papers on the Hero, or what makes a Hero.
It's usually a frame of mind, a truth or ideal held more dear than life that makes the hero... the hero. In what you describe in your shows are heroes that have to continuously prove themselves. This constant state of being regarded with suspicion and criticism from those he considers friends or allies is one that a lot of us can relate to. For me, I was told at an early age by my "friends" that I would not amount to much of anything in life. Now, I am no hero... but in me there is that urge to prove them wrong, and I did.
What I've found makes a hero? Stubbornness, and tenacity. A good ideal to believe in also goes a long way, whether it's to save the girl, save the kingdom, redeem someone, kill a god... its a tiny whisper that can force said person to topple mountains.
 
Hi,

Perhaps as a slightly different take on this I would say that people generally stay who they are. Some people change but most after they reach a certain age will hold values and thoughts for the rest of their lives. So some people will be naturally predisposed to help others, some will look after number one instead. Some will steal, some won't. Some will trust others, some won't. Generally it doesn't matter what the world does to them, they will be who they are. It takes something very big / life altering literally, to change people.

To give an example I have a colleague who's a jerk. He will always look out for himself first. He always has. He will always condescend because in his core he believes he's better than others. He will always be a coward when push comes to shove. I've known him for twenty years now, and in all that time he has been the same. In the end that's just who he is. There's no point in trying to change him. You just have to accept him as he is. I have other colleagues and friends who are much easier to deal with, and in the end that too is just who they are.

So maybe instead what you need to ask is just what sort of catastrophic event would it take to completely reshape someone's world view / nature such that a hero becomes a villain or walks away, or a villain becomes a hero. And it's not going to be just a few people heckling.

Cheers, Greg.
 

buyjupiter

Maester
One of my favorite shows, despite what happened to it at the end, is Lost. The character arc that Sawyer goes through is intense. Anti-hero to heroic in a non-standard way to something at the end that is neither heroic nor villainous. The reason this character works so well for me, is because the audience gets to walk every step of the journey along with him. Sawyer's an Everyman, and he has to struggle with everything that we as the audience would feel in that situation.

The true hero, Jack, feels remote. Everything seems to come easily to him (which happens in a lot of fantasy literature...oh here farm boy who's never held a sword, have a magic one and you're gonna be buff and strong and all your personality quirks will fade away because you're the hero now, boy.) It got annoying, and the more he protested that he didn't want to be a hero, but secretly he really enjoyed doing heroic stuff...ugh. *yawn* I mean, sure, he got his share of crud from the group he was in, but he still got to be dashing and heroic and stuff without too many issues.

I prefer heroes of the first sort. Unless the hero is in a superhero comic where everyone is invincible (except the bad guys), I want someone who's human, who has flaws, who has an arc, who grows. (This is probably why my heroes are not very "heroic" in the traditional sense...)
 

Grandeur

Minstrel
I agree with buyjupiter, and I will add onto it with saying that the term 'hero' for the MC is kinda putting a limitation on that character. Why must it be a hero that is the focus/POV? This is not to suggest the villain as the POV (though this is still vastly unexplored territory), but merely someone who is not the 'hero'. One of my favorite authors, George RR Martin, does something I've never read before, and its thoroughly fascinating; his chapters are excerpts from a spectrum of perspectives, some of which take a sort of backseat to the action that is going down with the real 'heroes' or 'central characters'. Now I understand the MCs do eventually take a sort of strident action to overcome the odds or resist the corruption or whatever, but these should feel like real decisions. Actual people are rarely as altruistic and capable as the heroes of romantic fantasy.

So to answer the thread questions, why should heroes continue being heroes? Honestly, they shouldn't (or can't rather), because such heroes do not exist. We make people into heroes because of their decisions in certain crucial situations, but we deify the man and the action together, lending to the misconception that all heroes are made of the same golden moral fiber.
 

Malik

Auror
Heroism is relative, too. I mean, at one end of the spectrum there's the world-beating, all-conquering hero a la Conan and Alexander. At the other there's the guy who's in a tough spot and does what he thinks is right.

I'm a cynic at heart; I believe that all human actions are on some level motivated by greed. You don't have to agree with me on this, but my characters are heroic primarily out of self-interest, if for no other reason than it will make them feel better to have done something about the problem. They keep doing "heroic" things because they think it's the right thing, and their consciences won't let them stand idly by when they have a chance to set something right.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
When I was a little kid, I actually didn't like it when the protagonists did something wrong or unsympathetic. I felt that heroes by definition should always strive towards the right thing. For example, when I saw The Lion King in the theater at around age four, I felt let down by Simba's decision to disobey his father and trespass into the elephant graveyard even if his motivation was understandable. I don't know how other kids my age reacted to that, but given the conventional wisdom about flawed heroes, my views must have been really unorthodox.

After growing up I have developed a higher tolerance for anti-heroes like Conan. However, I still say even these need to have some redeeming qualities that shine through their rough exterior. At least make them the lesser evil compared to the antagonists. Even if your characters aren't perfect angels, I still need someone I can root for.

That said, I don't deny that drama and tension are easier to create when your heroes have weak spots or areas they need to overcome. That is the real problem with flawless heroes. Perfection protects them from challenges.
 
Top