Hero (arche)types

[rhoenix]

In this thread, I'm hoping to inspire some discussion here regarding what sorts of heroes fit best in what sorts of plots.

As an example - the "fish out of water" type of hero saving (something to be saved) here - where we have a typically unskilled farmboy(or girl) rising up to be an unlikely hero through the perfect set of circumstances. These, in my experience, tend to be the lighter sorts of tales.

The flawed, cynical, grumpy but competent hero is another fun archetype for heroes of stories - the difficulty is making them human enough for the reader to identify a bit with. Doing so can be rewarding, but difficult depending on the setting. These tend to be darker stories - the "hero" usually does some things of questionable morality; but despite this, he/she's much nicer than the alternative.

Those are merely formulaic examples to establish what I mean and what I'm talking about. In my case, my story idea revolves around two heroes essentially; getting them both feeling right for the darker setting is something I'm finding myself spending quite a bit of time on.

So - what sorts of heroes do you enjoy writing for, and for which sorts of stories?

[SirNitram]

Fish Out Of Water is my favorite.

Mix Reluctant Hero with The Chosen One and you've got another great.

Reluctant Monster is another fun one, as the hapless creature is treated as a terrifying thing when he's never done anything wrong.

There's undoutably more, I'll post as I think of them.

[rhoenix]

Mix Reluctant Hero with The Chosen One and you've got another great.

Yes, indeed. That I've seen, this sort of hero fits best with a more fantasy-type setting, and can fluxuate between a more light story, and a more dark and gritty story as well.

Reluctant Monster is another fun one, as the hapless creature is treated as a terrifying thing when he's never done anything wrong.

Indeed - what sort of story would you consider this hero archetype to fit best within?



Moreover, how would you usually try to generate more interest for a more dark type of hero or heroine? If their major traits are a singular lack of compassion and a near-obsession with being "efficient," it would be difficult to generate reader identification and sympathy for such a character, unless all the alternatives were much worse.

That's one of the larger challenges, as the heroine in the foreground, the one through whose point of view the story is told, is such a character, and I'm hoping to tug at people's ethics and thought processes a bit with this character.

[SirNitram]

Inherent assumption: That I'd write what's commonly referred to as a 'Dark hero'. They're a loathful trend in general, with the apex of pure, unadulterated suck being the 90s.

Cynical heros are relatively easy to write for, generating interest is generally a question of giving a good reason early on.. Dropping hints from the beginning.. On why they're such cynics.

The only way I could bear to write the common dark hero is as a Knight Templar villain, going way too far to 'make the world a better place', and needing put down.

[rhoenix]

The only way I could bear to write the common dark hero is as a Knight Templar villain, going way too far to 'make the world a better place', and needing put down.

Indeed. The "Dark hero" in the case I'm speaking about in particular will be the hero not because s/he does heroic or noble things - but because the alternatives are worse - or so s/he tells him/herself. I was hoping to use this as a vehicle for some psychological fun.

Some people like a "Dark hero" type just because they're typically wisecracking assholes - not necessarily because they're driven to do or be anything truly good or pure. In most instances where I've seen this archetype, such as with the Pitch Black & Chronicles of Riddick movies (no comments please, just using them as examples), the hero never evolves much - he more just assholes his way through the plot - and that's too trite for me.

Now, the protagonist in the movie Crank was a similar archetype, in my view, but better done.

[frigidmagi]

I tend to like the evolving Dark Hero.

By the way:

Byronic Hero

Romantic Hero

Tragic Hero

Discuss.

[LadyTevar]

The Byronic Hero seems to be the hero of choice for the Romance Novels, especially the 'bodice-rippers'. Intelligent, dangerous, moody .............


shit, it's Blackheart.

[LadyTevar]

The tragic hero makes me think of Shakespeare's plays : MacBeth, [/i]Hamlet[/i], Julius Caeser, etc.

To me, they are more a Morality Play than a true hero. These are tales of a Good Man falling to his Flaws; a warning to others, not something uplifting and fulfilling.

[LadyTevar]

The Romantic Hero. Nothing really 'romantic' about him, other than the name of the era where he appeared.

Modern examples are everywhere, imho. Jason Bourne, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark all work, as they are outside and apart from the rest of the world, and they have a need to overcome their flaws and prove themselves better.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I tend to write protagonists in a certain number of flavours.

1. Career military officers. Being a military officer is a great equalizing factor of gentle-hood so to speak, the condition of being respectable, and inoculates a certain mindset. No matter what side they're on I generally try to protray careerists as serious and somewhat thoughtful individuals unless their incompetence is an intentional factor in the story, and I don't tend to write incompetent protagonists. I tend to emphasize a single-minded perseverence. The romantic side whether conventional or rather fetishistic, is always subordinated to duty. Sometimes have amusing hidden pasts. Anneliese von Brauchitsch from The Last Woman Standing.

2. Nobility: I tend to go for eccentrics here, though not always, but universally people raised from birth in a harsh culture of duty, whose eccentricity serves as a coping mechanism. They are dedicated and more openly romantic, also more willing to see their enemies as humans than career officers who have a greate tendency to reducing war into a numbers game. Can sometimes be dangerously sadistic or unstable-seeming but with enough remaining discipline to see them through as required, always. Tisara Urami from When Two Worlds Collide.

3. Iron Gutter Rats: My cheerful designation for girls (and these characters are always female when I write them) who've clawed their way into one of the two above positions through a mixture of grit and smarts and a lot of luck. Usually played out flippant, devil may care, and supremely confident without the slightest trace of hubris--because they've pulled off the impossible in the past and will do it again. Sometimes may be bedeviled by morally questionable acts in the past or their extremely humble backgrounds, but rarely in such a way as to hinder their successes. Elise Kalar Leben is one example, from DIG.

4. Failed Iron Gutter Rats: A lot more rarely protagonists than antagonists, these ladies are basically the ones who had to compromise their morality and ethics so far while pulling themselves up by the bootstraps that they ended up thoroughly amoral and dubiously ethical individuals. Often very willing to kill, quick and neat and knowing exactly when they've played to the limits of their luck, they'll compromise as required. Wendy Richter from 55 Days.

5. The Fighting Priest: A character I sometimes use.. Invariably from a lower class background which leads them to be flexible enough to accommodate to circumstances while remaining deeply sincere within their faith. Best typified by Ilavna Lashila in 55 Days.

6. The Patriot. From a poor to yeomanry background, usually actually surprisingly educated despite the supposed stereotypes of class, but well-contented with position. Determined, diligent, bordering on fanatical and religious where appropriate. All combine to force through considerable rewards through the system, which are dismissed to charity as a principle of ethical obligation. This would be Sophia in the Cardinal Files.

7. The Adventurer. Out-Nietzsche-ing Nietzsche. Sturdy, devil may care sorts with the resources and the inclination to endlessly challenge themselves, taking on causes due to the risk involved and not the actual ideology or principles of it. Romantics in the detached sense, for whom love is frequently in the end just another avenue for their challenge of their own physical limits. Lawrence of Arabia in real life.

8. The Tortured Saviour: Someone of great brilliance, skill, and capability who has redeemed themselves from prior acts of evil but are quite constitutionally incapable of forgiving themselves for it, especially because they haven't escaped an intensely black and white mindset which leads them to extreme acts in the pursuit of their own good aims, seeing themselves already so damaged that if anyone must do them, it ought be them.


Those are the principles of the eight basic times of primary protagonists that I tend to write, as a rough overview.

[Norseman]

Lately my heroes seem to have fallen into one of the following classes:

1. The Young Inexperienced Gentleman Officer. Generally somewhat idealistic for his society, has all the follies of youth, but a core of steel. Very worried about how he will look to others, often does dangerous things to avoid looking bad.

2. The Young but Experienced Gentleman Officer. Generally what #1 will become if he lives long enough; pleasure and treasure seeking, though honourable, rather more cynical, and with far more of a devil-may-care attitude.

3. The Savant on Adventure. Can be male or female, young or old, but always well-educated and generally middle-class and up. An intellectual whose allusions and statements often flies right over the heads of everyone else. Not really the Indiana Jones type but not entirely useless either.

As a rule my societies are fairly dark, or rather they are accurate representations of pre-modern to early-modern life, which is fairly dark in itself. The characters I write are invariably products of their time, which often results in attitudes and behaviours that would be seen as monstrous today.

Generally I like writing junior officers since I think I'm reasonably good at portraying small unit conflicts. It also makes it a lot easier to get them into trouble, since they can legitimately be ordered to go wherever I need them to. So fairly versatile in terms of storytelling I think.

[rhoenix]

One thing I'm playing with is the Dark Knight -> Paladin trope. This trope usually assumes that the Dark Knight has something to hold onto to make the transition to being a Paladin. I decided to ask the question - what if the prospective Paladin knows nothing else than being a Dark Knight, and became a Paladin through dying?

In this case, the conflict between the character's old assumptions and perspectives with the new ones is fun to explore.