EDIT: If you like this journal entry, check out The Sarcastic Guide to Writing ebook www.amazon.com/The-Sarcastic-G… for exclusive content on world-building, character, and dialogue!
Sorry for the lapse. Sort of. I’m suffering from a rather debilitating case of writer’s block, and these stupid things are my therapy when I just have to write without having anything to write. I’ve had a little luck in the last few weeks, hence the lapse. Also, school is kind of weighing in, just a tad. On the plus side, my house is cleaner than it’s been in 3 years.
1. If you lose the moral high ground, you are no longer writing a hero. Granted, morality has a broad definition, and most of the time whether your hero is doing “the right thing” depends on your audience. Some red-blooded American crazy might see a pacifistic hero as a pansy, while a Bhuddist might find a blood-covered roaring hero reprehensible. However, there are universal truths in morality, which is why stories that exemplify it have lasted the longest (Jesus or Siddhartha, anyone?). The very definition of a hero is someone who sacrifices so others don’t have to; selflessness, generosity, compassion, and courage are safe moral high grounds. But when a hero or the author writing him begins to see himself as “the good guy” despite kicking babies and killing defenseless people, you’ve lost said high ground. You’re writing an anti-hero or a villain protagonist, perhaps, and those guys have their place, but they don’t fit with the archetype of a traditional hero. Joseph Campbell, mythologist extraordinare and author of The Hero With A Thousand Faces wrote at length about Germany’s rather swift about-face in regards to heroes after Hitler’s rise and fall. Suffice it to say that Germany likes the quiet and humble heroes now, culturally speaking. Eragon, my favorite punching bag, suffered what we over at TvTropes call a Moral Event Horizon: the point at which a hero performs an action that makes him fall from the reader’s grace. Eragon chases
down a young terrified soldier of the Empire, who pleads for his life, citing that he is serving against his will and begs to go home to start a family. Eragon, who up to this point has portrayed the abilities to both magically mindwipe someone and lay an inescapable geas on them, instead opts to strangle the guy to death. Yeah. Please keep in mind that if Eragon had felt
terrible, lasting remorse for his action, this might have not been his Moral Event Horizon. But since we’ve seen him weep over bunnies and not this dude he just killed, it’s safe to say that Eragon’s priorities are a little skewed and we should all be a little afraid. Heroes behave in morally sound and ethically correct ways, as best they can, always. It’s what makes them heroes. Period.
2. A hero must have an inner journey and an outer journey. Unless you’re Indiana Jones or James Bond, then you don’t have to worry about that. However, they are protagonists inhabiting a plot-driven novel, not a character-driven novel. So if you’re writing action, go for it; you can skip this part. But for those who like character, you need both kinds of journeys in order
to satisfy your reader. The two journeys should parallel each other; the hero’s ability to overcome his inner obstacle should equip him with the ability to solve his outer problem. As an example, Fiver from Watership Down makes the journey from a terrified, gibbering prophet to someone who gives himself over to the mysterious forces that invade him. In doing so, he gives up a large part of himself and his sense of immediacy, but he saves his companions on numerous occasions (and in the climax, the paralytic effects of his visions terrify his enemies and ultimately end up saving Fiver himself.) Perhaps a simpler example would be Kung Fu Panda, in which Po’s discovery of “Be Yourself!” and “Get Confident, Fatty!” allows him to confront Tai Lung on his own terms and win. Heroes can have journeys that have nothing to do with each other, but that makes for a far less satisfying read. Not to say it can’t be done, but well-woven plots almost always have it. Readers like connective causation, the idea that everything in the story has something to do with some other element in the story, and the hero’s journey should be at the very center of all that. If you can’t do that, you’re kind of missing the point of storytelling.
3. If your hero knew you were responsible for making him/her, and he’s/she’s happy about it, you’re not doing your job. A lot of people do this backwards. Especially here on DA. They give their protagonist’s black, bleeding-heart pasts that raise the question as to how anyone could survive it all and still qualify as a traditional hero. But then, the story starts, and nothing happens. In fact, all these terrible pasts mean is apparently the unmitigated right to complain, whine, and angst. (Longcoats, piercings, and tattoos optional.) Unfortunately, this is not story. Terrible things should happen to your protagonist during the course of the story, obstacles to teach him mettle, obstacle that should build to a climax where things are at their absolute worst. This particular aspect is the bane of the Mary Sue writer, who likes to see things go perfectly for their bestest character evar. Another popular behavior is to never have any of it bother the hero, which is neglecting the inner journey. I’ve had several popular writers say this exact rule verbatim to me (Tim Powers did while hiding stray kittens in his hotel room). I don’t necessarily mean that every hero has to have apocalyptically terrible things happen to him every five seconds (there is such a thing as overdoing this; holy crap, Deborah Chester’s Alien Chronicles drove me crazy with how much stuff the heroine went through and still manage a brave, winning smile.) It’s just that you hero shouldn’t be happy about what he had to go through if he met you and knew you were the reason for it all. “Wait a second, you made me half-blind with a hook for a hand!? You were the reason I was rejected by my village and cast out? Granted, it made me famous ... but still! You bastard!”
4. A hero must have clear goals at all times. As most plot books will point out, story is the essence of a distilled formula: Hero+Goal+Obstacle to Goal = Story and Conflict. It’s just that while a lot of writers are apparently able to grasp conflict and even a vague sense of hero motivation, they fail to let us know what the hero is attempting to do. The hero wanders aimlessly about, footling here and there with a dragon or a damsel, and after too much of this the reader starts to ask “Where are we going and why is this happening?” Goals should tie rather closely with a hero’s motivation, but the two don’t have to be one and the same. The hero’s goal should be established early, and if it changes, a new goal needs to be put up. Letting a hero’s goal fall by the wayside is destroying an integral part of the story; you will have nothing if you have no goal. And man, does this happen a lot in comics here on DA! If you’re wondering why people get about 10 or 20 pages in and then suddenly stop, it’s because they’ve finished that initial rush of creativity and looked around going, “Uh .. Now what?” They’ve failed to even remotely map out how things are going to end, and when comics, which are hard work, appear as nothing but an endless cadre of pages, that’s a huge lack of motivation coming your way. Seriously, look at a comic whose protagonists have a goal that can be identified by the reader versus those who don’t, and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Incidentally, this rule applies to
villains as well.
5. If your hero is not proactive, he’s not your protagonist. Do you get that? You see where the “pro” in “protagonist” originates from? Heroes do things. The end. If your hero is not taking steps to get closer to his goal, he’s not the protagonist. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby is the protagonist and hero, but he’s not telling the story. The narrator, Nick, is. Same goes for Ishmael in Moby Dick. Ahab and ol’ Gatsby are the ones out there stabbing the whale and wooing the girl, respectively. I see a lot of “heroes” who merely react to things that happen to them; they gawk at the dragon, cry when it burns their village down, and sulk in the forest. None of these are proactivity, to say the least. However, if the hero gaped at the dragon, cried when it burned down the village, and decided to pick a up a sword and go after it, that would be proactive. Even better is if the hero attempted to warn the village, cried when it burned down, and took up the sword, because it shows a natural pattern of action, conflict and setback, contemplation of the inner journey, realization, and a new action based on that realization. I can’t tell you the number of opening chapters I’ve read where stuff
happens and the hero literally just stands there, mouth agape, thinking about how this shocking thing is so very, very EVUL. That’s stupid, and no one wants to read that, and if you wrote it you should feel bad for doing so. Heroes take action to save themselves, their friends, and their world. Anything less falls short of heroism. Don’t mistake a time for action as time for rumination; all of that should have come before the hero takes action.
- Reading: Nation by ... that Discworld Guy.
:origin()/pre00/6797/th/pre/i/2011/363/0/7/writers___notes___battles_and_wars_by_darkdelusion-d3gc67i.jpg)
I have a story in the works where I consider the protagonist to be in a 'grey' area of sorts, morality-wise - but then most of the characters are morally 'grey', including the antagonist. At some point I had intended to raise questions as to whether the protagonist is actually morally inferior to the antagonist. He is the main character of the story - the one who actually does stuff - but I would not have considered him a 'hero' as much as a person in a rather special situation.
i.e. He is prone to doing somewhat selfish or immoral things, occasionally, but he is certainly not glorified for it. Would you find this acceptable in a protagonist?
What I DO take issue with is when the author insists on labeling their protagonist as a hero, when in reality they're performing actions that are anything but. Like Eragon. I hate Informed Ability, and firmly believe that character should be allowed to be what they are, flaws and all. When authors define a character in such a way, they're usually cramming them into a box and not allowing the character any free will or even to breathe. And that shows on the page, when the characters act stilted and stupid. Like Eragon. It usually shows a lack of experience or even fear on the part of author, not wanting to admit the anything un-PC or morally incorrect, so they insist that their character is "in the right" even when they're punting orc babies.
I had a friend who wrote stories and I could rarely get interested in them. The plots were trite - I find that forgiveable, since it's virtually impossible to be wholly original anymore. (My own plots are trite. I figure it is the characters and the relationships between them that make a story work.) Unfortunately, the characters were also uninteresting. They all spoke exactly the same. One of his protagonists was an unapologetic, murderous sociopath who literally could not fathom emotion - I couldn't read him because not only was it absolutely impossible to care about him, he was a complete Mary-Sue and was in fact painted as the hero character. And his villains were all completely evil, basically, 'coz they felt like it'. No real motives or personality... I couldn't stomach it. (Not that I'm not guilty of that either lol)
I love these little tips of yours! They're so helpful. :'D I'm always looking for stuff like these.
Still, thanks for the support :'D
Weirdo fan communities aside. Dolphaboos?
I think the last kind of people I want hanging around me are dolphin people. They and I simply do not get along. A lot of them are obsessive and that makes me feel ... well, uncomfortable. They're very serious and cutthroat about it, too
But yes, that's one of the reasons I'm moving on to non-dolphin stuff. Maybe one day I will revisit Zenny, though
and great tips, so once again, thanks!
Part of me gets miffed when I read these how-to-write-books on DA, since I spent many long hours and a lot of $$ purchasing the books that most of your info comes from so the writers responsible for these ideas could get their money's worth out of me. I've also spent long hours working on story, plot, ideas ect and honing my craft because I know that in the end, the thieves that steal from me (and man could I show you thief after thief) will never do as much research or come up with as long and concise a plot and characters as I have.
Guardians has been years in the making, and the plot is complex and the world is believable.
Another part of me then thinks - well at the very least, if people pay attention there will be a lot better graphic novels out there. And since I love to read them, that's good for me!
Of course, I'd never compare any of these piddly little articles to the words of those like Stephen King, Campbell, and Noah Lukeman. Anyone putting that much stock in a DA article/journal needs ... help.
I wouldn't worry too much about thieves; enduring story is not a simple thing to capture. Twilight might be popular, but in ten years, it'll be the same kind of passing fad the Goosebumps or Sweet Valley High books were. Wheras Dracula will still be around.
I've read all the books and I can't seem to remember where/when that occurred.
Excellent journal, as always :> I don't really like writing heroes, but this will be handy if I do someday.
I second the Love Interest next, or maybe one on the Heroine, who is full of feminist ideals and doesn't need menz around and always bitches and such. Like Romilly from the "Great" MZB's Hawkmistress!, complete with an exclamation mark and all (it's worse than Eragon - it really is.)
I actually stopped having female viewpoint characters after I read too many Bitchy Heroine-novels.
Gee, my mind's messy today x) Hope I made some sense.
Hmmmm ... Love Interest, Heroines, and Romance? I've got plenty of subject matter, that's for sure.
What is a good romantic relationship? One where the characters have something to do OTHER than have sex and make out all the time. One where they are friends too and do stuff because it's fun, not [just] because it's hot. One where the characters aren't defined by their relationship (I can't exist without you!!!), but their relationship DOES add something to their character. And also where the characters don't drop each other like a sack of potatoes over minor misunderstandings. Solid, tangeable relationships have their flaws too though. But it's boring to read about a perfect relationship.
Research would probably be good for that topic, but TVTropes has some nice breakdowns of the good and bad archetypes and cliches of romance.
Also, you just cut out about 3/4 of Twilight's appeal for the masses.
Oh no, did I? *blinks innocently*
You should publish these or create your own website for these. I always worry that you will decide to take these journals down after a while.
Archetypes are only safe in perfectly safe environments, and I think it's pretty unrealistic for any one person, hero, villain, or otherwise, to fully live up to a paradigm unless they really are Jesus or Siddhartha (and we all know they were pretty over-powered characters). I think it's more realistic for a character to have all these idealistic views and, as such, they kinda morally stumble their way through the story. If they are too stubborn than I can only bet that it likely doesn't go their way very often, they certainly try to live by their views, but flexibility is ultimately the key to survivability. But also, when things get really out of control it tends to force people into some really desperate outlooks and reactions and falling back on your views doesn't always save your hide. So, for the truly epic story I don't think any one person can survive by a paradigm and/or stubborn outlook unless they truly are heroically lucky or perfectly amazing.
My point is, everyone has skeletons in their closet and the one person who should know this is the reader. And, I think the only characters that are allowed to live completely by their ethos are Mary Sues because the writer wills it so. There is one quote I was told once that kinda comes to mind here, "The Marines are no place for a Christian."
I guess as the "hero" he needs that little bit of motivation to stop sulking and get himself going. I know that moping is more often than not annoying to the reader (I mean, look at the outcry against Harry Potter's angst when the fifth book came out), so his moping should be very short-lived. I'm just having trouble getting him to pull himself together. Granted, he's not at the "hero" point in his character development yet, but I'm certainly finding it a little difficult to get him to that point.
DA would indeed be horribly lost without you. It's too bad that not enough people listen to your dreadfully helpful journals though. If they did perhaps there wouldn't be as many facepalm-worthy plots and characters here. I'm willing to bribe with chocolate and kittens if it'll keep you here. 8D
Wangst is a tricky thing, because "just enough" for the author can be overkill for a reader. I do remember reacting to Harry Potter 5 with frustration: I felt Harry's frustration and found myself raging against his obstacles. It may not have been a pleasant sensation, which is where I think a lot of the backlash came from, but I have to hand it to Rowling for invoking such a strong feeling her reader. But if you combine frustration with "Oh, come ON!" you risk Wangst, big time.
And about Eragon strangling the other character... was it played off and never mentioned again, or did another character (or even the author himself through narration) comment on it?
I think I need to actually read Eragon. I'd probably understand what's being discussed in your journals a little more. XD
"Oh, come ON!" would be something more or less solvable by the protagonist, but for the sake of story tension, the character can't see his way out of it. Like when people run upstairs being chased by serial killers when there's a perfectly good back door, or how the women in Lifetime movies stand by and scream helplessly as the ebul manz does mean things, when they could at least throw a punch (especially if their kids are involved.) I suppose it would be the moment that shatters the suspension of disbelief.
Eragon's companion Arya asks him about killing the guy; Eragon's response is a simple "He was an enemy." Which ... really doesn't fit well with anything written previously. I'm not kidding when I say Eragon previously cried over killing a bunny. I think Paolini is just trying to make Eragon a badass while still being a heroic softie at heart, and it just comes across as an Epic Fail.
Ah, I get it now. I've always hated the "Oh, come ON!" in movies and stories. Often times I try to think like my characters and base their actions and responses on what they'd think to do. Some may not see an obvious answer, but I always try to explain the reasoning in the narration if only to remind myself later.
Oh wow, I thought you were exaggerating with the bunny part. Does Eragon stick with the "He was an enemy" thing consistently thereafter, and before, with no obvious change of heart to it? If so, I could buy that... But other than that the explanation Paolini gave for Eragon seems very fake. Character consistency is a great thing to have.