(no subject)

[kippurbird]

I had my writer's group last night. It had some interesting things happen.

In the part of the story I submitted, Alec was rather cruel to a slave. He hit the slave so hard that the boy fell. Alec really doesn't like the slave. On of my readers said that he shouldn't have done that because it made him unsympathetic and he was the hero. He need to be sympathetic. She rooted more for the slave and his master than she did for the hero.

I'm not going to change the scene. Alec is not the hero of the story, he's he protagonist. Which is rather different than hero. If anything it gives you more lee way in how they can act. It lets them be more human. He can have more flaws as a protagonist. He doesn't have to live up to a hero's expectations. To a hero's morality.

Heroes are supposed to be Good.

Eragon is supposed to be a hero. He dislikes slavery. He fights for the down trodden. He's against tyranny. He does this because its the Right Thing To Do. He never has any second thoughts or wishing that he was doing something else. Tristan from the Fifth Sorceress is also like this. And we all know how they turned out to be.

Alec on the other hand, doesn't want to doing what he's doing. He's not a reluctant hero, he's just doing a job for his bosses. He'd rather be home with his boyfriend. Slavery is just the way things are. Sure, he wouldn't necssarily want to be a slave, but then again, I wouldn't necesarily want to be a burger flipper, but that's just how things are. Now I'm not saying that slavery is right. Of course it's not. But in the sort of society that Alec lives in, it would be there. There are laws (in most places)regarding the treatment of slaves. After all they are property and an underfed beaten slave is useless because they can't work.

I suppose the fact that I'm trying to get at here is that yes, maybe he shouldn't have hit the slave like he did (or anyone else for that matter), but for him not to have would have been out of character for him. He has a temper and the slave was there for him to take it out on. It may not make him sympathetic at the time, but I'm sure in the long run it'll make people empathize with him more. Because he's more human. Just like the rest of us.

Comments

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

That reminds me of a scene I've envisioned for chiVesh.

During her conquest of the Kalpanian Empire, she encountered a region that enslaved pteranthropans - intelligent winged beings. These slaves were crippled - their wing-membranes were torn into pieces, preventing flight. Otherwise, the slaves could easily escape by just flying off.

In her religion, flight is sacred. It is a horrible crime to harm any flying creature - and the pteranthropans are doubly sacred. So, not surprisingly, she was outraged to see this.

And so she ordered her army - who were equally outraged - to slaughter every human being in the slaveholding regions.

A horrific massacre - a genocide, really - took place.

It might be nice to imagine that she was anti-slavery, and that that would, at least, give her a noble motive, even if she reacted far too extremely. But, that would be a lie. She treated her own, human, slaves as poorly as those pteranthropan slaves. It was the fact that they were beings seen as sacred that enraged her.

And yet, she is the "heroine".

[mranon-y-mous.livejournal.com]

God, the author better have recognize what a giant colossal hypocritical bitch she is. Good god.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Heh, well, I am the author.

But, my point is that she's the protagonist. I suppose you could call her the heroine, but, I tend to avoid "heroes" and "villains" myself. She did great things for her country. She brought her sister from a minor duchess to empress of a great empire. She herself was given power over some of her conquests, and she was, generally speaking, a fairly benevolent ruler. Something of a Roman-style conquerer - vicious and bloodthirsty in conquest, tolerant and relatively benevolent once established in power.

[mranon-y-mous.livejournal.com]

But in the long run only her misdeeds will be remembered, not the great things she has done for her country. Just like in I Am Legend.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

Well, depends on for whom. :-) I'm sure the Kalpanians will remember her massacre. But, plenty of peoples glorify past rulers who were quite brutal in their time, remembering only the glory they brought their nation.

[mranon-y-mous.livejournal.com]

If that is true, we would be overlooking the fact that tthe founding fathers of the US owned black slaves.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

... And we aren't? People rarely talk about that fact - and if they do, they often justify it or rationalize it away, while praising the Founding Fathers for their accomplishments.

[mranon-y-mous.livejournal.com]

Just because they do not speak about it does not mean that they ignore it.

[christinaathena.livejournal.com]

I think most people DO ignore it, if they're even aware of it.

At any rate, they still focus far more on the good things they did than on the bad. And in other countries, too. Genghis Khan is on Mongolia's money. He's seen as a great cultural hero. Not many people outside of Mongolia would agree. The date that he united the Mongolian tribes is a national holiday.

Hawaiian nationalists praise Kamehameha, ignoring the fact that he lead a bloody war of unification.

Julius Caesar is generally considered a great leader, ignoring his dictatorial tendencies, and the large number of deaths caused by his conquests.

Many people still see Custer as a hero, ignoring his massacres of the Indians.

Hell, Andrew Jackson's on the $20 bill, and he was responsible for the Trail of Tears. (Which a majority of whites have never even heard of)

Russians still consider Peter the Great to be a great leader, although his policies actually weren't that different from Ivan the Terrible's, he was just successful.

Bloody Mary's persecution of the Protestants is well-known, Elizabeth I's far greater persecution of Catholics is not so well-known.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

I don't know if Alec would ever do that. =D Unless he was ordered to.

[subieko.livejournal.com]

I agree. I have characters who do things that are, to me, morally abhorent, but to THEM, it's fine. If I made all my characters follow my moral code and never do anything that made them look unsympathetic, it wouldn't be much of a story.

Also, I must confess: heroes who are perfectly good and are never so much as tempted to commit a wrong just bore me. You just can't empathize with someone like that. Someone who screws things up and does stupid, selfish things--everyone can empathize with that, I think, because we all have those moments.

So, I'd say keep the scene, if it's in character. Sometimes, people do bad things. And therefore, so do characters.

But then again, a good number of my protagonists/heroes are, erm, well, murderers, soooo...maybe I'm not the best one to ask. XD

By the way--is Alec a mercenary? I'm kinda curious about the setting, and him, now...

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

He's an emissary of the fey court by the default of there being no one else who fulfills the requirements. If you'd like I could post up the scene in question.

[subieko.livejournal.com]

Wait, he's a fey? Ooo, I had no idea...interesting. Is this urban/modern-setting or more traditional high fantasy setting, or something else altogether?

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

No, he's human. the Fey equivalent of gopher, of doing magical things that need to be done, but they can't be bothered to do it because it's like taking out the trash.

It's a high fantasy setting.

[anarchicq.livejournal.com]

...
Someone who doesn't know the difference between a hero and a protagonist should not be critiquing.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

She's very...Optimistic and thinks the best of people sort of person. And she's unfortunately, rather stuck in traditional roles for story telling.

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

I'd say even heroes shouldn't be perfect. For one thing, the harder the author tries, the more the hero seems to end up like Eragon. I think it's the need for there to be no moral ambiguity. And even if they don't fall into the Eragon pit, a perfect hero is too perfect to identify with.

But then, I prefer protagonists or hero's friends to heroes.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think the problem is that since this a fantasy story you automatically get "heroes" and "villains" as opposed to protagonists and antagonists. Normal people aren't allowed to star in fantasy stories.

[ansela-jonla.livejournal.com]

I agree that protagonists are more interesting than heroes. Protagonists can do things that would be called 'evil' or 'immoral' if done by a hero.

For an example, one of the anime series that I'm currently watching has a protagonist instead of the hero. In the first episode of both seasons he uses his mind control powers to make his enemies commit suicide. He forms a terrorist army to rebel against his own father. He kills his unarmed half brother and causes his normally gentle half sister to start a massacre that only stops when he kills her. He's unathletic, her zero stamina and starts off both series' as a compulsive gambler who fleeces much older and richer men in games of chess. He couldn't do any of these things if he was was a traditional hero, and so the story would be a lot more boring.

Eragon is awful. He's too moral and annoying for me, and he treats Saphira like crap. No sentient being, bonded to a human or not, should have to put up with the way she is treated by Eragon.

Human characters are good and interesting. Shining examples of moral behaviour are boring and bad.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Protagonists can do things that would be called 'evil' or 'immoral' if done by a hero.

Yeah. They're allowed to have a bigger emotional ranged and can be selfish if they want to. Heroes aren't allowed to be selfish.

In regards to the anime: Very interesting sounding character.

Human characters are good and interesting. Shining examples of moral behaviour are boring and bad.

I wouldn't say bad so much as boring.