(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

[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.