Flawed Characters II: Flawed Heroes

Everyone is flawed. We claim to know that and yet, in some cases, we either can’t accept it or won’t allow it. This fact is especially true with people raised to the status of “hero”. Flawed heroes, well, we can’t let them be flawed and heroes. Perfect or villainous, no in-between. While some real-life and fictional “heroes” are truly flawed to the point of incompetence or villainy, many just make mistakes. That’s how it should be and that’s how we should portray the world in our writing.

Here’s a real-life “flawed hero” moment: J.K. Rowling recently came under attack for a mistake, i.e. a Twitter attack against President Trump regarding his treatment of a disabled boy. Her criticism, it turned out, was based on a video taken out of context. According to the boy’s uncle’s Tweet, Rowling’s words seemed to cause emotional distress to the boy involved and his family. Rowling admitted that the source did not present the information in the complete context and apologized profusely and politely to the boy and his family. That should’ve been the end of it but, of course, it wasn’t. While some appreciate her honesty and willingness to apologize, others insist on villainizing her for an honest mistake and for not apologizing to President Trump. She’s either a hero or a villain, not just a generally admirable but flawed human.

It’s interesting how we can’t allow our heroes to have slip-ups. Either they must always act perfect or we must be so delusional as to think they are always perfect no matter what they do. We can never admit to the existence of flawed heroes. It makes me wonder, do we hold the same delusions in fiction? Should we?

In an earlier post, I discussed the appeal of flawed characters, particularly flawed protagonists. Flawed characters are human, and readers relate to human characters. That’s why a flawed–maybe even hated–protagonist is better than a Mary Sue or Gary Stu.

If this appeal applies to flawed characters, including flawed protagonists, shouldn’t it still apply to flawed heroes? As writers, we strongly believe so. As readers, it’s a more bitter pill to swallow when thinking our heroes could be flawed.

In the “Return of the Bling” episode of American Dad, Stan has to learn the hard way that even our heroes do questionable things.

Image retrieved from YouTube

While the line is very fine, there is still a difference between flawed protagonists and flawed heroes. The plot of a novel focuses on a protagonist, i.e. the main character. This character can be good or bad, loved or reviled, active or sedentary, etc. Heroes, on the other hand, become role models of sorts, characters to whom we aspire. For example, Macbeth is the protagonist of Shakespeare’s MacBeth but, I would argue, is no hero, certainly not someone I would use for a role model. Nymphadora Tonks, on the other hand, is not a minor character in Harry Potter, not a protagonist. Nevertheless, I look up to her and would not hesitate to call her a hero because of her sacrifices and bravery.

With this difference in mind, should there be flawed heroes in literature? My answer is of course.

Flaws, whether in heroes or a minor villain, give the reader something to hold on to, something of themselves which they can find in the character. I would go so far as to argue that flaws make heroes in literature possible. We see all our possible successes in our fictional heroes; when we see these successes coupled with flaws much like our own, we latch onto that character as a possible version of ourselves. We sympathize with their struggles, root for them to prevail, and feel their emotions at every turn. Flaws give us our connection to fictional heroes; take them away and we just have another saint or martyr who’s nothing more than a name.

Being flawed doesn’t make a hero any less of a hero; it makes them interesting.

Image retrieved from CNBC

Theoretically, heroes are like any other character. Readers relate more to them when they’re flawed, and so the best heroes should be flawed. Yet readers have a hard time admitting that their heroes are flawed heroes. Criticize Harry Potter for being a hormonal teenaged boy soaking up the limelight and Potterheads will descend upon you like a flock of vultures. (I would know, I used to react that way and sometimes still do.) What we don’t realize is that we can still look up to certain characters even with their flaws. We just cannot make them some inhuman idol to worship. We must also remember that the flaws make the stories interesting. If our heroes didn’t have flaws, we wouldn’t have any reason to worry about their success, would we?

In life, we have to take our heroes and their digressions with a grain of salt. Some are forgivable, others are not. Some mistakes can be righted with an apology and others take much more, if they can ever be righted at all. Mistakes are a part of life and as long as our heroes learn from them–more importantly, so long as we learn from them–then some bit of good may come from it. Admire the good flawed heroes have done but judge their wrongs as you would anyone else’s. After all, they’re human, too.

Thoughts on creating flawed heroes? On our tendency to idolize heroes, both fictional and in real life? Drop a line in the comments. Let’s start a discussion!

 

Designed by Stephanie Hoogstad circa 2011

Jack of All Trades or Master of One?

We all know the saying: jack of all trades, master of none. For those who don’t know, the phrase refers to someone who dabbles in many areas but does not master any. The saying makes sense overall; the more we spread our focus and talents, the less energy we have to put into any one task. Hence, we know a lot of trades but we master none of them. But is that truly the case nowadays, especially for writers? Do we really have to choose between being a jack of all trades or mastering one?

I’m sure that, by now, you’ve read some variation of the article on Business Insider which lists the fifteen habits of self-made millionaires. If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. Even if those habits won’t work for you, it makes for a fascinating read.

These habits include developing multiple sources of income.

This concept is not exactly the same as dabbling in multiple trades–after all, investing in stocks can be considered a source of income but not necessarily a “trade” like we are discussing here–but some of the reasoning can apply to both. In earning money, the wider you cast your net, the more you’re likely to bring in. The same is true with trades and hobbies. The more we do, the more experiences and skills we gather.

Does that mean it’s better to be a jack of all trades than a master of one? Not necessarily.

Can you be a success AND a value in multiple areas at once?

Image retrieved from LinkedIn

If we spread ourselves too thin, we will have neither the energy nor the focus to really complete any task competently. Let’s say that you’re trying to write a novel, edit a project for a client, write a blog review of the latest episode of American Horror Story, and dabble in a traditional 9-to-5 job at Barnes and Noble. I’m guessing you’re exhausted just thinking about it; I know I am. Odds are that you won’t get all of this done in the same week. Heck, balancing it all within the same month plus your daily social and familial obligations would be a stretch. We can’t do it all without burning ourselves out.

I learned this lesson early on, although I probably haven’t heeded it too well since my first experience. In high school, I tried to do it all: zero-period Physics, AP Calculus, Yearbook, leadership (a class, basically a form of student government with volunteering mixed in), student representative to the school staff, school liaison to the school board and city council, and a weekend volunteer at a local museum. I was incredibly overwhelmed, and it was this period in my life which really sparked my anxiety and stomach problems. (There were issues at home which made it worse, too.) I don’t like looking back at that time out of embarrassment and a feeling of failure. Frankly, I’m not sure how I made valedictorian.

In addition to causing us to explore things superficially, too much dabbling and multitasking can kill us inside. As I said in my workaholics post, writers tend to work too hard because we’re a bit addicted to it. Still, that habit of being a jack of all trades can wear us down.

Does that mean that we should only master one trade? Again, not necessarily.

The experiences and skills which we gather from our other trades and hobbies feed into the trades we master. For me, the trades I am attempting to master are writing and literature. In particular, I focus on fiction and academic creative writing. However, I have other hobbies and trades which fuel these two. I workshop and proofread other writers’ manuscripts, which helps me to strengthen my self-critiquing skills. I review published books, which forces me to see books simultaneously as a reader and a writer. Oddly enough, I also dabble into business concepts. I don’t try to master business or anything like that; I’m just fascinated by everything behind it, from finding the break-even point to marketing and promotion. This interest makes me better prepared to promote my own work, as well as the work of those I review and critique.

Being a jack of all trades does not always mean you’re a master of none, not in this day and age. You have to tread lightly and balance every aspect of your life very carefully, but you can still dabble in multiple areas and master one or two. As with reading and writing diversely, sharpening your skills with multiple trades and hobbies can teach you lessons which you then bring back to your main focus. Rather than one or the other, I think that all well-rounded people, writers especially, must be both a jack of all trades and a master of one (or some).

 

Designed by Stephanie Hoogstad circa 2011