Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

I have a curious question.
I would think that heroes from the fantasy genre must overcome incredible and bizarre obstacles, more so than in other genres.
In your opinion, what makes a hero in the fantasy genre? What do you think are the struggles he/she faces? Are fantasy heroes expected to be any different from the heroes of other genres?

I have noticed that most fantasy heros are just carbon copies of each other, brave and such, but my hero brakes the mold. He is a craven cowered. How could someone with such cowardice become a hero? The secret is for those who truly seek after it.

I think you have to go deeper than just saying your hero is different because he's a coward. Many "heroes" do, in fact, begin as cowards or more specifically, lesser versions of their future self...one way or another. And yet,by simply taking up THE CALL makes them heroic.

Find out how he does it. The secret of how he goes from craven coward to hero can both boggle the mind and inspire the imagination. It is truly an astonishing feet, one of unprecedented scope and astounding veracity.

"Unprecedented scope and astounding veracity"

Really?

Where would someone read such a thing?

Well, since you asked.

http://arievlex.com/THE_DRAGON_STRATA...

From my own experience of reading fantasy, I think what makes a lot of them different from those of other genres is their bravery and strength (not always physical). They have to overcome challenges that often demand they sacrifice a lot, and even if they're deeply scared, they still do it. Frodo in LOTR, for instance, isn't "strong" physically, but he still "heeds the call" and faces his fate.

However, the trend isn't always followed. There's also quite a bit of difference between epic or high fantasy and low fantasy, or between novels written 60 years ago and those of now. I find that nowadays' fantasy tends to go towards more flawed heroes.

Exactly my point, that's why such an extremely flawed character was my goal. Such abject cowardice as has never before been seen or even envisaged in a fantasy hero and may never again. His folly, incredibly, becomes the greatest power that has ever been seen in the world since its epic inception! How is this possible? What other stupendous events happen? Only time and those who seek these secrets will tell.

Interesting. So a flawed hero is a product of the age, or at least brought out more today. If we think back at strong characters in epics such as Beowulf and Odysseus, it was common for readers to look up to a sort of god-man. Today, I suppose we want to relate to our heroes.

I tip the scales with this guy. He is over the top flawed. He is easily the most supreme coward that has ever lived, yet he is humanities only hope. Not even the bravest and strongest of champions could save the day, only this fantastic caitiff. How could such an unbelievable poltroon save all he knows and loves? Such secrets are reserved for their true seekers.

A popular example is Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games. She's an unlikely hero, yet everyone roots for her. Do you think this kind of hero and the forces they must face are part of the reason people like fantasy so much?

For example: if I were to exchange Katniss Everdeen with my character (craven coward,) in the Hunger Games, he would have never taken the place of his sister. Quite the opposite, if HE was chosen for the Hunger Games, (and if he was allowed) he would put his sister in for himself. The exact opposite of your example; I don't think you are quite getting my point. He is such a spineless cowered. However, no one else, no matter their bravery, could save the whole human race! How could this be? How could he be a hero? It has never before been even remotely envisioned in the realm of fantasy, not even close! He is not evil, (Darth Vader like,) he is good, just the biggest chicken ever! These secrets are only for those who truly seek them.

Referring to the original question of this thread, I would say that Heroes of Fantasy are not any different from other genres. They are what makes any hero: willing to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think the key tenets are the same regardless of genre. A hero needs an antagonist, an obstacle to surmount, or ideally both. A hero needs to embody our ideals on some level, although they're allowed to waver--because a hero without flaws is boring.

A hero's tenets are the same, but in fantasy, the setting and obstacles are very different.

So take part of a made-up cheesy romance story: your protagonist, an impoverished country boy, gets into an elevator to get to the top of a high-rise so he can convince the wealthy Chief Executive father of his sweetheart to accept their love.

Fantasy version: a hedge knight scales a peak to slay a terrible dragon in order to save the kingdom, thereby proving he's worthy to marry the king's daughter.

Fantasy can (and should) bear correlations to reality.

Such strict rules are stifling to creativity for a fantasy author. Fantasy authors push the boundaries of fiction, create new archetypes of storytelling, and envision new ways to experience the sublime and bizarre. Such as with (craven coward) his extreme cowardice creates a new archetype for storytelling. His character pushes the boundaries of fantasy fiction in a way no other genre of fiction can absorb or engender. His fantastic cowardice flies in the face of the old-guard of fiction for a hero and creates a supremely sublime and truly bizarre experience for the reader. How can this be? What manner of hero is this? Only those who seek out these secrets will know.

"Fantasy authors push the boundaries of fiction"
Nice. It's always good to discuss, but fantasy, as I would like to term the epitome of writing from imagination, should not be limited by expectations.

Regardless, I like the discussion. If all heroes of the fantasy genre were mighty warriors and magic-wielding kings and such, would the genre be as exciting? Interesting?

I'm glad to see Beowulf mentioned, and to see distinctions drawn between different sub-genres of fantasy. I can't stress the importance of Beowulf's contribution to the sword-and-sorcery type of hero, in various incarnations from Conan and Slainé to A Song of Ice and Fire, but as far as I can see it's made just as great a contribution to characters such as Indiana Jones and John McClane (Die Hard). At some point, our hero is put in a seemingly impossible situation and must reveal his heroic nature to overcome it. The flaws are nothing new, it turns out: Beowulf was famously flawed, in that he was doomed to fail in combat with sharp weapons (i.e. not very handy with a sword!), a most unbecoming trait for a legendary warrior king. Can you imagine what they said about him around the mead halls?

I think Beowulf's epitomisation (please excuse the 's', I'm British) of the Anglo-Saxon, masculine warrior-cultural ideal casts a long shadow across literature in general, as well as North American and European (can we say 'north-western quadrasphere'?)social expectations on the whole, of what it means to be a man, let alone a hero. Sometimes, the only way out from under it is to cast a woman in the role as main protagonist. Women are subject to a no-less demanding (and far more conflicting) set of expectations, of course (do everything perfectly, and make it look effortless), but they seem less rigidly identity-defining than those applied to men (show emotional control, pursue status, be work-oriented and violent).

So, my answer is: I don't think there's any difference between fantasy genre heroes and those of other genres. Sure, the dragons might be bigger in fantasy, but we have the same entrenched cultural expectations of heroic behaviour regardless of the size of the opponent. Plus, magic or supernatural ability (e.g. super power, demi-god, etc.) is often there to level the playing-field between over-sized opponents and person-sized heroes.

The essence of the flaw in flawed heroes is far from completely or even thoroughly explored. There are facets of flaw in heroes that could expand our understanding of human nature that are yet to be expounded upon. These untouched treasure troves of creativity provide new opportunities for fantasy authors to push the ethos of heroes and the fantasy genre to new heights and lows. We have only scratched the surface of hero development in fantasy because of the dynamism of the genre over all other genres. Fantasy authors set themselves apart from the rest of the fiction world because of the freedom implied in their particular craft. The fate of fantasy heroes is to be dynamically different from the fray by reaching new levels of heroic self expression and fantastic experience.

I think the thing with fantasy is that there is so many kinds. Its a big umbrella term. Some tends towards action or mystery, some historical, some science fiction. Each comes with a different set of heros. It depends often on where the hero falls within the book's social structure and their abilities. Epic fantasy seems to tend more towards downtrodden lords rising up against oppression, urban fantasy tends more towards finding a person place in the world. The victories tend to come at great cost to the hero and many of them have moral considerations when fighting. Especially when they are very powerful, the idea of defeating your enemies without destroying everything else in the process or falling into your own base instincts. Of course then you get the characters who aren't human at all and work under a different rule set and idea of morality. There are also normally a lot of politics involved in their lives. Great powers fighting for control rather than a simple who did it.

It is an interesting question.A hero comes out of the society he was born and grew up in, therefore it is entirely reasonable to find a 'fantasy hero' who has attributes we would find unheroic or distasteful.
I suspect the classic heroes, Conan, Beowulf have come out of our society because (in Beowulf's case, he helped create our society, or at least his story tellers did) and in Conan's case, the creator decided to keep the world he'd created similar to ours (indeed it might even be supposed to be ours)

I'd suggest that because of the fact that some heroes aren't heroic, we might wish to separate the 'protagonist' about whom the book is written, from the 'hero' :-)

This is a more interesting question than it needs to be as the answers above testify. All stories and hereos come out of the societal connections, moral underpinnings and belief systems of their creators and there are only a few truly original heroic figures. It is the way the creator uses the genre to shape a world view that gives a hero life. But don't we all know this really?

Yes. A hero, or protagonist, is formulated by his/her world, trials, influences, etc. That is one reason the fantasy genre is so interesting. These people face obscure, extraordinary, miraculous obstacles, rather than the usual and the known of our world.

I will tell you the true thing. A protagonist must be interesting. Somehow, by hedge or by stile, you have to get the reader to care about him or her. Fail on this, and everything else goes down the drain with a gurgling sound.

John. Stop. Enough with the self promotion!! Your character may be a coward... okay.... but by overselling your book, you're putting prospective readers (like me!) off reading your book.

I have a thought. Fantasy is a realm filled with adventure. Now, there are protagonists in thrillers and mysteries who may be detectives or killers; there may be protagonists in dramas who seek after, or are drawn to, their desires. I'm thinking protagonists in a fantasy novel, because of the adventure aspect, tend to be (or become) heroic in some way.

I think fantasy heroes might be perceived as different because the environment they are in is so different...bigger than life in many cases...but I agree that a hero is a hero....but fantasy ones get to confront all the cool monsters and magics!

I think, if you really get down to it, the same types of heroes--and even of the other characters--can be in every genre... but they're all different, too. Even if heroes embrace a lot of cliches, they're made by different minds who value different things, and that makes them even slightly different people. There are all sorts of characters in every genre, and I think they're both as different and similar as you and I are.

The world's also so old that all sorts of things have been done before--even cowards, who I've seen as heroes in epic fantasies before. However, there is a bit of what's "popular" at the time--like in the olden days, the ideal used to be popular... A lot of the heroes of The Arabian Nights are princes. Nowadays, though, it's more of common people, and noticeable flaws are becoming not only common, but wanted in heroes.

In the end, though, our own individual imagination will shape our characters in their own unique, but similar way. :D

Fantasy heroes--well, let me just say that characters with 'special powers' disappoint me as a reader. Superheroes for example, are always being 'saved' by their own personal deus ex machina. Its weak storytelling to have a built-in way of having your character escape every ordeal. There's plenty other reasons why the current fantasy superhero craze is bad, but this is just for starters.

You have a point, and yet it's good storytelling if you can make your readers or viewers care about the survival of your superhero even with his/her powers.

No, fantasy heroes are not different from heroes of other genres. In all cases the hero has to overcome an antagonist (even if that antagonist is some aspect of himself, or the world at large) and obstacles (even if he's the only one who sees his challenges as obstacles) in order to accomplish the story goal. The genre is just the dressing around the story, the scenery that appeals to particular readers.

As for fantasy being more "adventurous" than other fiction, I think you're discounting the adventure that's always been around us. From history, think of the Lewis and Clarke expedition, or Shackleton's voyage to Antarctica, or the quest to climb Mt. Everest. Those are real life events which have also been used for historical fiction, and are as adventurous as anything Tolkien ever wrote. Fantasy does provide a spark to ignite certain imaginations, including mine, but don't discount other genres just because they don't appeal to you.

Most of fantasy tends to have a lot of action, so the heroes are more like the heroes of crime or war or adventure stories (of other genres: crime, war and adventure tend to exist in fantasy too), so to say fantasy heroes are somehow a separate class is, I think, wrong. If you compare Conan to Mr Darcy you would think they are very different, but Conan and any other hero depicted in movies by Arnold have a lot in common.

Someone already said how bored they are of superheroes and I do so agree. The invincible ponce is just soooo dull. That is sometimes a problem in fantasy, the protagonist tends to be the best fighter and/or best mage, with some magic Thor's hammer type doodah at his beck and call. Boring! Dull! Tedious! Fortunately these type of heroes are not an overwhelming majority now, if they ever were... and I still like Conan... well, a lot depends also on the rest of the story elements, and writing, and so on.

Odysseus or Ulysses is to me an archetypal fantasy hero in one aspect above all: he is an unwilling hero. He just wanted to go home, kiss the wife, kick back and crack open an amphora but no, he is forced on this insane voyage of adventure and heroic deeds. Frodo is a clear inheritor of this idea. Many of Robin Hobb's heroes are this type. Otherwise Ulysses has heroic qualities of course, he is brave - but not stupidly so, he can be cautious and weigh the risks - and resourceful, but unlike many other reluctant heroes he is curious as well, he wants to hear the sirens never mind the risk, for example, he is an early explorer, something that fantasy heroes are not usually moved by much. Jesus is of course another reluctant hero, one that has to suffer more (and so also more like Frodo) but still not that different - Odysseus suffers too. He gets his reward at least, while Frodo's ending is more bittersweet. A lot of the time the reluctant hero's reward seems to be that he can stop adventuring and live a somewhat quiet life, but not much else.

The cynical antihero has been found in fantasy as well quite often, since Michael Moorcock at least. He has many relatives in crime fiction, many classic Noir detectives are like that, tired of seeing the unending evil humans do but still trying to stem the tide a little bit, while spending a lot of time brooding in the rain.

Revenge driven heroes are as old as Greek drama as well, and a staple of many genres, westerns, scifi (Stars my Destination is a good example), action films, and sports stories weirdly enough. Winning the Olympics is not thrilling enough motivation?

So what else?
Well, is there a difference between protagonist and hero? Heroes abound in Fantasyland, there is perhaps less books where the protagonist is not a hero, or there are no heroes to be found at all. Still, I don't think this is in any way fundamental to fantasy, or in any way limited to it.

One thing that is clear from this discussion by the way is that women do not seem to get to be the heroes much, even in fantasy.

Tura wrote: "One thing that is clear from this discussion by the way is that women do not seem to get to be the heroes much, even in fantasy."

That's historically true. It follows the culture of men being in charge, men doing the work, etc. However, recently, I've seen more and more female heroes. Even when they're not the main protagonist, many female characters nowadays are quite strong enough to handle their own. That's not true of all, but it's slowly becoming more commonplace.

One reason females can be pushed down from being heroes, though, is that I've noticed in a lot of fandoms, the characters that tend get hated by fans are the ones deemed to be too girly or emotional. I think one can be girly, emotional, and strong, but that mindset is still quite prevalent, and we need to overcome that to put female characters on equal standing with male characters.

The different thing about fantasy heroes is that they may have magical abilities, but if they're omnipotent, then there's no story. Heroes have to have some weaknesses or else there's no way to relate to them. It's the same for me as a reader no matter what genre I'm reading. I love morally gray stories, too, where the hero has to make hard choices.

Niki wrote: "Tura wrote: "One thing that is clear from this discussion by the way is that women do not seem to get to be the heroes much, even in fantasy."


I'm actually a writer, and I often feature strong women characters in fantasy or science fantasy stories. The lack of good adventure tales for women was actually one of the reasons I decided to start writing myself. (I won't say how many years ago!) I think you may be right about a mindset, though. This kind of story can be hard to sell to magazines or anthologies.

"Tura wrote: "One thing that is clear from this discussion by the way is that women do not seem to get to be the heroes much, even in fantasy."

I suppose one reason for that may be the scarcity of female fantasy writers. In scifi I usually have no problem finding lots of heroines, even if you look into the past (Anne McCaffrey wrote mainly female leads, Marion Zimmer-Bradley did lots of them, Ursula LeGuin, C.C. Cherryh, Elizabeth Lynn, and many more).

I think it entirely depends on the sub-genre what your hero is like. Terry Pratchett for instance wrote lots of fantasy heroines. Tolkien and his acolytes not so much.

Personally I have more problems with the hero stereotypes per se, than with their gender or genre.

Lela wrote: "I'm actually a writer, and I often feature strong women characters in fantasy or science fantasy stories. The lack of good adventure tales for women was actually one of the reasons I decided to start writing myself. (I won't say how many years ago!) I think you may be right about a mindset, though. This kind of story can be hard to sell to magazines or anthologies."

Yeah, I'm a writer, too, and I also write a lot of strong women in my own works... The main character of my current project is female. But I've had to deal with that anti-feminine-character mindset a number of times in various fandoms now... It's one thing that really bugs me, since there are so many wonderful female characters that get bashed on for the silliest reasons.

Niki wrote: "It's one thing that really bugs me, since there are so many wonderful female characters that get bashed on for the silliest reasons. ..."

What do you mean? Though I suppose this might do better as an own thread, maybe. To not derail this one here.

Steelwhisper wrote: "What do you mean? Though I suppose this might do better as an own thread, maybe. To not derail this one here."

Perhaps it would... To answer you real quick, though, I've seen female characters get hated for being "useless", for getting a certain guy, for being too emotional, for not doing something the fan thinks they should've done, for being too nice/sweet, for getting kidnapped even though it was the most realistic thing... I could probably think of more I've seen. For guys, some of the reasons I've seen for people hating them is because they're too "girly" or "weak".

I wish I knew where it was, but I once read an article talking about the concept of Mary Sues... It was a term originally made for female characters, and the article gave what sounded like a Mary Sue before revealing that every trait/plot given was the exact same as Batman's--just a girl instead of a guy. I need to try to find that again...

Oh, Gary Stus also exist. However, Batman is a superhero and giving superhero powers to a female just like that of course would result in a Mary Sue verdict. A Mary Sue after all is an author avatar, someone who is patently perfect in every respect.

I'm usually angered by heroines behaving too bad-assish, too sarky, out-maling the males. I however just as much hate the standard male hero/alpha-male who bores me to hell and back. I usually consider him silly.

Well, as I said earlier in this, I think every character can become their own "person", in a way... I'm pretty sure I don't do that "standard male hero" for the main protagonist of most of my books, but I've seen it many times... But, in the ones I'd classify as sorta falling in that, I've found that they're all very unique and each have their own special charm.

I think the difference is in the writing itself. As long as the character plays on the traits naturally and embodies their own layers of depth, then I'm fine with any type of character--male or female, strong or weak, masculine or feminine. If, however, they're just made to be an archetype and not really any deeper than that, well... That's a different story.

Steelwhisper wrote: "I'm usually angered by heroines behaving too bad-assish, too sarky, out-maling the males. I however just as much hate the standard male hero/alpha-male who bores me to hell and back. I usually consider him silly."

I agree that heroines who are just carbon copies of men tend to be boring. It's just not realistic enough to keep my interest. Women generally have different talents. Any hero or heroine needs to have a strong enough individual character to be themselves. This includes their personal problems!

Niki wrote: "Perhaps it would... To answer you real quick, though, I've seen female characters get hated for being "useless", for getting a certain guy, for being too emotional, for not doing something the fan thinks they should've done, for being too nice/sweet, for getting kidnapped even though it was the most realistic thing... I could probably think of more I've seen. For guys, some of the reasons I've seen for people hating them is because they're too "girly" or "weak"."

I don't mind people starting out like this, but I expect to see them grow and learn from whatever experiences take place during the story. If heroines are just pawns to be moved around by other characters, then they're not doing their job. :)

This is a tough question. I think the definition of the word "hero" is fluid and tends to vary between genres. I've seen a lot of instances in which the "hero" is synonymous with "main character," who is often the character that saves the day in the end somehow. In a lot of epic fantasy sagas this can lead to debates on who the real hero is in the story, since epics often have focuses on multiple characters.

Overall I don't think that fantasy heroes are any different from the heroes of other genres. They all face the same obstacles, just under different guises. At the end of the day every story comes down to people, the challenges they face, and the actions they take in response to those challenges.

I would say so, yes. Fantasy characters have more opportunities to show off their full capabilities than the ones in other genres; i.e. in the first book of The Lord of the Rings trilogy , The Fellowship of the Ring would never make it through the Mines of Moria without Gandalf's heroic sacrifice. And this would never be possible without a bit of magic, which in other genres would never take place.

Lara DeLarose, in The Locket Thief without a few tricks up her sleeve could never find a real hero in her if her character was written in a different than a fantasy genre book.

I quite like it though. Fantasy characters can present so much more than the other ones can.

I'd say fantasy tends to create expectations that the hero will be more heroic, partly because the threat is supposed to be so obviously epic-- or maybe the hero just decides to be heroic earlier and stays in that mode longer, since there's usually an extended quest to stay with. Other genres have their people more tied to ordinary life, but fantasy --in its classic form-- can't wait to "call" the hero right out of his hometown and leave his inner doubts a bit secondary to what he knows he has to do. Even Superman held onto Clark Kent.

Of course a lot of modern fantasies give their characters chances to make real heroic-vs-unheroic decisions. And Tolkien softened it from day one by making the hobbits hangers-on to the traditional heroes as often as not, or else visibly outclassed.

I always enjoyed reading about heroes but lately fantasy novels have been so dark that it is often difficult to tell the heroes from the villains. Post-modernism, I guess, where everyone is dealing with 'issues' and the good guy does just as much bad stuff as the bad guy but from purer motives or for vengeance. How many heroes these days are looking for pay-back and we only think of them as someone to root for because they are the main character?

I've been thinking about these things for a while...several books-worth, actually.

The original question? The answer is no.

Everything a protagonist needs to have in good fiction, should be in the possession of a fantasy hero. The extra stuff -- the telepathy with dragons or the magical sword -- accessories, merely. The essentials are the same.

C.B. wrote: "I always enjoyed reading about heroes but lately fantasy novels have been so dark that it is often difficult to tell the heroes from the villains. Post-modernism, I guess, where everyone is dealing..."

That is very interesting. I keep thinking of Game of Thrones. Are there any good guys? Well, if there are, they just get killed off ;) :( . But yes, sometimes we just want that raw hero that we can root for and cheer when they enter the scene. I personally enjoy the struggles that protagonists go through, but your point is well taken.

C.B. wrote: "I always enjoyed reading about heroes but lately fantasy novels have been so dark that it is often difficult to tell the heroes from the villains. Post-modernism, I guess, where everyone is dealing..."

I agree, I recently read a lot of romance, and can only shake my head at the huge amount of absolutely unbedworthy and non-relationship-able men who get hoisted upon a pedestal there these days.

I kept seeing this topic pop up on my notifications so thought I'd chime in on it.

I can see what you mean by a hero of Fantasy having more of a need to be a hero. Given most fantasies rely on a hero type character and heros tend to be more associated in the fantasy genre. However I guess it really all depends on the definition of the word hero. If we are talking about one who overcomes obsticles, has to battle an opposing evil foe and saves the day? Then fantasy. Other heros are usually based off of being the main character and merely being triumphant in the end. So I suppose in a way fantasy heros are different because to me they have and can be given more challenges making that their premise and goal whereas a hero from another genre would seem to be more put into a role rather then take it on because they have to.