Does the hero have to be a good guy? discussion

That's an interesting question. I guess that depends on what you mean by a good guy. I can accept heroes that are flawed human beings or who do evil/questionable things if I sense that there is an underlying morality to their actions. For instance, Jack Higgins has the character Sean Dillon who's a former IRA terrorist who ends up working for British Intelligence. He's a pretty ruthless character whom the reader is asked to root for. It`s interesting that some characters in the story seem reluctant to accept him within their ranks because of his past and I think that mirrors the ambivalence of the reader. If Dillon was known to have killed women and children, who seem symbolically more innocent than men, I`m not sure I could accept him as a hero as that might be too much blood on his hands for him to wash clean through working for an ostensibly good cause i.e. the propping up of a government.

Thanks for that Jenifer. Sean Dillon is an interesting case, as you quite rightly point out he is a known terrorist, but sees himself as a soldier in a war, and to our knowledge hasn't killed women or children, but a terrorist he is none the same. By all standards he is a bad guy, but is he a hero. I don't think he so much does the right thing, rather works to his own moral compass, believing it to be the right thing. McVeigh on the other hand isn't really a hero - yet - he's viscous and ruthless and his actions in part have heroic undertones, he is clearly working to his own agenda. But, despite his past he became a good guy in the Army and all was good until the past reared its head. I think that heroic deeds sometimes need ruthless people to carry them out. Dillon, Reacher, Bourne, McVeigh all have one thing in common, ruthless determination to get the task done. Good guys all, doubt it, heroes, by default for sure. Heroic, probably not.

I think it's an interesting point that you raise about the past rearing its ugly head and pulling people who have become "good guys" back into more morally ambiguous actions although even the concept of a "good guy" seems to be a matter of perspective. Given what McVeigh was doing when this whole matter exploded (I don't want to give spoilers to your book), was he really a good guy? Does the fact that he is operating on the behalf of the government make his actions good? Wouldn't the terrorists argue that there was no difference between him and them except their employer?

The same could be said for Sarah who seemed to have somewhat escaped her past only to be pulled back in and actually becoming a "bad guy." Would she ever have become a bad guy but for the actions of McVeigh? The desire to obtain revenge seems to be a very destructive force in every character's life and I think Emerald does a really great job showing that.