Flights of Fantasy discussion

I'm taking an iTunesU class entitled "Hero & Quest" (subtitled "Heroes & Maidens).

I wrote a couple of blog posts about my thoughts on heroes that others really enjoyed so I wanted to share as well as get some additional opinions.


"True" or Mythological Hero
This is the hero that is being currently discussed in the class and where I started. The "true" hero is defined by:

From Wikipedia: The “Mythic Hero Archetype” is a set of 22 common traits shared by many heroes in various cultures, myths and religions throughout history and around the world. The concept was first developed by FitzRoy Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan (Lord Raglan) in his 1936 book, The Hero, A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama. Raglan argued that the higher the score, the more likely the figure is mythical.

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father related to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him [i.e., does not found a dynasty]
21. His body is not buried
22. Nonetheless has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

Several heroes were scored based on these archetypes:
Oedipus (22), Theseus (20), Romulus (17), Hercules (17), Perseus (16), Zeus (15), Jason (15), Robin Hood (13) and Apollo (11).

The greatest of these heroes – thus far – would be King Arthur. Dr. George stated that King Arthur would receive 22 or more of these points (some items he scores twice).

So, this helps set the dial (for me, at least).

I like the true hero! I'm dismayed that the hero is being replaced with the anti-hero. After posting this blog What is a “Hero?” I received some interesting comments - people really like anti-heroes BUT it seems as if the definition of the anti-hero is changing.

The current [old] definition of Anti-hero:

“The anti-hero is often a reluctant hero who does not consider himself capable of accomplishing the goal. He might be selfish, addicted, corrupt, sullen, or disaffected. By the end of the journey, he typically transforms into a fuller, happier, or more complete person due to the struggles he endures.”

I don't think that the anti-heroes that we have today even remotely resemble this definition. I feel that the old "anti-hero" has morphed into the "reluctant hero" and the anti-hero place is now taken by characters like Jorg from Prince of Thorns.

Current definition of reluctant hero:

From Wikipedia: The reluctant hero is typically portrayed either as an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances which require him to rise to heroism, or as a person with extraordinary abilities who nonetheless evinces a desire to avoid using those abilities for the benefit of others. In either case, the reluctant hero does not initially seek adventure or the opportunity to do good, and their apparent selfishness may draw them into the category of antiheroes. The reluctant hero differs from the anti-hero in that the story arc of the former inevitably results in their becoming a true hero.

In many stories, the reluctant hero is portrayed as having a period of doubt after his initial foray into heroism. This may be brought about by the negative consequences of his own heroic actions, or by the achievement of some position of personal safety – leaving the audience to wonder whether he will return to heroism at the moment when he is needed the most.

So, what would be the current definition of "anti-hero?"

What heroes would you consider "true" or "reluctant?"

In my opinion the anti-hero could be split between two groups, though they are the flip side of the same coin.

The first group is the one you mentioned. The hero who *thinks* he is the hero but he has more in common with the villain.

The second group are the characters who think of themselves as the villain but who are more noble than they believe.

I'm not really a big fan of the first group. I read them. I might like them. But I don't care for completely unredeemable characters.

I am a big fan of the second group. Many of my favorite characters fall into this category. I'm thinking of aSoIaF especially.

I think of reluctant heroes as more of the rogue group. Han Solo. The perfect example of a reluctant hero.

MrsJoseph, I've spent the last 10 minutes running various protagonists I've read through that 22-point list. It's a fun starting point. I'm so glad you posted it.

I don't have long to write here now, but I do want to recommend Writing Fantasy Heroes, a collection of essays on writing, edited by Jason M. Waltz. I wrote a few blog posts about the book over at here, here, here, and here. That last post includes my thoughts on Orson Scott Card's essay on writing reluctant heroes and why they are the kind he values most.

Definitely coming back to this discussion!

Interesting thoughts. I agree with Nienna on the second group. I prefer 'modest' heroes. If they are anti-heroes they should have redeeming qualities. I should at least be able to root for them. My definition of anti-heroes currently corresponds with the 'current old definition of anti-hero' but MrsJoseph you're making an interesting point. Personally I would chose the reluctant hero over the anti-hero.

I tried Prince of thorns but I couldn't get past the opening scene. I read the First Law trilogy instead and found out that although all the characters were more or less morally ambiguous they still had redeeming qualities. They struggle with how to do good and find it difficult. But out of romantic ideal I do appreciate that in the end the good guys triumph.

I'd like to propose as a separate category the unlikely hero -- someone who sees the need to act for the common good, even at terrible cost, and embraces that necessity with everything s/he has, but who does not fit heroic stereotypes. Consider James Enge's character Morlock the Maker, protagonist of all Enge's books so far, who is so introverted, odd and terse in self-expression, absorbed in specialized knowledge, and, in the books set later in his life, a dry drunk. Morlock is so far from heroic expectations as to be comical as often as he is epic or tragic, but he can be counted on to put his own life on the line for the common good, in whatever best way he can figure out.

As to protagonists who happen to be villains, well, I tend not to make it through those books before they lose me. I managed to read the first chapter of Prince of Thorns when the author posted it free online to promote the book. Though there were some smart and interesting things going on among the triggery nastiness, I decided life was too short, and there were too many other good books out there that would not poke my amygdala with a stick quite so hard.

I like heroes heroic. There is, indeed, one thing worse than the Eight Deadly Words -- I don't care what happens to these people -- the Six Deadlier Words -- I wish you could both lose.

Sarah wrote: "I'd like to propose as a separate category the unlikely hero -- someone who sees the need to act for the common good, even at terrible cost, and embraces that necessity with everything s/he has, bu..."

I would file heroes like this closer to the "tragic hero," myself. Characters like this fall closer to the original Greek tragedies (without the death, sometimes).

When I think about the classical plays and works - the hero was so often a grey character. How did we lose the grey character?