SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I enjoy reading characters who behave like real people. That means even the most virtuous good guy has flaws. Just as even the worst dictator has at least once cheered up a sad child, a perfect nun must have crop dusted children at play. However, I've noticed over the past two decades or so that more and more the list of acceptable flaws is reduced. I'm not talking about anit-heroes or anti-villains. I'm not talking about the characters who are supposed to live in the gray (e.g. assassins, rogues, space pirates). I'm talking about the people you'd have a beer with.

The cynic in me sees the same couple flaws used ad nauseum. The protagonist can be a drunk. He/she can cheat on a romantic partner. He/she may use narcotics. That seems to be it. If you utter one racial/sexist/homophobic slur, you're out as a hero. If you casually lie, you don't stand for anything. If you steal, have an explosive temper that leads to hitting walls or throwing dishes, or hide as a coward who never overcomes the quality. There are many more things that are considered flaws for real people that sadly rarely materialize into books/movies/television.

I know many of you will easily disprove my assumption. I welcome this. Please send your SFF recommendations with heroic characters acting shady (besides the aforementioned drunks/cheats/addicts). I look forward to adding your lists to my TBR.

I think the issue is that heroes who punch down are hard to root for. If there's growth, that's one thing, but someone who's nice until cornered who unleashes a stream of violence or violent rhetoric is...

Well. You don't blurt out words you don't think to yourself.

Luna: New Moon has some heroes that are in many ways stereotypically not great. Ditto Jade City

My beloved The Once and Future King is full of people who've done unforgivable things beyond (but including) drunkenness and adultery, with a focus on growth.

The Library at Mount Char is I think the quintessential take on the bad person who is the protagonist.

The Gentleman Bastards series revels in cowards, liars, cheats and thieves getting the better of folks.

Terra Ignota, too.

Perdido Street Station is another.

Good topic for discussion!
I can recommend two authors that you may or may not have heard of...
Dawn of Wonder by Jonathan Renshaw. The protagonist is certainly heroic but bears a specific but significant flaw which I'll leave undisclosed (no further spoiler here).
Jackson Lear has a flawed dark protagonist in a short (but growing) series of books. This story has the added value (to my mind) of making non-"epic" challenges feel big. As I've commented in one of my few reviews, (I paraphrase myself) all battles feel big when you're close enough to smell the gunpowder.

Phillip wrote: "I'm not talking about anit-heroes or anti-villains. I'm not talking about the characters who are supposed to live in the gray (e.g. assassins, rogues, space pirates). I'm talking about the people you'd have a beer with."

You use the word "hero" in such a restrictive way. There are plenty of flawed protagonists in fiction today - probably more than ever before. Their flaws make them unqualified for the "hero" category, at least in the strictest sense. Aren't you complaining that water is too wet?

I'm not sure if this is the right kind of flawed, but what comes to mind is mostly from crime, not SF, the rogue cop. There are lots of those. With the rogue cops it's a matter of degree. They have huge flaws, but the creeps they are after are so much worse that yes, the cops are heroic. James Elroy's iconic cops come to mind. They are corrupt, etc. Do I root for them? Yes, big time. One of them lives in myth, he is that bad/good.

But, as part of the criteria, would I have a beer with them? Um, no. :)

Chris wrote: "You use the word "hero" is such a restrictive way. There are plenty of flawed protagonists in fiction today - probably more than ever before. Their flaws make them unqualified for the "hero" category, at least in the strictest sense. Aren't you complaining that water is too wet?"

I don't think it's too restrictive. If you prefer, just substitute the word protagonist. My point is the characters that we as the audience are meant to support AND who are portrayed as working for the greater good/ are a decent person often can only have the same flaws. The heart wants what it wants allows them to cheat and cheat often. Substance abuse is considered a disease by many, so it's okay for a character to have the disease.

There are many good people who will lose their temper. Their are many good people who tell immature or offensive jokes. There are many good people who slack off on their share of the work. They casually lie. They bully their workplace "enemies." All these attributes are among real people and many of these people will have friends and family who justify these flaws. For whatever reason, it appears readers and viewers will not give these same breaks to POV characters and their closest allies. On the rare case one of these flaws outside the trinity are used, it will be something that is overcome and resolved by the end. For those who like these types of characters, that's fine. For those (like me) who want a more realistic portrayal of characters, it feels odd. I like to see flaws not resolved. The MC gets the girl/boy, saves the day, prevents the outbreak, or whatever foil is in the way and still screams at his/her kids for leaving the door open on a hot, air conditioned day when he/she finally gets home after a hard day's work.

However, since you feel there are more examples than ever, please provide some. Ultimately, that's my goal. Finding authors willing to write a character who uses stereotypes constantly without it being something to redeem. I'm not saying I endorse these flaws. I just want to see how authors can give them and still make me agree the character is still mostly on the right side of behavior.

Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos is definitely racist towards Dragaerans. He's a killer, a manager of gambling and prostitution enterprises (think The Godfather), and tends not to be concerned about what happens to most of the people affected by his actions. That said, all the books in his series are quite entertaining.

Hilo in The Green Bone Saga has an anger problem and is racist.

James Holden in The Expanse is naive and often doesn't understand the consequences (such as interplanetary war) of his actions.

Muderbot in The Murderbot Diaries has social anxiety and rejects those who like and accept it.

Justice of Toren (aka Breq) in The Imperial Radch is the pawn of an empire that commits genocide and harms native cultures.

Ren in Planetfall is (view spoiler)[a compulsive hoarder and has covered up a crime. (hide spoiler)]

Ren in Planetfall is a good example, but still, one could argue she 'grows' and is 'redeemed.'

Rogue cops are a good example, I think, if they're not *too* bad. (Yup, each of us have to decide for ourselves what "too" bad means.)

I understand what Phillip is going for and agree that authentic people aren't perfect... that ordinary people with significant character defects can do heroic things... that most people can't be 'fixed'.... I would love to read more of these stories, too. I'm not sure how many of the above examples actually fit well, though.

The notion of a flawed "hero" (protagonist), living outside the gray area can be argued within it's very premise. Truth be told, however, one of the few places such a person might exist *is* within fiction. Who, in reality, exists outside the gray area? The definition of 'the gray area', in fiction can easily be agreed upon as long as enough people weigh in. It's like the concept of "normal". But if your interest is in a realistic portrayal, wouldn't you agree that the concept of "gray" is measured subjectively? What might seem gray to you might seem cut-and-dried to me, and vice-versa.
My point is, perhaps it isn't the character that defines what is considered "flawed", it's the world that's created around them... as long as the reader can be convinced to accept it or, at a minimum, suspend their disbelief. In fiction (especially SFF), an author can create a world that turns our concepts of gray on it's ear. Using Dante's Divine Comedy as an example; change to someone else's POV (one of the damned, for instance) and suddenly "normal" and "gray" take on a whole different meaning.
I understand the point you're making. That rare occasion where an author causes us to associate with a flawed hero/protagonist with a limited developmental arc. I hope the point i'm (poorly) trying to make isn't lost, however.

I suddenly realized that you were simply seeking to add to your TBR list... not a philosophical discussion. I got caught up in the notion. My apologies. :)

Brian wrote: "I suddenly realized that you were simply seeking to add to your TBR list... not a philosophical discussion. I got caught up in the notion. My apologies. :)"

No apologies necessary. I enjoy a good discussion just as much as a good book. I'll be adding some of the suggestions, but I agree that not all apply. I guess I have this test for myself:

Would I have a beer/coffee with the character, knowing a journalist would video/photograph us enjoying ourselves and share it with the world.

If the answer is "yes." Then that character applies. I wouldn't hang our with gangsters, so Hilo doesn't apply. Doesn't mean he wasn't an interesting take on Sonny Corleone, but I expect more deviance from him.

I have a couple shady characters in my family and it’s sometimes hard to reconcile what they do with who they are. (I’m Italian, I’ll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.) I think that *understanding* where someone comes from and how that leads them down a certain path is not the same as *condoning* what they do.

I was listening to NWA the other day and I totally get why they wrote “Fuck Tha Police”. That’s a genuine reaction to how law enforcement treated them, personally, and how black Americans have been treated for hundreds of years. For me, police have mostly been an impediment to my life, but on the other hand I have friends who are cops and I work with the local police chief constantly. The interaction of those two groups means that they only see the worst examples of the others. Which is easy to understand intellectually, but hard to parse emotionally.

These days, however, we aren’t allowed to explore the friction of those gray areas because of “cancel culture” and the self-appointed “purity police”, who deny individual expression and reject art out of hand that doesn’t conform with their preconceived notions. This attitude comes from all sides, whether it’s angry white men or livid lesbians of color. (There’s your new band name, kids.)

Lots of books have variations on the “hooker with a heart of gold” trope and play it safe by having their anti-hero be a version of Robin Hood. “Oh, he does bad things but for good reasons.” There’s great appeal to those stories and we all root for Robin Hood, but they rarely explore the moral uncertainty of what happens when there’s collateral damage to innocent bystanders. Any book that delves into that tends to get shut down hard by the ravening mob.

my goodness, that is a lot of stereotypes all at once without any basis in research or answering the call for suggested reading.

folks, please keep suggestions in your response. i'm going to leave trikes comment for now as an example of the limit of my tolerance for generalizations.

Chris wrote: "Hilo in The Green Bone Saga has an anger problem and is racist.


I can recall the exact moment* when my view of the Green Bone Saga shifted from something where I sympathized with No Peak's efforts, and hoped for their eventual success, and instead turned into a story where it was clear that everyone was horrible in their own way. I'm enormously enjoying the series, but if our viewpoint characters go down in flames that's not a terrible outcome. After Hilo's actions, everyone who supports him is also terrible.

*When Hilo arranges to bring home his nephew Niko, the son of his dead brother. I won't say more about this, but people who have read Jade War will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Phillip wrote: Would I have a beer/coffee with the character, knowing a journalist would video/photograph us enjoying ourselves and share it with the world..."

This part of your criteria (above) is kind of interesting.
A journalist. . . . Why would a journalist want to take a picture and share it with the world?
The only reason I can think of is that one of you is famous. So, it would be the other person (at least for now), the fictional character.
The only one I can think of (again, not SF but crime), is Cormoran Strike, a Robert Galbraith character.

Strike is veteran of the Afghanistan war, an amputee. He's a detective, some of his clients are seedy. He looks not exactly proper (sometimes seedy); scruffy, but manly. Gaining weight, swears a lot. And sometimes uses bad judgment. He is not above using women, but was really suckered by one. He likes to eat and drink beer. (Doom Bar - great beer; I love it :) good author choice)
- He's likeable, a good detective. And since he is a Rowling character, he is sort of Hagrid in a suit, maybe Hagrid's distant cousin. (I think Galbraith is up to book 4 in the series.)
- By now, he is famous for solving the crime in the previous book--so he's bothered by the press. He is famous, so they would want to take his picture and that of anyone with him.

He doesn't have any of the isms,, but his main flaw, as I see it is he sometimes uses bad judgement (although that's also the author doing things for the story), but it makes him look irrational and puts his partner in danger.

Brilliant post, I agree with the assessment of James Holden and Robert Galbraith is on my want to read list. My mind is a blank right now. I want to say Odd Thomas in that he’s not super strong.

Hmm...I guess I have a hard time figuring out the line here, as it seems personal rather than based on flaw level? Like, I wouldn't want to have a beer with Bill Murray's character in Groundhog Day until he's unlearned a lot of his flaws, but I would likely go out for a drink with Hilo, whose crimes are generally known and understood by people in his society and who seems both charming and dangerous to refuse.

If, however, we're talking about which I find morally reprehensible and which I just find a jerk, reverse it.

So I guess if we're just talking protagonists, hard for me to say who you'd go out for a beer with! For me it would be a calculation of who I think would treat me well while we're there, and the cost/benefit of turning them down.

Also I think you just gave me my next WYR...

I'd go out to eat with Vlad Taltos as he's a gourmet (and a good cook - much like Locke Lamora ) and a connoisseur of wine and brandy

Chris wrote: "Ren in Planetfall is ..."

I'm almost 24h too late, but that is very much a spoiler.

Phillip wrote: "For those (like me) who want a more realistic portrayal of characters, it feels odd. I like to see flaws not resolved. The MC gets the girl/boy, saves the day, prevents the outbreak, or whatever foil is in the way and still screams at his/her kids for leaving the door open on a hot, air conditioned day when he/she finally gets home after a hard day's work..."

This isn't realistic, to me. If a character acts like this after doing xxxx most wonderful thing in the world, then he/she would come across as a plastic character, one that only exists on the page at the time of writing. It's more a comic book. The ones you describe before the part pasted, no, I don't think those are particularly good people. They sound like louts. :)

And--almost forgot--the one you say 'bullies' his/her co-workers, that's an ass, or . . . ass hat (for a little variation). Sorry. No go.

But can't "louts" and bullies do good things?

I think this is where the confusion comes in.

Heroes as in protagonists who are admirable are different from protagonists who are anti-heroes or the everyman.

Everyman who does heroic things, AND with whom you'd get a drink is a line that people make themselves. No, I actively avoid people who I think are trolls and bullies. I correct people who say things I find offensive, and if they apologize, then they're likely not going to continue such behavior. If they don't apologize, then they're someone I don't want to get a beer with, even if they save kittens and fight fires for a living.

This isn't to say those people are "bad" but if the criteria for hero here is someone I'd get a beer with, then people who use slurs, make homophobic jokes, get angry to the point they physically lash out etc, we've gone beyond the acceptable oopsie and headed into abusive territory that I've learned over the years isn't worth it to me. I'm sure they're still capable of good, and a lot of stories have those characters, like the ones I've mentioned. But I'd not spend my personal time with them.

Yeah, that's why so many ppl don't like gathering with extended family at Thanksgiving. People are complicated, and most of us have flaws, some of which others see as major flaws that we don't see that way.

I almost married a homophobe because he really was such a terrific guy in so many other ways. Later I did marry, and then finally divorce, a man who was utterly incapable of living within our financial means. (And, yeah, I had beers, in public, with both of them. ;)

Well said, Allison, as you wrote of your own perspective and thus gave us a concrete, not abstract, understanding. Thank you.

Cheryl wrote: "But can't "louts" and bullies do good things?"

They do all the time. JFK and LBJ were terrible men on a personal level, but they advanced the culture in many positive ways and did a lot of good for oppressed minorities. LBJ was a disgusting creep who nevertheless championed women’s rights, banning sex discrimination in the workplace.

Nixon seems to have been a decent family man but was a bully and creep professionally, yet his record on things like healthcare, immigration and civil rights is actually quite good.

Obama is clearly a solid family man who cares deeply about others, yet despite being labeled a Socialist by the GOP, his record on everything from war to immigration to civil rights is actually to the *right* of Nixon. Obama is neither a lout nor a bully, but his actions stand in stark contrast to that.

People are complicated, turns out.

It's absolutely a fuzzy area! Very difficult to figure out for ourselves, let alone for someone else, and I don't envy anyone trying to make those boundaries for themselves.

But to keep it on topic, I'll say that for me hero, friend, someone I recognize as doing good but flawed in ways that prevent my open admiration, and abusers who use respectability politics to avoid consequences are all different, and all present in genre. In fact, I just finished reading Elantris which has people who are doing good within their own definitions of good but who are also guilty of antisocial traits like torture and misogyny. I think this is a fairly typical example of things we see in epic fantasy.

M.L. wrote: "Phillip wrote: Would I have a beer/coffee with the character, knowing a journalist would video/photograph us enjoying ourselves and share it with the world..."

This part of your criteria (above) i..."

Probably conflating journalism with paparazzi.

I often ponder the dichotomy of people. Despite the slur against me for not doing research (which is literally what I do 90% of the time) and maligned as stereotyping people (which I obviously don’t do), I’m interested in the notion that no one is completely evil or totally good. (There are a few exceptions, but I think that they *are* exceptions.)

For instance, I used to date a firefighter/paramedic. After spending time with the whole crew, I kinda didn’t like most of them. I did not want to go to dinner with them or discuss things with them. I found them as a whole to be juvenile and crude and frequently insensitive. Their personal lives were like an especially dysfunctional reality show. They cheated on significant others constantly, and got into brawls. (I was literally stabbed in the back by one while we were in a police bar.)

Yet they are the first ones to show up in your time of need. Most of them were volunteers, who got paid $9 a run. (Not a typo. Nine dollars, whether the call lasted 12 minutes or 12 hours.) They literally saved lives. They gave up their own time in dedication to this passion and the good they did for the community was immeasurable. But my god were they assholes collectively.

It’s a difficult thing to wrap one’s head around, and I don’t see that sort of complexity reflected in literature or film very often. Which is why it’s hard to come up with examples of it.

Cheryl wrote: "But can't "louts" and bullies do good things?"

That's what the @realManBabies want you to believe. And then believe it all the time, and apply it to them.

Trike, don't snip with me. If you don't see it, then maybe you should be careful how you speak, because you're causing harm. You are offending me, personally, a real human person, and others. If you'd like to discuss, you may do so with me or Anna directly, as always.

Here are more complex characters, off the group shelf:

The Collapsing Empire - a protagonist that is crass, shady AF, and somewhat abusive of her power, another who is fairly green and insecure.

The House of the Spirits one of the main characters is a serial rapist and killer, and the others know about it.

An Unkindness of Ghosts - one of the sympathetic characters is a participant in the power structure that promotes slavery.

The Mere Wife - one character has severe PTSD and probably guilty of child neglect/endangerment. The other is classist, racist, petty, a thief, a liar, and a bad mom. There are also cowards, cuckolds, philanderers, murderers...

Warchild - sympathetic characters and war heroes are folks who support or participate in child abuse.

All You Need Is Kill - bro culture, extreme jingoism, racism, misogyny, possible sexual assault but also the "nice" guy.

Witchmark - kind of entirely about how many people the greater good is worth.

Semiosis - meant to sympathize with murderers, womanizers, and racists.

Here and Now and Then - main character is just a dad and a husband and he is soooooo bad at it. So, so bad. But I guess in an endearing way?

Brown Girl in the Ring explores what we forgive and why we get to forgive in people trying to do something good.

The Gospel of Loki is about Loki and his shenanigans

Rosewater - the hero is a self-professed coward, violent, misogynist, and complete asshole most of the time.

That's just from the last year or so. All of these have people that group members have expressed some amount of affection for, and which I can say without a doubt have flaws outside of addiction or adultery.
-----------

ETA I feel this is veering off track, so let's please keep suggestions in our posts and generalizations without very careful couching language to a minimum.

Is Lord Foul's Bane too old to be included in this. It's the first book I think of when people talk about flawed protagonists. I suppose there has been quite a bit of backlash against the book, especially because the book opens with (CW on that spoiler, btw) (view spoiler)[Thomas raping a woman (hide spoiler)], but I also see it still get quite a lot of praise for being a book about a complicated man.

And maybe The Poppy War. The book ends with the protagonist (view spoiler)[committing genocide and feeling justified (hide spoiler)]. It also deals pretty starkly with the realities and atrocities of war.