Heroes can be just as interesting as anti-heroes, in my opinion. There’s something inspiring about watching a genuinely good person struggling with doing the right thing, but doing it anyway. That’s really hard, especially when the circumstances are so dire.
yeah exactly, I always hate it when people go "the villain is always more interesting then the hero" like no that just means you're not putting enough effort into the hero (it's that the villain/hero should complement each other & raise them both up). Like look at spiderman, not dissing any of his villains but he is by far the most interesting character of them, like you said he genuinely wants to do good but in doing so he causes himself grief/causes chaos in his life but he still chooses to do it because it is the right thing. Or superman, i feel people look at him at face value and think he's boring/a goody-goody because he isn't dark like batman or etc. when his character is meant to be an ideal character, a character we should strive to be like (and this helps contrast with lex luthor who has all this power/brilliance but uses it for his own gain while superman uses it to do something as simple as save a cat from a tree), two great superman stories I recommend that explore how you can do alot with a genuinely good character are All Star Superman or the comic "What's so Funny about Truth, Justice, & the American way?" (or it's animated counterpart superman vs the elite)
@@christopherauzenne5023 Agreed. Spider-Man is probably my favorite character of all time. He’s such a good guy but he’s always struggling and that’s so compelling. As far as Superman, I really like the new show “Superman and Lois” so far. Not only is it nice to see a heroic, dorky Superman, but it’s also nice to see him be an equally heroic father. Even if it’s still CW, it’s *good* CW.
@@christopherauzenne5023 I think you're right about spider man. He's more interesting than the villains. Batman is the opposite, in my opinion. He's boring, and the villains are interesting. So it can go either way. Just depends on the skill of the writer.
But I can see how it can be kind of bland if not executed properly. If you don’t mind, I am going to use the Star Wars sequel trilogy as an example. Spoilers: Many people hate Rey because she is seen as the mary sue (which I don’t think she is). She has not won every battle and she could not save every person like Han. At first, she could not stop Kylo Ren from getting knside of her head until she just said to herself and enough and kept on fighting. I don’t think this showed very well. I think their original intention besides having the bad ass female heroine is showing how she constantly struggles to do the right thing even if she is tempted not to like when she starts falling for Ben inside Kylo Ren. She wants to join him despite it not being the right thing. She goes against Luke when she bonds with him through the force. Now Kylo Ren is the more compelling character. He dealt with an Uncle who faced Darth Vader in the eye and still believed in the food in him inly to nearly kill his freaking nephew over the same thing. If I were Han and Leia, I would have freaking smacked him. Maybe lecture him because hitting is wrong. Anyways, Luke did not give Ben a chance to try to be good which left him in the hands if Snoke. Each film, you see this internal struggle for him to be good and this is where Rey comes in to be that catalyst. However, he is in so deep, he chooses the wrong thing instead until his final conversation with his dad. The part that makes me mad is why is it easier making your lead male compelling, but not your female lead. The female is just another character. Just write her as another character versus trying to please the audience with what you think they want which is a problem with the entire series. Thor Skywalker (a UA-cam channel) had a video discussing how the sequel triology wrote their films due to what they saw in spreadsheets and polls versus listening to the actual fans. I get it. You can’t please everyone, but they wanted more development in Rey and Fin and Rose and Poe, etc. It was possible. However, they were so worried what fans would think, they did not stop to listen to the fans.
I love how Aang's journey fits in every comment about good way to write heros. Avatar has done so many things right, and the story of the hero Aang is no exception.
The one flaw it had was the deus ex machina (Lionturtle) at the end, to have a perfect solution to the problem just turn up is a little meh! I know it's a kids show, but with a little more planning it could have been even better (than great).
@@pedanticperson1149 Yeah. I don't have any real complaints about the lion turtles themselves, but more about how they and the concept of spiritbending/energybending weren't brought up until the finale. If the Lion Turtles and the concept of bending the energy inside of people had been brought up in episodes like The Swamp or The Guru, I feel like the series would've benefitted greatly.
My 2 year old is watching this with me and she pointed and said "Mirabel!" So... just know, a toddler somewhere thinks you are from her favorite movie 🙂
My 16 year old is watching this with me and he pointed and said "Mia Khalifa!" So ... just know, a teenager somewhere thinks you are from her favourite movie 🙂
these types of videos are also really helpful for people who like writing (me) who need advice on how to write certain tropes/characters. thank you for this video!!
I feel like Geralt is it an intensely morally gray world, so he's not really sure how to be a hero, so he kind of a stumbles upon being one accidentally. And boy o boy, do people write songs about him!!
Because his world resembles real world - he is trying to be good but the choices he is put against are never good. It will always end up "badly" for the side he didn't pick. I think Netflix missed the mark with this, since this was never ment to be a story about becoming a hero.
The point of heroes sticking to their morals when the rest of the world tries to rip it away, and a villain that challenges those morals-- oh man that gets me. I'm reminded of Heaven Official's Blessing's main character Xie Lian, specifically that scene in Book Foure
As you say, "the Hero's Journey" was just an observation about stories by Joseph Campbell, and really the only (arguably good) story that copied the hero's journey verbatim was Star Wars. Going back to Cambell's sources, you can see that each story had its own twist. Gilgamesh goes out and comes back. Achilles goes out in a blaze of glory. Odysseus takes his sweet time coming back. etc. So moving forward each hero's story will have their own twists. The narrower we define heroism, the more boring our heroes become.
Argumently the epos of gilgamesu is not a heros journey, but a medicine journey where its more about a guy that does stuff, finds the love off his life/partner, they have the best time , one dies, (ok its inluencing romances a loot too) , one griefs an cant heal and so he goes literally to the underworld to get immortal becaue of crippling fear to die scared . And he gains the wisdom to not need to be immortal, get the immortility by just being a better king that will be remebered and his legacy. An the dying and going back wiser not needing what cheat they wanted , is more the medicine journey than the heroes one. Also in most tragic romances. It build the ground for way more than hero journeys, and is far more. No surprise as it influenced a lot. There is gurren laggan, that excelent adopts not only a heroes journey, but the epos of gilgamesh with its themes of humanity and that. Just with a brother than .. . Excelent adaption of the epos of gilgaesh. It also is sad, and very hype uplifting and that, but enough sad.
Luffy doesn’t want to be a hero, as heroes have to share their food. The thing is he keeps sharing his food. Luffy is a hero, made more selfless by not wanting to be one.
Kaladin is the only fictional character I can see myself in, his internal pain is just- it's a reflection of myself when I'm at my lowest and I love him! Kaladin is my way and guide through processing my emotions and that ladies and gentlemen is AMAZING
Heros aren’t always good people who make great choices. I think a hero really just boils down to saving the day and protecting people. I don’t think heroes even have to have good intentions, just as long as they get the job done.
I would say this describes Glokta from First Law. He's terrible person, he's doing terrible things but he sort of helps people by doing these things as well. 🤷♀️
Honestly, I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a protagonist who is "perfectly good." The majority I've seen have been either morally grey, defiant against something, or has a character flaw. The only "pure good" character I can think about is Pattington Bear 🐻
This video got me teared up. I’m a writer-wannabe and I struggle with confidence. The biggest reason is because my passion project has an abnormal structure. Everywhere I look, people say “three act structure”. “Events happen in this order.” Then I look at my work, and hate it. And in addition hate myself a bit more. I don’t know if I am a good enough writer to pull off the “different structure”, but it means a lot to know that people out there would be open to it.
Self-doubt is something every artist struggles with, new or experienced. Every writer is different in how they overcome it, so I can't give personalized advice. If you were to ask, I would say this: write a story that you yourself would want to read, and use writing advice and writing guides as they are. Advice and a guide. They are not hard and fast rules on how to tell the best story. And even if they were, better to create art that you love than art that makes you successful, because if you love your stories, you will want to keep making them. Keep at it and don't be afraid to take a mental health break when you need it. Writing is a marathon, not a sprint. Hope it works out.
I think what we *need* is people to move away from the "three act structure". A lot of the books being written now are starting to follow the same old structures that are making the YA saturated and in some cases, even normal novels because of how many people are trying to read the YA more than normal novels. Sometimes, You just have to take the plunge even when you're not confident in your work. (I have yet to publish a book, but that's because I haven't finished writing.) I hadn't personally seen people saying "3 acts are the only way", but I believe it when you say it's what you see due to other advice I've seen where it's like "... but that's not fact though?" Also if you want to publish your first work, Do so. I've been seeing people saying "Don't publish your first book. Use that as your learning tool. You'll only be embarrassed that the first book exists" and that's not encouraging to people like myself and yourself. Because you want to get it out there. And half the time, it also their learning experience on their *audience* they would attract as well. Telling someone *not* to publish their first book usually keeps a person from getting more stories out there. Same with short stories and all that. So I say experiment with your work and do what *you* feel will make a good story or what you would personally want to see in a story. Not all Classics are a 3 act books. and neither should all books.
Write what you wan to write, and different, is good if you know what you want aand have a plan. Which you sound like. If you know what you want unusual is very much a strengh. If its some mystery how many peoples stories paint a picture , good luck. And if it shouldnt work at the first try, you can try again, like everything in life usually, just use what you learned Its fine to have a conventional structure but nby no ans you shoulsnt try doing it in another structure, that too told epic stories, or your whatever you want there. Good luck, and kep it up, and b nice to yourself, its not a requirement for a writer to have horrible selfcare, i someone tells you writer have to suffer have to do a 3 act, ignore them. There are no rules, only guidelines that you can ignore if you want to. And be nice to yourself, apearently writers are plagued wih the myth of the starving bad selfcae artist, thats not good.
The Hobbit is a good example of an unusual story structure done well. The whole story is building up to the confrontation with the main villain, Smaug, and yet after he dies, the conflict isn't over. There's a standoff between the dwarves and the elves and the people of Laketown, and then there's the Battle of Five Armies. It works for a few reasons. For one, it doesn't ruin Bilbo's character arc. He gets his final tests of character when he faces Smaug and when he attempts to end the standoff peacefully rather than try to keep the riches to himself as much as he can. Also, the book doesn't introduce any new characters or factions after Smaug's death. All of the events afterwards were set up earlier on. That being said, Bard and his arrow being introduced just as Smaug reaches Laketown is a Deus Ex Machina. Finally, the subversions are meaningful. You get the feeling that the conflict should be over by now, were it not for the dwarves' greed, and The Battle of Five Armies drives home the point that the world doesn't revolve around Bilbo.
I feel like Fitz from the Fareer/other Elderling books is a good example of a non-morally gray hero who also isn’t a boring lump. He doesn’t really have that questionable morality (or at least not where i am in the series) that has become so popular but he’s still interesting. He makes mistakes, he feels emotions, he is allowed to choose and drive the story.
His moral greyness come from his sheer pragmatism. He has his loved ones, and would do anything to protect them. He'll lie, cheat, steal, murder, torture, if he thinks it will keep those he loves safe. The interesting part of his character is that he genuinely doesn't want to do them, but will, if necessary, with very little hesitation.
I think the morally good hero is more interesting especially if the problem doesn't have a morally right answer. Then again aniheroes been oversaturated lately.
One of my favorite Hero's stories is the TV show 'Merlin'. It is a story most people know. The show hits a lot of the classic beats. Yet, between having Merlin and Arthur be two sides of the same arrogant and righteous coin, honestly difficult agonizing choices(i.e. Medievil which trials), Merlin unable to tell Arthur anything until the last moments of the show, while keeping his moral core - I love it. Also, the acting is exceptional.
One thing that I don’t want is for the classic heroes story to go away. I love those stories, I don’t want writers to think they can’t use it anymore. Of course, like everything, it must be done right. I just really love a good guy who knows what is right, who tries to do what is right to the best of his ability. That doesn’t mean he’s flawless in the story, in fact he might still have huge moral pitfalls. I just think there are a lot of people who actually can relate to that. To doing what is right, in the right way, the best they can. Btw, a historical example of this is Booker T. Washington.
One of my favorite hero is Newt Scamander, from fantastic beast. I love how awkward and bad at socializing to people he is, but, when it comes to magic creatures, he's the best both at socializing and at understanding them. He also doesn't get involved in these political things and in the war that's happening. He just wants to live his life and study and write books about magic creatures. He's such a strong and badass wizard too. He's the perfect hero for me.
Every time I watch one of Merphy's dear author videos it always sends my mind racing and wanting to write. Thanks Merph, you just got me out of a writer's block 😁
Interesting, I have always thought of morality-immorality as being on a separate spectrum from hero-villain. IMO it's totally fine to call a morally gray character a hero; I don't think that they are mutually exclusive at all.
You are correct. All the Greek heroes except Hercules and Perseus where terrible people. And even Hercules committed manslaughter. The comics code is probably responsible for this incorrect modern association.
Shirou from Fate/Stay Night comes to mind for a few of these points. Firstly, the one about how a hero needs to have character traits and personality outside of being a hero and wanting to do the right thing - his whole character arc(s) is basically a deep dive on what it would be like for someone to actually only care about being a hero, to the exclusion of everything else, and how deeply unhealthy that would be. Like, people see how good he is at cooking and think "oh, that's his hobby" - but when someone mentions this to him, his response is to be confused and go "no, I just have to do it every day so I ended up getting good at it". And, secondly, the idea of someone who thinks they have what it takes to be a hero, right until they find themselves in that situation and discover that they really don't - especially at the start of the story, when he keeps throwing himself into dangerous situations against foes who are way out of his league, and then gets beaten down completely (while the competent people around him are yelling at him to just stay back and let them handle it). Though, in his case, even though he realizes that he isn't strong enough, his total obsession and lack of self preservation means he keeps trying regardless.
One book series that sticks out to me for a Hero who is held up by his allies and friends is the Dresden Files. He is constantly challenged to stay on his path and do what he feels is right. Very solid series for the hero who gets tested and needs help to stand up for what he feels is right.
Back in university I took a screenwriting class, and-- maybe this isn't typical in other such courses-- I remember feeling frustrated by how rigid the structure was expected to be. We talked about the Hero's Journey, of course, and then broke down which beats of it were expected to happen by which page. Screenwriting is obviously different than writing a novel or other formats where you aren't so restricted by run time or page number limits, but at the same time it just felt like such a cookie cutter method of telling a story that it was really restrictive. I found myself less focused on what I wanted the story to be and more concerned with making sure I got a story beat to happen by a specific page (and sometimes even manufacturing a story beat I didn't want to fit the prescribed outline). All that to say that my deep and abiding irritation with the misunderstanding about what the Hero's Journey is and what it was for is unending and all-consuming. It isn't a formula to tell every story to, just plug in different characters and specific circumstances and there you go. Just as you said, it's the opposite of that, it was just an observation by Joseph Campbell at a similar pattern appearing in a lot of ancient stories. That isn't to say that using it to construct a satisfying story is inherently bad, but assuming that it's the only "proper" way to structure anything is so constricting to the art and creativity in crafting a narrative that says and does what the author actually wants to say. It stifles what storytelling should be about, which is just... telling the story the way it needs to be told! And yeah, then you end up with an audience that knows how the story is going to end before they even watch it, and it gets really boring. Sometimes you want the comfort of that familiarity, you want the satisfaction and the safety of that in a comfort food sort of way. But the lack of any alternatives just stagnates the entire experience of watching or reading anything after a while. Stories *can* be comfortable and soothing, but they can-- and should-- also be challenging and surprising and leave the audience with questions and uncertainties and things to ponder and debate with others, and sometimes a new way of looking at something (the world, other people, themselves) that they didn't have before.
@@FM95.5 Exactly! Just because one particular type of structure definitely holds a [metaphorical ]house up, doesn't mean you can't experiment or get a little creative modifying a structure slightly or try out other styles of structuring things too; not every type of structure will always hold up or hold up as well as others do, but that doesn't mean you can't find some new or other styles that actually do hold up just fine! 🙂 (Not to mention the fact that, sometimes, different structures are just going to appeal equally as much but in totally different ways and/or to totally different people.) Different ways work for different folks, and no one particular singular way or another is always the "only" way. Structure is a guideline - a starting point for those who want &/or need one(Or I suppose maybe a way of double-checking how soundly your own structure is holding everything together after it's already been built, if that even makes sense) - it's not a mandatory stranglehold. ^-^
This is my absolute favorite series that you do/ have done! It’s such a fun and interesting way to discuss topics in books to see what people love and don’t like!
In my experience, many characters who are considered "morally gray" aren't really. Often they are heroic by nature, but circumstances or setting prevent them from acting like in a way we'd be consider heroic on the surface (like Geralt). Or often the character just has bad judgement, trying to do the right thing but actually doing the wrong thing. The worst is when the author tries too hard to make their character gray like they're playing an RPG with good and evil points and need to collect equal points to keep the character in the middle, so they'll just alternate between good and bad deeds on the fly seemingly randomly.
I think in a lot of media when we see the typical hero of the story, it’s usually the same personality type, their traits and arcs are flat, the character is one dimensional, has no real justice, etc. It would be great if we could properly see and connect with the decisions and actions our hero does, and to see the hero detailed and fleshed out like a real person. For example, when we see a pure hero who does the right thing no matter what, a lot of the times we the readers don’t quite understand what it means to choose good every time despite all the trauma the hero might’ve gone through. Speaking from personal experience, when you have trauma that actually affects you, it can be difficult to stay kind and optimistic when your hurting and angry. Have your hero deal with the frustrations of their reality, have them breakdown and feel like a person with real feelings. Do it in a way that connects with people and that connects with you as the author. Bonus points: the hero’s life usually isn’t the whole plot. Add to their actual personality, hobbies, strengths etc. have their relationships with different people, be different. Have them have banter with close friends, be gentle with others, be sarcastic around family. It’s the small things that help.
Take superman, superman as just a bundle of powers i boring, the interesting part is how he as human person reacts and how that clashes wiith the fassade he puts up as role model, an the struggle and ho hard that can be.
My personal favorite flaw for a hero is a flaw that is also a strength. For example if the hero can compartmentalize really well thus allowing them to be great in a crisis. On the other hand they are not great at unpacking what they went through. So they developed by cooping habits. Such as looking for answers one too many times at the bottom of a bottle.
Frodo isn't really a great example as Sam is the actual hero, to which Tolkien himself agreed. He lives everything Frodo lives, but he is sort of his unmovable rock that almost never falters and does the right thing. Of course, he is imperfect and sometimes gets frustrated, but he is quite regularly heroic.
I think i feel quite different than a lot of people here it seems. Especially on things like the reluctant hero trope - i don't like it and it's one of those things that really take me out of immersion because it feels so... fictional. I especially despise when a plot of a story is filled with deus ex machina to push the character forward (in a positive direction) despite their reluctant (and maybe even destructive) agency. The issue is that I feel a lot of people romanticize internal struggle and staggeringly underestimate reluctance. I am in a position where I personally know a lot of people who do enormous amounts of good for not that much reward. The vast majority of adversity in their lives is external not internal. People who are reluctant to walk that kind of path in life almost exclusively don't do it, and those who are not - generally are quite passionate about it. One can only romanticize reluctance because they want to fantasize about overcoming it in a safe environment - at home with a warm drink plus blanket and book in the lap. It's not a bad thing, of course, but I do not believe it warrants attaching labels of great/bad writing to stories that do/don't serve that purpose. At the end of the day, I suppose it just irks me when the quality of a fictional character is set up as proportional to their internal strife. There are a lot of stories where I really yearn for external factors to matter and not just be little more than foils for a character that primarily struggles interally.
"I am in a position where I personally know a lot of people who do enormous amounts of good for not that much reward. The vast majority of adversity in their lives is external not internal. People who are reluctant to walk that kind of path in life almost exclusively don't do it, and those who are not - generally are quite passionate about it. " i don't disagree, but they still need to face struggles. like, no matter how passionate you are about helping, the problems that you deal with will affect you mentally. having the hero just always succeed is just unrealistic. and when faced with failure and hardship, no matter how passionate they are, they will start to have doubts or frustration, and sure, they can push through them, but you still need to showcase their internal struggle so when they push through regardless it feels more compelling and realistic. and i can assure you, from a personal experience, no matter how passionate about something, the external obstacles will eventually become internal as well, even if you still end up pushing forward.
Holy fuc, YES, absolutely dam hit it in the nail! This is one of the reason why I just don't seem to have the enthusiasm to read many fantasy novels. They're not bad at all but as yu said it, the reluctant hero thingy is kind of romanticized. And speaking from experience (and currently experiencing), my personality fits right with the reluctant/internally struggling (emphasis on internally struggling) hero trope. Most of my life I wanted to do something about my dreams, my creative ideas, Abt stories that I want to write. But I always find myself doubtful of my capabilities and skills despite the fact that I know that what I got is enough to achieve sumtin. And at the end of the day, I always ended doing nothing, abandoning projects before it could even properly start, because I kept on being doubtful and reluctant of my capabilities. And I would get so frustrated becuz I'm bloody aware that my skills are enough, my ideas are creative enough, they're not the best things, I know that. They're not like the next Lord of The Rings, duh I get it becuz that was never the point. And yet, I keep stopping. I keep on doing and finishing nothing, all becuz I'm so full of shitty doubts and anxieties. And when I look at other ppl who are the same age as me out there killing it. And it made me wonder how they do it. Call it arrogant but when I compare myself to them skill wise, I can actually see myself managing to atleast keep up. But when I compare their achievements to mine, mine's nonexistent and there they are with a buttload. And what's the key difference between me and them? It's becuz they're confident and they believe in themselves. They have a healthy view of their person. They have their doubts and insecurities, but they have sumting strong to counteract it. And most of them grew up well, nurtured properly that's why they have confidence. Yes some are not born previliged but they grew up mentally healthy becuz they have loving parents or theirs someone in their life that helped grow their confidence. What I'm saying is, internally strong ppl actually get shit done, while bitches like me who struggle internally are all bark with no bite (basically I can have all the best ideas for a story, but so what, I never write them anyways becuz I'm emotionally stunted, meaning I'm so full of shit that is self doubt). And I'm pretty sure this should apply to the fictional plane of existence as well.
I agree that it's also nice to read about/see the confident hero, who is sure of their path and their abilities and only faces external threats. It's not necessarily bad writing. However, I disagree about the reluctant hero being 'fictional'. Writing about internal struggles doesn't mean it's romanticized, it's just something that is happening and something thatbis also realistic. I think there's a big difference between reluctance towards a goal overall and reluctance towards specific quests or tasks that are necessary for achieving that goal. Many reluctant hero characters find themselves in bad situations where there is nothing to be passionate about - they just have to get through it. They can find their own strength when they are tested, but without having been in that situation before they often naturally doubt their own abilities. That's not fictional but exists in real life. On the other hand many of these reluctant heros are passionate about what they want to achieve, and in the end that's why they will do the task. Like, it's difficult to be passionate about walking into Mordor and probably committing suicide, but there is no question about Frodo's desire to save Middle-earth and especially the Shire. Without that passion, if you will, he wouldn't have been able to try it.
@@blazypika2 "having the hero just always succeed is just unrealistic." I think I was bad at conveying my thoughs because this is not what I meant at all. If anything, it actually kind of demonstrates my issue - the perception that internal struggles is the only thing that holds the hero back from success. A core summary of my personal DON'T(s) in this context would be: 1) The story should not find convenient ways to push the character forward (in a positive direction) when the character is reluctant or have destrictive internal struggles. 2) External struggles should matter and not just be an extension of internal struggles, to be overcome the moment the character figures themselves out. The latter I also kind of blame on many authors struggling with writing compelling scenarios for obstacles and overcoming them. It's a weird tangent, but McGuyver would not work as a show if each episode was about him struggling with, let's say, depression - and once he manages to overcome it enough to get motivated, then he just goes into a warehouse and offscreen makes a perfect solution to whatever is the obstacle. He still has internal struggles but dealing with the external problems in great detail is a core part of the expierience. My issue is that many stories are almost exclusively focused on the internal world of the characters and neglect the world around them. So I kind of have the same issue as you - heroes should not always succeed. But especially when we are talking about reluctant heroes, overcoming that is just the first step - now you actually have to deal with the issue. Otherwise - it's absurd to have a hero who can trivially make a huge impact but just... kinda don't wanna.
@@Lothiril I think we have a bit of a semantic issue here. I would not put confident as the opposite of reluctant. Motivated would be a much better word. I think what I meant to convey in my previous comment was that I dislike... posturing? I guess I could put it that way. A hero that hates what they need to do but do it anyway is not reluctant. They are just grumpy. A reluctant hero should actively use their agency to not do things related to their goals. It's a destructive trait and the story should portray it as such. It's why I said that these kinds of traits are often romanticized or fictional - because they take something we can relate to (I don't want to do this) but show a character that overcomes it (does the thing anyway). I really dislike that because it creates this romanticized world where people who don't have motivation still have incredible achievments. And it really just does not work out that way the vast majority of the time (and when it does, it's because of some kind of privilege). The bottom line is that the reluctance should be something that continually sabotages the hero.
The struggle I have been seeing from a lot of writers of late (movies and TV) is a lack of humility in the hero, I’m glad you mentioned that. Captain Marvel leaps to mind; the most powerful hero, never questions if she should have that power or worries she’ll be tempted to abuse it, actually seems to use her strength to justify her actions in some of the comics. Like, that’s scary, not uplifting.
I have serious issues with our modern interpretation of "MORALLY GRAY". Pretty much ALL characters I've read over the past several years that are labeled as morally gray, are actually pretty evil. Somehow people view someone that doesn't give a hoot about those around them as "morally gray"??? Treating others like junk and being a general jerk is not "morally gray", it is plain being a bad person. That's why I lean towards "good guy" heroes. YES, I believe that a hero needs to be flawed to be interesting. But you can be a realistically flawed person, and still be TRYING to do the right thing. There are plenty of heroes who want to save people and do good, but they have bad habits, they are psychologically damaged, they make big mistakes, etc.... I guess I view a "good guy" vs a "bad guy" by the INTENTION of the character. And to me, that is not a matter of "moral grayness". A true hero is morally good, but they mess up along the way and may hurt others or do bad things to achieve the ultimate good. But that's just my 2 cents.
I would like to see some heroes that are good and strong and do the right thing, but in the end fail anyway. I feel like in stories where the good guy fails it is always because of some bad decision or because of a character flaw. I would like to see one where, like in real life things just go wrong. Or where the fail because of what makes them good. Like maybe they arent willing to do something morally wrong to win and because of that the evil side defeats them. Like for example if after Luke refuses to kill his Vadar and fight in anger he is killed/captured and the rebels defeated. Luke would still be the same hero, but the story would be totally different.
I feel like spiderman tackles that idea, just not in a villain wins type of way, in his stories his double life as spiderman constantly screws with or even ruins his normal life which causes him misery but in the end he still chooses to put on the suit because it is the right thing to do/he can make a difference even if it means giving up his life (as in social life/dreams)
Maybe try Witcher - it's not really what you described but I think it might be satisfying for you in some ways. I don't want to say what I mean by that because of spoilers. But that aspect of failing even if you try to do the good thing is definitely there.
You mentioned that the hero's story is not very popular right now, and honestly that was evident from many of the comments you read out. Personally though I really enjoy it and wish we saw it more in modern SFF. Heroes can be interesting people, especially if they have flaws or are fallible, but actually even seemingly perfect hero characters can work - just look at the success of Superman or Captain America. The trick is to a) surround them with different personalities (put Steve in a room with Tony Stark and you have magic) or b) give them emotional consequences (struggling with keeping family relationships for example).
My favourite type of hero is someone like Vander from Arcane or All might from MHA. Like heroic mentor figures that seem capable of taking anything on and come out on top, until they can't anymore and now the flawled protagonist has to step up and become the new hero. I love this because the mentor gives me a sense of safety whenever he steps up. Like "ok, he's here now, were gonna be just fine". So when he can't be there anymore I get genuine anxiety and find myself very invested in the protagonist's journey to fill that role, and make me feel safe again
Love Dear authors! Need more! - Maybe: Flashbacks Backstory Prose Middle book syndrome. Creating "Heart tugging" characters to horrifically die, or some other such event, ,then that have no impact on the plot
As soon as I saw this, I jumped with joy!! You have no idea how much I enjoy laughing and learning through your dear authors' series and how helpful they are when it comes to my writing🧡
My favorite Heros in fiction will always be the Heroic but often flawed champions in David Gemmells books. They aren't always the strongest, they aren't always the quickest or best or youngest. But when when tough come to show they bite down on their convictions and really fight for it to the best of their ability. David Gemmell himself said in interviews that he wanted to inspire people to be heroic and I really think that comes through in a wonderful way.
I am at this point where I love unexpected twists on popular tropes in stories, but now THOSE tropes are becoming so popular that I'm now kinda missing the original structure - and honestly, reading a book with that original structure could even be more surprising than not
I think there's a misunderstanding of the Hero's Journey. The monomyth is about common aspects of the stories human tell. No one uses the Hero's Journey as a template... it's something that arises naturally. Also... it doesn't says the character needs to be "heroic". Odysseus was a awful person who murdered a bunch of men just because they started courting his wife after he was presumed dead after 20 years of being away. The Lies of Locke Lamora follows the Hero's Journey perfectly beat by beat. Tyler Durden from Fight Club also follows the hero's journey.
You have a valid point. But, at the same time, in current days _lots_ of people actually *do* follow the hero-journey(&/or another story that has it) as a template.. 😅
Uh... The hero's journey was coined and most well known as explained by Joseph Campbell who wrote it in "a hero with a thousand faces". It is a post study of the plot and arch of the most notorious and well preserved mythos of the world. It is the story that humans most bond to. Hence the success of HP, LOR, STAR WARS, MCU, ETC.
Luffy at the beginning of the story was pretty unstoppable it wasn’t until his defeat by Crocodile in Alabasta but really more so what really brought Luffy to the point where he seemed more relatable is losing his crew at Sabaody and losing Ace at the battle of Marineford because it was at those points he found out that he couldn’t just beat anyone that there were people out there a lot more powerful than him.
Well someone who believes himself to be more than he actually is and then gets some lessons in humility is Sokka from ATLA. I mean at first he so desperately wants to lead, but he is not good at it and that strikes him, but later on he will learn.
another character i would like to bring up in terms of the hero’s story is superman from the DCEU. A LOT of people hate BVS and man of steel because it’s “a dark take” or because he’s not the smiling hero we always see in the comics, but i think his arc is amazing. Especially in BVS when he has to choose what role he wants to play in the world when some see him as a horrible alien and others look up to him as a god. and this is especially interesting because he’s the most powerful being on earth, meaning if he wanted to, he could destroy the planet, but he’s just a good person who wants to the right thing although there’s the fact that he CANT SAVE EVERYONE. It’s such a beautiful story that has stuck with me for a while now and I really appreciate Zack taking such an interesting route.
Yuji Itadori is a great examle of a tragic "hero". (Jujutsu Kaisen manga spoilers!!!): Yuji's development from idealistic young man who wants to save everyone and wants them to have the "proper death" to a person who realises he is naive and is not the hero he thought he was but is same as his biggest enemy and his change in goals as a result of the things that happend in the dark world he lives in is really really good imo. (Edit: also his change feels really natural. We have been trough a lot with him and everything feels earned, especially when he wins which is very very very rare.) At the end, Yuji is not the chosen one, he is the cursed one.
Thank you for this. These videos have really grown into something else. They've become almost aesthetic in the way that you put your opinions across, and also flesh out important points. Also, to summarize this in a short space of time shows a profound and intuitive understanding of what makes a story work.
Murph i haven't seen your videos in over a year. Shoutout to UA-cam. I randomly thought of books and searched for your channel to find you again. Good to be back
I think there's also a very specific archetype of a hero that occurs at the start of most fantasy books: they're a young boy, probably 15-20 years old. They might have a scar, they probably live on a farm, have an extremely loyal, red-headed sidekick and live with a father figure who, whether they know it or not, isn't actually their biological father. I know not all these apply to all the characters I'm going to mention, but this reminds me of Harry, Frodo, Eragon and Rand, and I imagine there's many more. It's just something I noticed and thought was funny
I don't know how you feel about grim fantasy but I think you would love Guts's journey from Berserk. It's such a great heroic character. Denji from Chainsaw Man is also an amazing hero. Most Shonen are stories of heroes so I would recomand some that are more interesting. My Hero Academia, Mob Psycho 100 and One Punch Man, Full Metal Alchemist. Trigun and Raruoni Kenshin are amazing Heroes Stories. Also I remember that you mention that you want to read Fruits Basket and some may laugh at my opinion but I think that Tohru Honda is amazing as a hero. You should also read or watch Ynuiashiki by Hiruya Oku. All Oku's works are amazing non-conventional heroes journeys but I feel that Inuyashiki is the most accessible to start.
I love heroes but I don't wanna be one! Do you know what heroes are? Say there is a chunk of meat. heroes will share it with other people. I want all the meat.
This is pretty ridiculous but I genuinely loveee Mike Wazoski from Monsters Inc in Monsters University! His brilliant can do attitude and deep set desire to be a scarer was so interesting to watch especially as he is always working harder and smarter than others to get what hes wanted forever. Pitted against Sully whose had everything handed to him makes his character arc so satisfying because you're rooting for him the entire way. You understand the gravity of succeeding in Monsters University is to him so his downfalls are yours and his wins are also yours because you want him to get it so badly! He's the traditional "good guy" with no moral complexities but is still a really interesting character because of all the obstacles in the way of his success. Such a phenomenal movie
I think people get to hung up on trying to seperate characters, and sometimes real people, into heroes and villains. In most cases there's a lot more nuance there than someone just being good or evil.
He's not a hero, he's a witcher. He's hus own man I couldn't call Geralt a hero because he is his own man and dies what he thinks is right. Heroes are essential propaganda. Geralt isn't propaganda.
@@MRJDXTRA The only case where a hero would be propaganda is if someone in power told you they were a hero, when they weren't. But the beauty of heroes is that we can choose them ourselves. They are IDEALS, not propaganda. If you don't think Geralt is a hero, that's fine for you, but he sure is in my book.
I... was not expecting to receive a compliment from someone whose opinion I so highly respect. Merphy, you are the reason I started reading fiction again. Your combination of critical analysis and passionate emotion, and your ability to translate what you think and feel into your videos was enough to get me to resume my nightly reading. Sincerely, thank you for your kind words.
The morality comment is basically talking about ideas that the whole of the Netflix show Jupiter’s Legacy is based around. It’s all about a Superman stand-in trying to maintain his ideals and his code even when everyone else has abandoned it and ideas surrounding that.
At 8:00, when you're talking about the hero who actually thinks they can take on the challenge but then realize that it's harder than they thought, it makes me think of Spensa in the the first Skyward book! I loved her evolution.
My favourite is a tragic hero like *Ephraim "Eph" Goodweather* from *THE STRAIN* trilogy...he was a great man, the best in his field at the start and he barely became a shadow of his former self at the end. After all that he still able to finished the task he meant to do...
I kinda hate that because superman is one of the greatest heroes in fiction but him being so good often causes ppl to be bored by him n say he has no depth because of it but there's so many great storylines that show that his ideal is to be inspiration for good in all mankind
Someone can certainly right a hero that represents good an a great way. But it is SO true that those heroes are frowned upon these days, which just makes them that much harder to write because people are quick to criticize.
Thats when writer forget writing him as human person dealing with that responsibility, and his life in general. Thats why he likes oiccationally letting steam off, its a tough job being superman. But when there is that moments as reminder, he is still a human if an absurd patient one, then he is great. I would say he is the example, of, allow your hero to be human too or they will not be interesting.
As I said in the post, I just need the Hero to be entertaining first and foremost. Whether they're deep, simple, morally gray or not, I just gotta have fun when they're on screen. The last comment about how viewers/readers find the Heroes journey structure predictable makes sense, but ultimately I can't ever get tired when I just have a good ass time with whatever main dude or dudette I'm following. That's my priority always. Though if not them on their own, having side characters that they work super well with is another alternative
Completely reasonable and I can think of many stories where I agree with you. My comment was meant more in a macro sense, with respect to the trend, as opposed to individual readers.
I would only add that a paragon of a hero that does the right thing and does it well can be interesting if you focus in on what effect such a character has on the world around them, on the people they meet both allies and enemies.
This was definitely some valuable insight. I do tend to love characters/stories that are unpredictable and deviate from traditional expectations. If I can guess where they’re going, I lose interest fairly quickly.
Hands down my favourite hero's journey is Keladry in the Protector of the Small series by Tamora Pierce. She has to struggle against the external social structure and maintains what is the me a key aspect for a hero - protecting those most vulnerable in the story
AAAAHHHH MERPHY, I really sympathize with reading translated books, and the pronunciation of names varies from person to person (I spent the first 3 SA books reading "taravanganianan") but Geralt is pronounced with a hard 'g' like in "graphic"
Love this series so much I listened to all the ads just to give you the revenue and boost the video. I see your view count isn’t as high on these as the ones about the cartoon/anime (I don’t know what it is... One something) and I don’t want you to stop these!
A hero requires a passive (or active) code. They must by consequence be larger than life, people whose moral certainty comes from their conviction and resolve rather than the veracity of their arguments. Any person can act a hero just like any person can cook a meal. But to be a chef and to be a cook are rather separate identities. Most superheroes follow a code and are therefore a force of nature. The moment you dwell on common folk rising to a cause you invariably enter a stage of 'grey' or elsewise fail at characterizing the 'hero' because that character is motivated to do good for some external reason. Lacking any nuance behind their decision making will just leave them to be a shallow peg used to piece together plot of similar quality. Icons like Holmes, Conan, Batman, etc. are methodical in their nature. They each have a reason for why they are what they are, but that is irrelevant to the actual story being told. Much of how they persist remains in a grey area. They are heroes because they are heroic in their very identity, and therefore must be kept at a distance from the reader. The moment an author digresses into explaining every facet of their thought process, every doubt, every indecision, that is the moment that mysticism ends. That is the moment the hero dies. They are flawed and they do have a breaking point, but that in itself is left a mystery. Grey characters are as such because that is the nature of human emotions. The more realistic one makes a character, the further they enter that 'morally grey' stage regardless of their initial starting point. A classic hero through and through has to be morally ambiguous and ideologically driven, not personally motivated. The hero exists on another plain and to strip them bare and take off their mask is to decimate their moral certitude and drive a stake through their every aspiration. So to recap: a hero must be methodical, ideological, and distant. Thoughts and surface motivations can be indulged, but there needs be room for speculation and ambiguity. Readers must be able to interpret and deconstruct these figures. Once they become personalized to the point of familiarity and predictability they become less than.
Great video Merphy. ☕ There are different types of heroes who work with different types of stories that can be equally enjoyable in different ways. I find the weirdest kind best; e.g. when the heroes motivations are shrouded in mystery but their actions are consistent (I'm probably talking about protagonist instead of hero). P. S. Not sure if it's just me, but the colours in the background are looking much more vibrant and overall much better.
After reading fantasy for 3 years my favorite hero is still Peter Parker. I just think he's so inspirational, he has such a rough time and is beaten again and again (especially in that PHENOMENAL ps4 game, best spidey story ive ever experienced), but he STILL chooses to be optimistic and not let it destroy his heart. He might be a bit unrealistic but to me he's literally the embodiment of empathy and unlimited compassion.
I love morally gray characters, I just feel like that builds realism, but I also like that play with "Chaotic vs. Order" story telling thing that seems to be popular in Japanese fiction where sometimes the protagonist isn't really perfect or maybe the villain is the perfect and just one... but I think what I really like about Heroes are Heroes that aren't necessarily popular or seen heroic in their worlds (or even typically tropes). I think that has been consistent my entire life among favorite heroes wither we are talking about books where I liked a lot of stories with twist were things like dragons were protagonists, to loving super heroes like the X-Men and Spiderman, to even Anime like One Piece.
Speaking as an author, I think another reason heroes have a reputation for being boring is that they are manufactured with a label slapped on them. It's easy to say a character is good, but it is difficult to make them nuanced and human because the label doesn't come with that. Anti-heroes and morally gray characters come pre-packaged with angst and intrigue. So to make a good hero, all you have to do is treat them like a person, not a hero. A good person, but a person all the same. I struggled with this in my writing, because I had one character who was supposed to be wise and gentle and smart and strong and all those lovely adjectives all at once. But I knew that people would complain if they saw he had no flaws. So I made up some flaws and slapped them on as a label. It took me several months to weave his personality and his flaws together. It stung, because I wanted him to be perfect, but I also wanted him to be somewhat relatable. Now I've gotten to the point where he is actually the most complex character I have. I took his virtues (heroism, empathy, patience, a propensity for abstract thought) and flipped the coin, making these virtues into flaws as well. He is heroic, but he has no idea when to stop giving and he needs his friends to come alongside him and tell him to stop before he burns out. He is empathetic, but he gets constantly bogged down by his emotions and the emotions of those he cares about. He is patient, but too often he takes the beating and doesn't stand up for himself when he is being tried. He is a philosopher, but that only makes him dissatisfied with how little he understands. This is a fantastic trick for making nuanced characters. It works every time. If a character is loyal, make them unable to break away from relationships that could potentially harm them. If they are unshakeable in their beliefs, make them narrow-minded and stubborn. If they are gentle, make them unable to push back against sarcasm and cruel words. And nothing is so satisfying as seeing a character not just overcome their flaws, but learn to use their flaws for good or find the perfect balance of one quality that makes it no longer a flaw. For instance, if a loud, obnoxious comedy relief joins the army, his perkiness will help the morale of the soldiers around him. Put in an extreme situation, a quality that others may see as his flaw can be exactly what is needed. Another reason that explains why heroes can feel one dimensional is this: characters are not just difficult to create from scratch. Assembling a person from scratch is surprisingly easy. The hard part is actually making them consistent, and writing a character's journey does not get easier the farther you go. You get to know the character better, which makes it somewhat quicker, but it is still difficult. And because the hero has a big "HERO" label on him (which, as everyone knows, screams inherent likeability) a lazy author will think that they can cheat and make the character about as deep as a sheet of stationary. Of course readers will like and relate to the hero, because he's a HERO! A side-affect of this is when authors don't actually like their heroes or put any work into them because they are the hero and heroes have a reputation for being boring, thus their character must be boring to be considered a hero.
A character like the one you said you'd love to read is JOJO from Jojo Rabbit. It's a movie, but he is certain he can be a hero and then he not only realizes he can't, but also realizes he's on the wrong side.
I think Frodo is a wonderful example for a very interesting hero. He is selfless and therefore goes on this journey but feels that he is wholly inadequate for this task. Many readers might expect him to succeed in the end - and the quest itself is indeed a success. But Frodo as the hero fails his task and even though it's a happy end for Middle-earth, it's not necessarily a happy end for Frodo.
7:32 literally my D&D character who join in the party because they were curious and love adventure and suddenly they have to fight dragons and they're like "oh fuck that shit" xD
This isn't from a book, but this was on my mind since I recently watched it. In Teen Wolf the hero is Scott McCall who because he was so good developed into a True Alpha, which is a big deal. But the writing basically went from Scott is a True Alpha because he does the right thing to it's the right thing to do because Scott is the one doing them. It is so annoying when the hero does stupid/bad things it's held up as the right thing to do but if any of the other characters dares to do the same thing they are treated like they are the worst of the worst. Giving the hero a pass constantly just ruins the story
Ove and I’m just going to throw them in here as well The Doctor are two characters who despite at times being off putting and grumpy or goofy and seeming childish (more so The Doctor than Ove) are great heroes simply for the fact that they do what’s right not for praise or reward but simply because it’s kind and despite not acting like it most of the time (Ove) they do really care and hate seeing people taken advantage of
I can't remember which author said it, but on a podcast (it might have been Write-Minded, however), they mentioned "The Virgin's Promise" as an alternative archetype to "The Hero's Journey". I haven't looked into it enough to say more, but it's something others might want to look into as well.
Keeping spoiler free because I now have this story coming out soon...ish (or at least a connected story), but I have a hero who's goodness is arguably pushed to its limits, considering she's repeatedly faced with having to tap into a power that is more than capable of corrupting her, and if it does...there's no guarantee her friends or anyone else could bring her back. As for limits, I think most people would say I need less limits for my heroes considering I seem to enjoy torturing them with things they aren't quite good enough to stop
Heroes can be just as interesting as anti-heroes, in my opinion.
There’s something inspiring about watching a genuinely good person struggling with doing the right thing, but doing it anyway. That’s really hard, especially when the circumstances are so dire.
yeah exactly, I always hate it when people go "the villain is always more interesting then the hero" like no that just means you're not putting enough effort into the hero (it's that the villain/hero should complement each other & raise them both up). Like look at spiderman, not dissing any of his villains but he is by far the most interesting character of them, like you said he genuinely wants to do good but in doing so he causes himself grief/causes chaos in his life but he still chooses to do it because it is the right thing. Or superman, i feel people look at him at face value and think he's boring/a goody-goody because he isn't dark like batman or etc. when his character is meant to be an ideal character, a character we should strive to be like (and this helps contrast with lex luthor who has all this power/brilliance but uses it for his own gain while superman uses it to do something as simple as save a cat from a tree), two great superman stories I recommend that explore how you can do alot with a genuinely good character are All Star Superman or the comic "What's so Funny about Truth, Justice, & the American way?" (or it's animated counterpart superman vs the elite)
@@christopherauzenne5023 Agreed. Spider-Man is probably my favorite character of all time. He’s such a good guy but he’s always struggling and that’s so compelling.
As far as Superman, I really like the new show “Superman and Lois” so far. Not only is it nice to see a heroic, dorky Superman, but it’s also nice to see him be an equally heroic father. Even if it’s still CW, it’s *good* CW.
@@christopherauzenne5023 I think you're right about spider man. He's more interesting than the villains. Batman is the opposite, in my opinion. He's boring, and the villains are interesting. So it can go either way. Just depends on the skill of the writer.
But I can see how it can be kind of bland if not executed properly.
If you don’t mind, I am going to use the Star Wars sequel trilogy as an example.
Spoilers:
Many people hate Rey because she is seen as the mary sue (which I don’t think she is). She has not won every battle and she could not save every person like Han. At first, she could not stop Kylo Ren from getting knside of her head until she just said to herself and enough and kept on fighting.
I don’t think this showed very well. I think their original intention besides having the bad ass female heroine is showing how she constantly struggles to do the right thing even if she is tempted not to like when she starts falling for Ben inside Kylo Ren. She wants to join him despite it not being the right thing. She goes against Luke when she bonds with him through the force.
Now Kylo Ren is the more compelling character. He dealt with an Uncle who faced Darth Vader in the eye and still believed in the food in him inly to nearly kill his freaking nephew over the same thing. If I were Han and Leia, I would have freaking smacked him. Maybe lecture him because hitting is wrong. Anyways, Luke did not give Ben a chance to try to be good which left him in the hands if Snoke. Each film, you see this internal struggle for him to be good and this is where Rey comes in to be that catalyst. However, he is in so deep, he chooses the wrong thing instead until his final conversation with his dad.
The part that makes me mad is why is it easier making your lead male compelling, but not your female lead. The female is just another character. Just write her as another character versus trying to please the audience with what you think they want which is a problem with the entire series.
Thor Skywalker (a UA-cam channel) had a video discussing how the sequel triology wrote their films due to what they saw in spreadsheets and polls versus listening to the actual fans. I get it. You can’t please everyone, but they wanted more development in Rey and Fin and Rose and Poe, etc. It was possible. However, they were so worried what fans would think, they did not stop to listen to the fans.
Yes finally someone said it!
I love how Aang's journey fits in every comment about good way to write heros. Avatar has done so many things right, and the story of the hero Aang is no exception.
I love atla so much.
The one flaw it had was the deus ex machina (Lionturtle) at the end, to have a perfect solution to the problem just turn up is a little meh! I know it's a kids show, but with a little more planning it could have been even better (than great).
@@pedanticperson1149 Yeah. I don't have any real complaints about the lion turtles themselves, but more about how they and the concept of spiritbending/energybending weren't brought up until the finale. If the Lion Turtles and the concept of bending the energy inside of people had been brought up in episodes like The Swamp or The Guru, I feel like the series would've benefitted greatly.
It is such a clean piece of writing!
My 2 year old is watching this with me and she pointed and said "Mirabel!" So... just know, a toddler somewhere thinks you are from her favorite movie 🙂
When I watched Encanto I literally said the same thing haha
=)
My 16 year old is watching this with me and he pointed and said "Mia Khalifa!" So ... just know, a teenager somewhere thinks you are from her favourite movie 🙂
these types of videos are also really helpful for people who like writing (me) who need advice on how to write certain tropes/characters. thank you for this video!!
True
The Dear Authors series has been a huge inspiration on my writing!
If you like writing, I highly recommend checking out Diane Callahan and Ellen Brock channels
@@varranholloway I'll have to check those out.
Same, so glad this is back!
I feel like Geralt is it an intensely morally gray world, so he's not really sure how to be a hero, so he kind of a stumbles upon being one accidentally. And boy o boy, do people write songs about him!!
generally in the witcher, even the good people are jerks.
Because his world resembles real world - he is trying to be good but the choices he is put against are never good. It will always end up "badly" for the side he didn't pick. I think Netflix missed the mark with this, since this was never ment to be a story about becoming a hero.
Don Quixote is very much a “confidence over capability” type of character.
The point of heroes sticking to their morals when the rest of the world tries to rip it away, and a villain that challenges those morals-- oh man that gets me. I'm reminded of Heaven Official's Blessing's main character Xie Lian, specifically that scene in Book Foure
As you say, "the Hero's Journey" was just an observation about stories by Joseph Campbell, and really the only (arguably good) story that copied the hero's journey verbatim was Star Wars. Going back to Cambell's sources, you can see that each story had its own twist. Gilgamesh goes out and comes back. Achilles goes out in a blaze of glory. Odysseus takes his sweet time coming back. etc. So moving forward each hero's story will have their own twists. The narrower we define heroism, the more boring our heroes become.
So this is a random question but have you heard of the story of Xenophon March to the Sea?
Argumently the epos of gilgamesu is not a heros journey, but a medicine journey where its more about a guy that does stuff, finds the love off his life/partner, they have the best time , one dies, (ok its inluencing romances a loot too) , one griefs an cant heal and so he goes literally to the underworld to get immortal becaue of crippling fear to die scared . And he gains the wisdom to not need to be immortal, get the immortility by just being a better king that will be remebered and his legacy.
An the dying and going back wiser not needing what cheat they wanted , is more the medicine journey than the heroes one. Also in most tragic romances. It build the ground for way more than hero journeys, and is far more. No surprise as it influenced a lot.
There is gurren laggan, that excelent adopts not only a heroes journey, but the epos of gilgamesh with its themes of humanity and that. Just with a brother than .. . Excelent adaption of the epos of gilgaesh. It also is sad, and very hype uplifting and that, but enough sad.
isn´t Lord of the Rings also a hero´s journey?
Devil Wears Prada did it better than Star Wars.
@@NamenIoser more than one, if , both aragorn and sam, frodo, the party really
Luffy doesn’t want to be a hero, as heroes have to share their food. The thing is he keeps sharing his food. Luffy is a hero, made more selfless by not wanting to be one.
Luffy is someone who doesn't care about saving others... Untill he feels like someone's freedom is in danger.
Kaladin is the only fictional character I can see myself in, his internal pain is just- it's a reflection of myself when I'm at my lowest and I love him! Kaladin is my way and guide through processing my emotions and that ladies and gentlemen is AMAZING
Heros aren’t always good people who make great choices.
I think a hero really just boils down to saving the day and protecting people.
I don’t think heroes even have to have good intentions, just as long as they get the job done.
I would say this describes Glokta from First Law. He's terrible person, he's doing terrible things but he sort of helps people by doing these things as well. 🤷♀️
Honestly, I don't recall the last time I've ever seen a protagonist who is "perfectly good." The majority I've seen have been either morally grey, defiant against something, or has a character flaw. The only "pure good" character I can think about is Pattington Bear 🐻
I love when a hero has a supporting cast or team that seem as important as the hero is.
This video got me teared up. I’m a writer-wannabe and I struggle with confidence. The biggest reason is because my passion project has an abnormal structure. Everywhere I look, people say “three act structure”. “Events happen in this order.” Then I look at my work, and hate it. And in addition hate myself a bit more. I don’t know if I am a good enough writer to pull off the “different structure”, but it means a lot to know that people out there would be open to it.
Self-doubt is something every artist struggles with, new or experienced. Every writer is different in how they overcome it, so I can't give personalized advice. If you were to ask, I would say this: write a story that you yourself would want to read, and use writing advice and writing guides as they are. Advice and a guide. They are not hard and fast rules on how to tell the best story. And even if they were, better to create art that you love than art that makes you successful, because if you love your stories, you will want to keep making them.
Keep at it and don't be afraid to take a mental health break when you need it. Writing is a marathon, not a sprint. Hope it works out.
I think what we *need* is people to move away from the "three act structure". A lot of the books being written now are starting to follow the same old structures that are making the YA saturated and in some cases, even normal novels because of how many people are trying to read the YA more than normal novels. Sometimes, You just have to take the plunge even when you're not confident in your work. (I have yet to publish a book, but that's because I haven't finished writing.) I hadn't personally seen people saying "3 acts are the only way", but I believe it when you say it's what you see due to other advice I've seen where it's like "... but that's not fact though?" Also if you want to publish your first work, Do so. I've been seeing people saying "Don't publish your first book. Use that as your learning tool. You'll only be embarrassed that the first book exists" and that's not encouraging to people like myself and yourself. Because you want to get it out there. And half the time, it also their learning experience on their *audience* they would attract as well. Telling someone *not* to publish their first book usually keeps a person from getting more stories out there. Same with short stories and all that. So I say experiment with your work and do what *you* feel will make a good story or what you would personally want to see in a story. Not all Classics are a 3 act books. and neither should all books.
Write what you wan to write, and different, is good if you know what you want aand have a plan. Which you sound like. If you know what you want unusual is very much a strengh.
If its some mystery how many peoples stories paint a picture , good luck.
And if it shouldnt work at the first try, you can try again, like everything in life usually, just use what you learned
Its fine to have a conventional structure but nby no ans you shoulsnt try doing it in another structure, that too told epic stories, or your whatever you want there. Good luck, and kep it up, and b nice to yourself, its not a requirement for a writer to have horrible selfcare, i someone tells you writer have to suffer have to do a 3 act, ignore them.
There are no rules, only guidelines that you can ignore if you want to.
And be nice to yourself, apearently writers are plagued wih the myth of the starving bad selfcae artist, thats not good.
People think they like what's popular. But when someone (like you) strives to make a real, unique work of art, they realize what they've been missing.
The Hobbit is a good example of an unusual story structure done well. The whole story is building up to the confrontation with the main villain, Smaug, and yet after he dies, the conflict isn't over. There's a standoff between the dwarves and the elves and the people of Laketown, and then there's the Battle of Five Armies. It works for a few reasons. For one, it doesn't ruin Bilbo's character arc. He gets his final tests of character when he faces Smaug and when he attempts to end the standoff peacefully rather than try to keep the riches to himself as much as he can. Also, the book doesn't introduce any new characters or factions after Smaug's death. All of the events afterwards were set up earlier on. That being said, Bard and his arrow being introduced just as Smaug reaches Laketown is a Deus Ex Machina. Finally, the subversions are meaningful. You get the feeling that the conflict should be over by now, were it not for the dwarves' greed, and The Battle of Five Armies drives home the point that the world doesn't revolve around Bilbo.
I feel like Fitz from the Fareer/other Elderling books is a good example of a non-morally gray hero who also isn’t a boring lump. He doesn’t really have that questionable morality (or at least not where i am in the series) that has become so popular but he’s still interesting. He makes mistakes, he feels emotions, he is allowed to choose and drive the story.
His moral greyness come from his sheer pragmatism. He has his loved ones, and would do anything to protect them. He'll lie, cheat, steal, murder, torture, if he thinks it will keep those he loves safe. The interesting part of his character is that he genuinely doesn't want to do them, but will, if necessary, with very little hesitation.
I found him incredibly boring. It's why I never read his stories in the Elderling series.
I think the morally good hero is more interesting especially if the problem doesn't have a morally right answer.
Then again aniheroes been oversaturated lately.
One of my favorite Hero's stories is the TV show 'Merlin'. It is a story most people know. The show hits a lot of the classic beats. Yet, between having Merlin and Arthur be two sides of the same arrogant and righteous coin, honestly difficult agonizing choices(i.e. Medievil which trials), Merlin unable to tell Arthur anything until the last moments of the show, while keeping his moral core - I love it. Also, the acting is exceptional.
One thing that I don’t want is for the classic heroes story to go away. I love those stories, I don’t want writers to think they can’t use it anymore. Of course, like everything, it must be done right. I just really love a good guy who knows what is right, who tries to do what is right to the best of his ability. That doesn’t mean he’s flawless in the story, in fact he might still have huge moral pitfalls. I just think there are a lot of people who actually can relate to that. To doing what is right, in the right way, the best they can.
Btw, a historical example of this is Booker T. Washington.
One of my favorite hero is Newt Scamander, from fantastic beast. I love how awkward and bad at socializing to people he is, but, when it comes to magic creatures, he's the best both at socializing and at understanding them. He also doesn't get involved in these political things and in the war that's happening. He just wants to live his life and study and write books about magic creatures. He's such a strong and badass wizard too. He's the perfect hero for me.
What the hell kinda name is that
@@kettlefleet829 A joke name JK Rowling made up as part of a list of funny wizard author names for her first Harry Potter books.
Every time I watch one of Merphy's dear author videos it always sends my mind racing and wanting to write. Thanks Merph, you just got me out of a writer's block 😁
Interesting, I have always thought of morality-immorality as being on a separate spectrum from hero-villain. IMO it's totally fine to call a morally gray character a hero; I don't think that they are mutually exclusive at all.
You are correct. All the Greek heroes except Hercules and Perseus where terrible people. And even Hercules committed manslaughter. The comics code is probably responsible for this incorrect modern association.
Shirou from Fate/Stay Night comes to mind for a few of these points. Firstly, the one about how a hero needs to have character traits and personality outside of being a hero and wanting to do the right thing - his whole character arc(s) is basically a deep dive on what it would be like for someone to actually only care about being a hero, to the exclusion of everything else, and how deeply unhealthy that would be. Like, people see how good he is at cooking and think "oh, that's his hobby" - but when someone mentions this to him, his response is to be confused and go "no, I just have to do it every day so I ended up getting good at it".
And, secondly, the idea of someone who thinks they have what it takes to be a hero, right until they find themselves in that situation and discover that they really don't - especially at the start of the story, when he keeps throwing himself into dangerous situations against foes who are way out of his league, and then gets beaten down completely (while the competent people around him are yelling at him to just stay back and let them handle it). Though, in his case, even though he realizes that he isn't strong enough, his total obsession and lack of self preservation means he keeps trying regardless.
One book series that sticks out to me for a Hero who is held up by his allies and friends is the Dresden Files. He is constantly challenged to stay on his path and do what he feels is right. Very solid series for the hero who gets tested and needs help to stand up for what he feels is right.
Back in university I took a screenwriting class, and-- maybe this isn't typical in other such courses-- I remember feeling frustrated by how rigid the structure was expected to be. We talked about the Hero's Journey, of course, and then broke down which beats of it were expected to happen by which page. Screenwriting is obviously different than writing a novel or other formats where you aren't so restricted by run time or page number limits, but at the same time it just felt like such a cookie cutter method of telling a story that it was really restrictive. I found myself less focused on what I wanted the story to be and more concerned with making sure I got a story beat to happen by a specific page (and sometimes even manufacturing a story beat I didn't want to fit the prescribed outline).
All that to say that my deep and abiding irritation with the misunderstanding about what the Hero's Journey is and what it was for is unending and all-consuming. It isn't a formula to tell every story to, just plug in different characters and specific circumstances and there you go. Just as you said, it's the opposite of that, it was just an observation by Joseph Campbell at a similar pattern appearing in a lot of ancient stories. That isn't to say that using it to construct a satisfying story is inherently bad, but assuming that it's the only "proper" way to structure anything is so constricting to the art and creativity in crafting a narrative that says and does what the author actually wants to say. It stifles what storytelling should be about, which is just... telling the story the way it needs to be told!
And yeah, then you end up with an audience that knows how the story is going to end before they even watch it, and it gets really boring. Sometimes you want the comfort of that familiarity, you want the satisfaction and the safety of that in a comfort food sort of way. But the lack of any alternatives just stagnates the entire experience of watching or reading anything after a while. Stories *can* be comfortable and soothing, but they can-- and should-- also be challenging and surprising and leave the audience with questions and uncertainties and things to ponder and debate with others, and sometimes a new way of looking at something (the world, other people, themselves) that they didn't have before.
Completely True! Hands-down. ^^
_Thank you💜_
Structures certainly have their importance but it's just as important to know how & when to veer away from them.
@@FM95.5 Exactly! Just because one particular type of structure definitely holds a [metaphorical ]house up, doesn't mean you can't experiment or get a little creative modifying a structure slightly or try out other styles of structuring things too; not every type of structure will always hold up or hold up as well as others do, but that doesn't mean you can't find some new or other styles that actually do hold up just fine! 🙂 (Not to mention the fact that, sometimes, different structures are just going to appeal equally as much but in totally different ways and/or to totally different people.) Different ways work for different folks, and no one particular singular way or another is always the "only" way.
Structure is a guideline - a starting point for those who want &/or need one(Or I suppose maybe a way of double-checking how soundly your own structure is holding everything together after it's already been built, if that even makes sense) - it's not a mandatory stranglehold. ^-^
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 well put, it feels like the academic field hone in on structure because it's more practical to teach.
This is my absolute favorite series that you do/ have done! It’s such a fun and interesting way to discuss topics in books to see what people love and don’t like!
In my experience, many characters who are considered "morally gray" aren't really. Often they are heroic by nature, but circumstances or setting prevent them from acting like in a way we'd be consider heroic on the surface (like Geralt). Or often the character just has bad judgement, trying to do the right thing but actually doing the wrong thing.
The worst is when the author tries too hard to make their character gray like they're playing an RPG with good and evil points and need to collect equal points to keep the character in the middle, so they'll just alternate between good and bad deeds on the fly seemingly randomly.
You have no idea how helpful this series has been for me as a teen writer!
I think in a lot of media when we see the typical hero of the story, it’s usually the same personality type, their traits and arcs are flat, the character is one dimensional, has no real justice, etc. It would be great if we could properly see and connect with the decisions and actions our hero does, and to see the hero detailed and fleshed out like a real person.
For example, when we see a pure hero who does the right thing no matter what, a lot of the times we the readers don’t quite understand what it means to choose good every time despite all the trauma the hero might’ve gone through.
Speaking from personal experience, when you have trauma that actually affects you, it can be difficult to stay kind and optimistic when your hurting and angry. Have your hero deal with the frustrations of their reality, have them breakdown and feel like a person with real feelings. Do it in a way that connects with people and that connects with you as the author.
Bonus points: the hero’s life usually isn’t the whole plot. Add to their actual personality, hobbies, strengths etc. have their relationships with different people, be different. Have them have banter with close friends, be gentle with others, be sarcastic around family. It’s the small things that help.
Have you read/watched Boku no Hero Academia?
Take superman, superman as just a bundle of powers i boring, the interesting part is how he as human person reacts and how that clashes wiith the fassade he puts up as role model, an the struggle and ho hard that can be.
My personal favorite flaw for a hero is a flaw that is also a strength. For example if the hero can compartmentalize really well thus allowing them to be great in a crisis. On the other hand they are not great at unpacking what they went through. So they developed by cooping habits. Such as looking for answers one too many times at the bottom of a bottle.
Frodo isn't really a great example as Sam is the actual hero, to which Tolkien himself agreed. He lives everything Frodo lives, but he is sort of his unmovable rock that almost never falters and does the right thing. Of course, he is imperfect and sometimes gets frustrated, but he is quite regularly heroic.
Frodo is a tragic hero thou.
Talking about book tropes and character types is much more interesting than I ever expected.
I think i feel quite different than a lot of people here it seems. Especially on things like the reluctant hero trope - i don't like it and it's one of those things that really take me out of immersion because it feels so... fictional. I especially despise when a plot of a story is filled with deus ex machina to push the character forward (in a positive direction) despite their reluctant (and maybe even destructive) agency. The issue is that I feel a lot of people romanticize internal struggle and staggeringly underestimate reluctance.
I am in a position where I personally know a lot of people who do enormous amounts of good for not that much reward. The vast majority of adversity in their lives is external not internal. People who are reluctant to walk that kind of path in life almost exclusively don't do it, and those who are not - generally are quite passionate about it.
One can only romanticize reluctance because they want to fantasize about overcoming it in a safe environment - at home with a warm drink plus blanket and book in the lap. It's not a bad thing, of course, but I do not believe it warrants attaching labels of great/bad writing to stories that do/don't serve that purpose.
At the end of the day, I suppose it just irks me when the quality of a fictional character is set up as proportional to their internal strife. There are a lot of stories where I really yearn for external factors to matter and not just be little more than foils for a character that primarily struggles interally.
"I am in a position where I personally know a lot of people who do enormous amounts of good for not that much reward. The vast majority of adversity in their lives is external not internal. People who are reluctant to walk that kind of path in life almost exclusively don't do it, and those who are not - generally are quite passionate about it. "
i don't disagree, but they still need to face struggles. like, no matter how passionate you are about helping, the problems that you deal with will affect you mentally. having the hero just always succeed is just unrealistic. and when faced with failure and hardship, no matter how passionate they are, they will start to have doubts or frustration, and sure, they can push through them, but you still need to showcase their internal struggle so when they push through regardless it feels more compelling and realistic.
and i can assure you, from a personal experience, no matter how passionate about something, the external obstacles will eventually become internal as well, even if you still end up pushing forward.
Holy fuc, YES, absolutely dam hit it in the nail! This is one of the reason why I just don't seem to have the enthusiasm to read many fantasy novels. They're not bad at all but as yu said it, the reluctant hero thingy is kind of romanticized.
And speaking from experience (and currently experiencing), my personality fits right with the reluctant/internally struggling (emphasis on internally struggling) hero trope.
Most of my life I wanted to do something about my dreams, my creative ideas, Abt stories that I want to write. But I always find myself doubtful of my capabilities and skills despite the fact that I know that what I got is enough to achieve sumtin. And at the end of the day, I always ended doing nothing, abandoning projects before it could even properly start, because I kept on being doubtful and reluctant of my capabilities.
And I would get so frustrated becuz I'm bloody aware that my skills are enough, my ideas are creative enough, they're not the best things, I know that. They're not like the next Lord of The Rings, duh I get it becuz that was never the point.
And yet, I keep stopping. I keep on doing and finishing nothing, all becuz I'm so full of shitty doubts and anxieties. And when I look at other ppl who are the same age as me out there killing it.
And it made me wonder how they do it. Call it arrogant but when I compare myself to them skill wise, I can actually see myself managing to atleast keep up. But when I compare their achievements to mine, mine's nonexistent and there they are with a buttload. And what's the key difference between me and them?
It's becuz they're confident and they believe in themselves. They have a healthy view of their person. They have their doubts and insecurities, but they have sumting strong to counteract it. And most of them grew up well, nurtured properly that's why they have confidence. Yes some are not born previliged but they grew up mentally healthy becuz they have loving parents or theirs someone in their life that helped grow their confidence.
What I'm saying is, internally strong ppl actually get shit done, while bitches like me who struggle internally are all bark with no bite (basically I can have all the best ideas for a story, but so what, I never write them anyways becuz I'm emotionally stunted, meaning I'm so full of shit that is self doubt).
And I'm pretty sure this should apply to the fictional plane of existence as well.
I agree that it's also nice to read about/see the confident hero, who is sure of their path and their abilities and only faces external threats. It's not necessarily bad writing.
However, I disagree about the reluctant hero being 'fictional'. Writing about internal struggles doesn't mean it's romanticized, it's just something that is happening and something thatbis also realistic.
I think there's a big difference between reluctance towards a goal overall and reluctance towards specific quests or tasks that are necessary for achieving that goal. Many reluctant hero characters find themselves in bad situations where there is nothing to be passionate about - they just have to get through it. They can find their own strength when they are tested, but without having been in that situation before they often naturally doubt their own abilities. That's not fictional but exists in real life.
On the other hand many of these reluctant heros are passionate about what they want to achieve, and in the end that's why they will do the task. Like, it's difficult to be passionate about walking into Mordor and probably committing suicide, but there is no question about Frodo's desire to save Middle-earth and especially the Shire. Without that passion, if you will, he wouldn't have been able to try it.
@@blazypika2 "having the hero just always succeed is just unrealistic."
I think I was bad at conveying my thoughs because this is not what I meant at all. If anything, it actually kind of demonstrates my issue - the perception that internal struggles is the only thing that holds the hero back from success.
A core summary of my personal DON'T(s) in this context would be:
1) The story should not find convenient ways to push the character forward (in a positive direction) when the character is reluctant or have destrictive internal struggles.
2) External struggles should matter and not just be an extension of internal struggles, to be overcome the moment the character figures themselves out.
The latter I also kind of blame on many authors struggling with writing compelling scenarios for obstacles and overcoming them. It's a weird tangent, but McGuyver would not work as a show if each episode was about him struggling with, let's say, depression - and once he manages to overcome it enough to get motivated, then he just goes into a warehouse and offscreen makes a perfect solution to whatever is the obstacle. He still has internal struggles but dealing with the external problems in great detail is a core part of the expierience.
My issue is that many stories are almost exclusively focused on the internal world of the characters and neglect the world around them. So I kind of have the same issue as you - heroes should not always succeed. But especially when we are talking about reluctant heroes, overcoming that is just the first step - now you actually have to deal with the issue. Otherwise - it's absurd to have a hero who can trivially make a huge impact but just... kinda don't wanna.
@@Lothiril I think we have a bit of a semantic issue here. I would not put confident as the opposite of reluctant. Motivated would be a much better word.
I think what I meant to convey in my previous comment was that I dislike... posturing? I guess I could put it that way.
A hero that hates what they need to do but do it anyway is not reluctant. They are just grumpy. A reluctant hero should actively use their agency to not do things related to their goals. It's a destructive trait and the story should portray it as such.
It's why I said that these kinds of traits are often romanticized or fictional - because they take something we can relate to (I don't want to do this) but show a character that overcomes it (does the thing anyway).
I really dislike that because it creates this romanticized world where people who don't have motivation still have incredible achievments. And it really just does not work out that way the vast majority of the time (and when it does, it's because of some kind of privilege).
The bottom line is that the reluctance should be something that continually sabotages the hero.
The struggle I have been seeing from a lot of writers of late (movies and TV) is a lack of humility in the hero, I’m glad you mentioned that. Captain Marvel leaps to mind; the most powerful hero, never questions if she should have that power or worries she’ll be tempted to abuse it, actually seems to use her strength to justify her actions in some of the comics. Like, that’s scary, not uplifting.
I have serious issues with our modern interpretation of "MORALLY GRAY". Pretty much ALL characters I've read over the past several years that are labeled as morally gray, are actually pretty evil. Somehow people view someone that doesn't give a hoot about those around them as "morally gray"??? Treating others like junk and being a general jerk is not "morally gray", it is plain being a bad person. That's why I lean towards "good guy" heroes. YES, I believe that a hero needs to be flawed to be interesting. But you can be a realistically flawed person, and still be TRYING to do the right thing. There are plenty of heroes who want to save people and do good, but they have bad habits, they are psychologically damaged, they make big mistakes, etc.... I guess I view a "good guy" vs a "bad guy" by the INTENTION of the character. And to me, that is not a matter of "moral grayness". A true hero is morally good, but they mess up along the way and may hurt others or do bad things to achieve the ultimate good. But that's just my 2 cents.
I would like to see some heroes that are good and strong and do the right thing, but in the end fail anyway. I feel like in stories where the good guy fails it is always because of some bad decision or because of a character flaw. I would like to see one where, like in real life things just go wrong. Or where the fail because of what makes them good. Like maybe they arent willing to do something morally wrong to win and because of that the evil side defeats them.
Like for example if after Luke refuses to kill his Vadar and fight in anger he is killed/captured and the rebels defeated. Luke would still be the same hero, but the story would be totally different.
I feel like that'd be a difficult thing to pull off, but definitely interesting.
Sabaody archipelago flashbacks
I feel like spiderman tackles that idea, just not in a villain wins type of way, in his stories his double life as spiderman constantly screws with or even ruins his normal life which causes him misery but in the end he still chooses to put on the suit because it is the right thing to do/he can make a difference even if it means giving up his life (as in social life/dreams)
@@christopherauzenne5023 that's an excellent point 👍
Maybe try Witcher - it's not really what you described but I think it might be satisfying for you in some ways. I don't want to say what I mean by that because of spoilers. But that aspect of failing even if you try to do the good thing is definitely there.
You mentioned that the hero's story is not very popular right now, and honestly that was evident from many of the comments you read out. Personally though I really enjoy it and wish we saw it more in modern SFF. Heroes can be interesting people, especially if they have flaws or are fallible, but actually even seemingly perfect hero characters can work - just look at the success of Superman or Captain America. The trick is to a) surround them with different personalities (put Steve in a room with Tony Stark and you have magic) or b) give them emotional consequences (struggling with keeping family relationships for example).
That's why Cavill's Clark Kent had no chemistry with Affleck's Bruce Wayne compared to MCU's Tony Stark and Steve Rogers
My favourite type of hero is someone like Vander from Arcane or All might from MHA.
Like heroic mentor figures that seem capable of taking anything on and come out on top, until they can't anymore and now the flawled protagonist has to step up and become the new hero.
I love this because the mentor gives me a sense of safety whenever he steps up. Like "ok, he's here now, were gonna be just fine". So when he can't be there anymore I get genuine anxiety and find myself very invested in the protagonist's journey to fill that role, and make me feel safe again
Love Dear authors! Need more! - Maybe:
Flashbacks
Backstory
Prose
Middle book syndrome.
Creating "Heart tugging" characters to horrifically die, or some other such event, ,then that have no impact on the plot
As soon as I saw this, I jumped with joy!! You have no idea how much I enjoy laughing and learning through your dear authors' series and how helpful they are when it comes to my writing🧡
My favorite Heros in fiction will always be the Heroic but often flawed champions in David Gemmells books. They aren't always the strongest, they aren't always the quickest or best or youngest. But when when tough come to show they bite down on their convictions and really fight for it to the best of their ability. David Gemmell himself said in interviews that he wanted to inspire people to be heroic and I really think that comes through in a wonderful way.
Yes! The books of his I've read really appealed to me for the limitations of their heroes and the more nuanced win conditions they face.
I am at this point where I love unexpected twists on popular tropes in stories, but now THOSE tropes are becoming so popular that I'm now kinda missing the original structure - and honestly, reading a book with that original structure could even be more surprising than not
I think there's a misunderstanding of the Hero's Journey. The monomyth is about common aspects of the stories human tell. No one uses the Hero's Journey as a template... it's something that arises naturally.
Also... it doesn't says the character needs to be "heroic". Odysseus was a awful person who murdered a bunch of men just because they started courting his wife after he was presumed dead after 20 years of being away.
The Lies of Locke Lamora follows the Hero's Journey perfectly beat by beat. Tyler Durden from Fight Club also follows the hero's journey.
You have a valid point. But, at the same time, in current days _lots_ of people actually *do* follow the hero-journey(&/or another story that has it) as a template.. 😅
Uh... The hero's journey was coined and most well known as explained by Joseph Campbell who wrote it in "a hero with a thousand faces". It is a post study of the plot and arch of the most notorious and well preserved mythos of the world. It is the story that humans most bond to. Hence the success of HP, LOR, STAR WARS, MCU, ETC.
Luffy at the beginning of the story was pretty unstoppable it wasn’t until his defeat by Crocodile in Alabasta but really more so what really brought Luffy to the point where he seemed more relatable is losing his crew at Sabaody and losing Ace at the battle of Marineford because it was at those points he found out that he couldn’t just beat anyone that there were people out there a lot more powerful than him.
Well someone who believes himself to be more than he actually is and then gets some lessons in humility is Sokka from ATLA. I mean at first he so desperately wants to lead, but he is not good at it and that strikes him, but later on he will learn.
Slight shelf reorganization! Nice!
another character i would like to bring up in terms of the hero’s story is superman from the DCEU. A LOT of people hate BVS and man of steel because it’s “a dark take” or because he’s not the smiling hero we always see in the comics, but i think his arc is amazing. Especially in BVS when he has to choose what role he wants to play in the world when some see him as a horrible alien and others look up to him as a god. and this is especially interesting because he’s the most powerful being on earth, meaning if he wanted to, he could destroy the planet, but he’s just a good person who wants to the right thing although there’s the fact that he CANT SAVE EVERYONE. It’s such a beautiful story that has stuck with me for a while now and I really appreciate Zack taking such an interesting route.
oooh i like this topic. heroes are great when written well
Yuji Itadori is a great examle of a tragic "hero".
(Jujutsu Kaisen manga spoilers!!!):
Yuji's development from idealistic young man who wants to save everyone and wants them to have the "proper death" to a person who realises he is naive and is not the hero he thought he was but is same as his biggest enemy and his change in goals as a result of the things that happend in the dark world he lives in is really really good imo. (Edit: also his change feels really natural. We have been trough a lot with him and everything feels earned, especially when he wins which is very very very rare.) At the end, Yuji is not the chosen one, he is the cursed one.
Thank you for this. These videos have really grown into something else. They've become almost aesthetic in the way that you put your opinions across, and also flesh out important points.
Also, to summarize this in a short space of time shows a profound and intuitive understanding of what makes a story work.
Murph i haven't seen your videos in over a year. Shoutout to UA-cam. I randomly thought of books and searched for your channel to find you again. Good to be back
I think there's also a very specific archetype of a hero that occurs at the start of most fantasy books: they're a young boy, probably 15-20 years old. They might have a scar, they probably live on a farm, have an extremely loyal, red-headed sidekick and live with a father figure who, whether they know it or not, isn't actually their biological father. I know not all these apply to all the characters I'm going to mention, but this reminds me of Harry, Frodo, Eragon and Rand, and I imagine there's many more. It's just something I noticed and thought was funny
I clicked at the speed of light!
I don't know how you feel about grim fantasy but I think you would love Guts's journey from Berserk. It's such a great heroic character. Denji from Chainsaw Man is also an amazing hero. Most Shonen are stories of heroes so I would recomand some that are more interesting. My Hero Academia, Mob Psycho 100 and One Punch Man, Full Metal Alchemist. Trigun and Raruoni Kenshin are amazing Heroes Stories. Also I remember that you mention that you want to read Fruits Basket and some may laugh at my opinion but I think that Tohru Honda is amazing as a hero. You should also read or watch Ynuiashiki by Hiruya Oku. All Oku's works are amazing non-conventional heroes journeys but I feel that Inuyashiki is the most accessible to start.
I would pay to hear her thoughts about beserk, would be amazing
Having a problem writing my hero right now. Thank you for this!
I love heroes but I don't wanna be one! Do you know what heroes are? Say there is a chunk of meat. heroes will share it with other people. I want all the meat.
This is pretty ridiculous but I genuinely loveee Mike Wazoski from Monsters Inc in Monsters University! His brilliant can do attitude and deep set desire to be a scarer was so interesting to watch especially as he is always working harder and smarter than others to get what hes wanted forever. Pitted against Sully whose had everything handed to him makes his character arc so satisfying because you're rooting for him the entire way. You understand the gravity of succeeding in Monsters University is to him so his downfalls are yours and his wins are also yours because you want him to get it so badly! He's the traditional "good guy" with no moral complexities but is still a really interesting character because of all the obstacles in the way of his success. Such a phenomenal movie
Definitely gonna use all these videos when writing :)
If the Goblin ever decides to do an audiobook on his books I want it to be you narrating it 😭
I think people get to hung up on trying to seperate characters, and sometimes real people, into heroes and villains. In most cases there's a lot more nuance there than someone just being good or evil.
Geralt is absolutely a hero. He only kills monsters.
He's not a hero, he's a witcher. He's hus own man I couldn't call Geralt a hero because he is his own man and dies what he thinks is right.
Heroes are essential propaganda. Geralt isn't propaganda.
@@MRJDXTRA The only case where a hero would be propaganda is if someone in power told you they were a hero, when they weren't. But the beauty of heroes is that we can choose them ourselves. They are IDEALS, not propaganda. If you don't think Geralt is a hero, that's fine for you, but he sure is in my book.
Geralt isn’t morally gray. He just has different priorities.
I... was not expecting to receive a compliment from someone whose opinion I so highly respect. Merphy, you are the reason I started reading fiction again. Your combination of critical analysis and passionate emotion, and your ability to translate what you think and feel into your videos was enough to get me to resume my nightly reading. Sincerely, thank you for your kind words.
The morality comment is basically talking about ideas that the whole of the Netflix show Jupiter’s Legacy is based around. It’s all about a Superman stand-in trying to maintain his ideals and his code even when everyone else has abandoned it and ideas surrounding that.
you should really study the “hero archetype” it’s about a specific journey & phases the person going through not about being good guy…
I really enjoy these dear authors, while I'm not writing anything it's still really interesting. =D
At 8:00, when you're talking about the hero who actually thinks they can take on the challenge but then realize that it's harder than they thought, it makes me think of Spensa in the the first Skyward book! I loved her evolution.
My favourite is a tragic hero like *Ephraim "Eph" Goodweather* from *THE STRAIN* trilogy...he was a great man, the best in his field at the start and he barely became a shadow of his former self at the end. After all that he still able to finished the task he meant to do...
I kinda hate that because superman is one of the greatest heroes in fiction but him being so good often causes ppl to be bored by him n say he has no depth because of it but there's so many great storylines that show that his ideal is to be inspiration for good in all mankind
Someone can certainly right a hero that represents good an a great way. But it is SO true that those heroes are frowned upon these days, which just makes them that much harder to write because people are quick to criticize.
Thats when writer forget writing him as human person dealing with that responsibility, and his life in general. Thats why he likes oiccationally letting steam off, its a tough job being superman. But when there is that moments as reminder, he is still a human if an absurd patient one, then he is great. I would say he is the example, of, allow your hero to be human too or they will not be interesting.
As I said in the post, I just need the Hero to be entertaining first and foremost. Whether they're deep, simple, morally gray or not, I just gotta have fun when they're on screen. The last comment about how viewers/readers find the Heroes journey structure predictable makes sense, but ultimately I can't ever get tired when I just have a good ass time with whatever main dude or dudette I'm following. That's my priority always. Though if not them on their own, having side characters that they work super well with is another alternative
Completely reasonable and I can think of many stories where I agree with you. My comment was meant more in a macro sense, with respect to the trend, as opposed to individual readers.
@@dylancraven3979 yeah that makes sense
Not nessesary, they can just be the person playing off an entertaining often zany cast.
@@marocat4749 They said much the same in the last sentence of their original comment...
I would only add that a paragon of a hero that does the right thing and does it well can be interesting if you focus in on what effect such a character has on the world around them, on the people they meet both allies and enemies.
A hero with a off the charts sense of humour is the simplest way to humanise a hero.
This was definitely some valuable insight. I do tend to love characters/stories that are unpredictable and deviate from traditional expectations. If I can guess where they’re going, I lose interest fairly quickly.
Hands down my favourite hero's journey is Keladry in the Protector of the Small series by Tamora Pierce. She has to struggle against the external social structure and maintains what is the me a key aspect for a hero - protecting those most vulnerable in the story
AAAAHHHH MERPHY, I really sympathize with reading translated books, and the pronunciation of names varies from person to person (I spent the first 3 SA books reading "taravanganianan") but Geralt is pronounced with a hard 'g' like in "graphic"
I am soo happy that this amazing series came back
Love this series so much I listened to all the ads just to give you the revenue and boost the video. I see your view count isn’t as high on these as the ones about the cartoon/anime (I don’t know what it is... One something) and I don’t want you to stop these!
Any chance you’re going to do a Dear Authors video on PTSD? That would be really interesting.
A hero requires a passive (or active) code. They must by consequence be larger than life, people whose moral certainty comes from their conviction and resolve rather than the veracity of their arguments.
Any person can act a hero just like any person can cook a meal. But to be a chef and to be a cook are rather separate identities. Most superheroes follow a code and are therefore a force of nature. The moment you dwell on common folk rising to a cause you invariably enter a stage of 'grey' or elsewise fail at characterizing the 'hero' because that character is motivated to do good for some external reason. Lacking any nuance behind their decision making will just leave them to be a shallow peg used to piece together plot of similar quality.
Icons like Holmes, Conan, Batman, etc. are methodical in their nature. They each have a reason for why they are what they are, but that is irrelevant to the actual story being told. Much of how they persist remains in a grey area.
They are heroes because they are heroic in their very identity, and therefore must be kept at a distance from the reader. The moment an author digresses into explaining every facet of their thought process, every doubt, every indecision, that is the moment that mysticism ends. That is the moment the hero dies. They are flawed and they do have a breaking point, but that in itself is left a mystery.
Grey characters are as such because that is the nature of human emotions. The more realistic one makes a character, the further they enter that 'morally grey' stage regardless of their initial starting point. A classic hero through and through has to be morally ambiguous and ideologically driven, not personally motivated. The hero exists on another plain and to strip them bare and take off their mask is to decimate their moral certitude and drive a stake through their every aspiration.
So to recap: a hero must be methodical, ideological, and distant. Thoughts and surface motivations can be indulged, but there needs be room for speculation and ambiguity. Readers must be able to interpret and deconstruct these figures. Once they become personalized to the point of familiarity and predictability they become less than.
I thought she would mention Aang and his constant struggle to find the right way to save the world.
I use this series to help me with writing so I know what people want to read vs what they don't
Great video Merphy. ☕
There are different types of heroes who work with different types of stories that can be equally enjoyable in different ways.
I find the weirdest kind best; e.g. when the heroes motivations are shrouded in mystery but their actions are consistent (I'm probably talking about protagonist instead of hero).
P. S. Not sure if it's just me, but the colours in the background are looking much more vibrant and overall much better.
Perfect timing! I’m writing a superhero book!!
I really enjoy this series of videos. Awesome work.
The first two books you mentioned are in my top 5 books (and characters) of all time!
After reading fantasy for 3 years my favorite hero is still Peter Parker. I just think he's so inspirational, he has such a rough time and is beaten again and again (especially in that PHENOMENAL ps4 game, best spidey story ive ever experienced), but he STILL chooses to be optimistic and not let it destroy his heart. He might be a bit unrealistic but to me he's literally the embodiment of empathy and unlimited compassion.
YES! I love this series! This is how I discovered you first
I love morally gray characters, I just feel like that builds realism, but I also like that play with "Chaotic vs. Order" story telling thing that seems to be popular in Japanese fiction where sometimes the protagonist isn't really perfect or maybe the villain is the perfect and just one... but I think what I really like about Heroes are Heroes that aren't necessarily popular or seen heroic in their worlds (or even typically tropes). I think that has been consistent my entire life among favorite heroes wither we are talking about books where I liked a lot of stories with twist were things like dragons were protagonists, to loving super heroes like the X-Men and Spiderman, to even Anime like One Piece.
"we're no heros! we're pirates."
Speaking as an author, I think another reason heroes have a reputation for being boring is that they are manufactured with a label slapped on them. It's easy to say a character is good, but it is difficult to make them nuanced and human because the label doesn't come with that. Anti-heroes and morally gray characters come pre-packaged with angst and intrigue. So to make a good hero, all you have to do is treat them like a person, not a hero. A good person, but a person all the same.
I struggled with this in my writing, because I had one character who was supposed to be wise and gentle and smart and strong and all those lovely adjectives all at once. But I knew that people would complain if they saw he had no flaws. So I made up some flaws and slapped them on as a label. It took me several months to weave his personality and his flaws together. It stung, because I wanted him to be perfect, but I also wanted him to be somewhat relatable. Now I've gotten to the point where he is actually the most complex character I have. I took his virtues (heroism, empathy, patience, a propensity for abstract thought) and flipped the coin, making these virtues into flaws as well. He is heroic, but he has no idea when to stop giving and he needs his friends to come alongside him and tell him to stop before he burns out. He is empathetic, but he gets constantly bogged down by his emotions and the emotions of those he cares about. He is patient, but too often he takes the beating and doesn't stand up for himself when he is being tried. He is a philosopher, but that only makes him dissatisfied with how little he understands.
This is a fantastic trick for making nuanced characters. It works every time. If a character is loyal, make them unable to break away from relationships that could potentially harm them. If they are unshakeable in their beliefs, make them narrow-minded and stubborn. If they are gentle, make them unable to push back against sarcasm and cruel words. And nothing is so satisfying as seeing a character not just overcome their flaws, but learn to use their flaws for good or find the perfect balance of one quality that makes it no longer a flaw. For instance, if a loud, obnoxious comedy relief joins the army, his perkiness will help the morale of the soldiers around him. Put in an extreme situation, a quality that others may see as his flaw can be exactly what is needed.
Another reason that explains why heroes can feel one dimensional is this: characters are not just difficult to create from scratch. Assembling a person from scratch is surprisingly easy. The hard part is actually making them consistent, and writing a character's journey does not get easier the farther you go. You get to know the character better, which makes it somewhat quicker, but it is still difficult. And because the hero has a big "HERO" label on him (which, as everyone knows, screams inherent likeability) a lazy author will think that they can cheat and make the character about as deep as a sheet of stationary. Of course readers will like and relate to the hero, because he's a HERO! A side-affect of this is when authors don't actually like their heroes or put any work into them because they are the hero and heroes have a reputation for being boring, thus their character must be boring to be considered a hero.
A character like the one you said you'd love to read is JOJO from Jojo Rabbit. It's a movie, but he is certain he can be a hero and then he not only realizes he can't, but also realizes he's on the wrong side.
Good movie, and hella funny, and commentar. And the dark humor. And authenticity of it all behind the aurd veil.
I think Frodo is a wonderful example for a very interesting hero. He is selfless and therefore goes on this journey but feels that he is wholly inadequate for this task. Many readers might expect him to succeed in the end - and the quest itself is indeed a success. But Frodo as the hero fails his task and even though it's a happy end for Middle-earth, it's not necessarily a happy end for Frodo.
7:32 literally my D&D character who join in the party because they were curious and love adventure and suddenly they have to fight dragons and they're like "oh fuck that shit" xD
This isn't from a book, but this was on my mind since I recently watched it.
In Teen Wolf the hero is Scott McCall who because he was so good developed into a True Alpha, which is a big deal. But the writing basically went from Scott is a True Alpha because he does the right thing to it's the right thing to do because Scott is the one doing them. It is so annoying when the hero does stupid/bad things it's held up as the right thing to do but if any of the other characters dares to do the same thing they are treated like they are the worst of the worst. Giving the hero a pass constantly just ruins the story
Ove and I’m just going to throw them in here as well The Doctor are two characters who despite at times being off putting and grumpy or goofy and seeming childish (more so The Doctor than Ove) are great heroes simply for the fact that they do what’s right not for praise or reward but simply because it’s kind and despite not acting like it most of the time (Ove) they do really care and hate seeing people taken advantage of
I can't remember which author said it, but on a podcast (it might have been Write-Minded, however), they mentioned "The Virgin's Promise" as an alternative archetype to "The Hero's Journey". I haven't looked into it enough to say more, but it's something others might want to look into as well.
I love that she almost said "morally gay" characters at the beginning instead of "morally gray." I love both kinds lmao
I caught that too😉
Keeping spoiler free because I now have this story coming out soon...ish (or at least a connected story), but I have a hero who's goodness is arguably pushed to its limits, considering she's repeatedly faced with having to tap into a power that is more than capable of corrupting her, and if it does...there's no guarantee her friends or anyone else could bring her back.
As for limits, I think most people would say I need less limits for my heroes considering I seem to enjoy torturing them with things they aren't quite good enough to stop
I played with this by making the hero a secondary character, and the MC a social pariah.
To this day, Rand al'Thor is one of my favourite characters in fiction