Command is different to field work. To "get the job done" in command is not to be the guy who fixes things with or the soldiers who run in on the front-lines. You may just start there but you have to leadership skills and usually than involves being in lower-level command positions first, if they exist, to get leadership experience before you are "top dog".
There is that! I think it's called the Peter Principle. But where does 'alpha male' fit in? Can you apply that term to a person who gets to the top of the chain of command, even though they are useless? Does that make them an 'alpha male?' Personally, I don't think so. The term implies competence and leadership, doesn't it? You're not going to get there if you can't make the right things happen. The basic question I'm asking is do they achieve that status through competence or through competition?
Strong characters come in all shapes and sizes. I don't see too many alpha males in my life. I'm beginning to think they've been made up! I think western culture can put across the image that the hero must be a winner, and that to do this he must be ultra confident and take what's his. But in reality alphas are often morons, or at least they are till someone takes them down a notch. My characters are often quietly powerful, resilient in hard times and full of questioning, but they're not boorish or domineering. They may listen more than they talk but give sage advice, they may have a little wry humour too. Course, there's nothing wrong with courage or valour, but I think many people can step into this role without being alpha. There is a place for that type, though, so long as we can see their hidden depth. And sometimes alpha can be charming too. Some people make the mistake of thinking power comes from the lion that roars the loudest, but there are many magnificent animals out there that are powerful and so the same is with people.
I always assumed "alpha males" generally achieved their status through competition, either via attitude or physical display. Honestly, I think it's an outdated concept (best suited for wolves and other primitive beasts). A lot more can be achieved by working with your peers rather than trying to assert yourself over them. A lot of the traits mentioned in this thread I personally think better describe someone who is a hero than someone who is classically an alpha.
I suppose there's another category. Somebody who believes they are an alpha male, while others see him as a bit of a prat. Like believing you're a genius when you're actually pretty thick.
I guess the first question I would ask is why do you think being head of a household, having responsibility, and dominant precludes the character from having depth? I do all of those things but am absurdly complex. If I can "mansplain" "manliness" for a moment, maybe it would help. Think of a typical alpha male character. If we jump over to movies\TV for a moment we see characters like Captain Kirk, Piccard, or almost anything Russell Crowe has done. They are strict and hard with underlings out of necessity. They don't show all of their personality to people that don't need to know it, or more precisely, need to garner strength from those characters' strength. A father is often distant from his children because he must be authoritative, and as we all know, nothing undermines authority like familiarity. Being an emotionally grown "male" means knowing how to compartmentalize our feelings; what to show and when. So, your character in your book can be hard with some people, but friendly and open with others. Give your alpha a person or activity where they can stop being the Boss and be the person they hide from everyone else.
Hello , Cherrya's got some great advise there. I would try to focus on the character as a human being first, with gender aspects being added in later, sort of like a spice rather than a main ingredient. Unless you want gender identity of to be a theme of the story of course. I feel that the alpha male is more of a stereotype than an archatype. Best wishes for your story and writing in general. Hayley
Another thing you could try to 'soften him up' is to show him outwardly being unfazed with making difficult decisions. When he is alone, however, he is doubtful (perhaps even scared?) whether the choice he has made was the right one. If your main character finds him in this way it will allow him to open up to just her, perhaps because she is outside of his business circle. This gives him a weakness and makes him interesting while at the same time providing an opening for romance with your main character. Hope you find what your looking for!
Leadership roles depend on certain types of relationships. The OP is talking about Alpha Males, which are usually leadership\authority driven. To maintain authority among subordinate strangers, a certain distance us required. Just look at how the military handles this.
Yes it does. The best leaders I have seen have been warm and respectful to everyone (maybe it's different in military). There's a certain type of male out there that feels a need to assert himself over everyone who he doesn't intimately know. He has a face for those he feels comfortable around (like you said) and for everyone else he puts on an air of machismo because he's insecure with them. This is not being a leader. It's just being an asshole.
I think the vid is the Idiots Guide to Becoming a Douche Bag. At least that is my interpretation based on the subtitles.
We all like to look a pretty things. But I like a little more substance, and brains to go with the package deal. "Come for the breasts, stayed for the brains."
Your first statement didn't make sense because you didn't clearly define your subject. This is a writing forum after all. People in authority roles, which we tend to see as "alphas" have to authoritative, otherwise it doesn't work. You may not personally care for it, but your preference doesn't matter. Centuries of organization management tells us what works and what doesn't. There isn't a one size fits all solution to everything, but certain principles always apply. Projecting confidence, assertiveness, competence and a certain amount of personal distance generally works. That's one archetype. Another one is more what you are thinking of, which is the bragging, machismo bully. This is certainly a type of "alpha male," but in a sense isn't, because such people rarely earn the respect of others without displaying at least some of the characteristics I mentioned above. In this case we think of the college frat bro, or the smirking golf club member misogynist, or the blue collar cat-caller. In terms of a character, these sorts of male archetypes would have the toady-like respect of some, but would lack a broad appeal. The OP didn't really classify what their "alpha male" was like, other than general responsibilities. What I was trying to point out is that lots of men have to wear different hats, and that they are in fact complex, but are careful about how that complexity is demonstrated. That's why I suggested that if the OP was worry about their male characters being too one dimensional, that they should give them an outlet for their complexities. I think Atticus Finch is an excellent demonstration of an alpha male that is still a loving father. I honestly think that Ned Stark tries to walk the line between good father, loving husband, and dutiful friend; which doesn't really end well for him. There aren't a lot of solid, positive "alpha male" characters in literature because men like that handle their $#!+, which removes conflict, creates stability, and makes for a boring story. Why do you think so many hero MCs have a dead parent or are orphans? It makes for a better narrative.
That is a demonstration of a person that thinks they understand what it means to be a man, but are in fact insecure little boys. A real man understands the value of humility.
I think the problem is when you say authoritative you quickly form a negative impression because they are people who might simply like controlling everything as opposed to serving the greater whole. I've always had issues with authority, which goes back all the way to being young. I was naturally mischevious and didn't like being told what to do, so I didn't listen. Now I can see the logic and sense in structure and some form of authority yet I am still very instinctively rebellious against it. I think if you are free-spirited and have your own mind it's hard not to rub authority up the wrong way. There is being a rebel without a cause and there's being a rebel WITH a cause, and that's because authority is usually wrongly applied and forced upon others. After all, who truly has the right to interfere with another person's freedom or ownership over their own life? I prefer having a respect for the natural order of things which is an appreciation for orderliness and autonomy but I am very opposed to authority on most accounts. It has its uses sometimes but is usually just a way to assert control and dominate which interferes with the natural way of things. An example is the teacher who tells the kids what to do. Right, we need to show them we're not to be pushed around and that they're here to learn...and if they don't like that, well, tough. After all, we all need an education. But there's the teacher who screams and shouts and gets nowhere and there's the teacher who is diligent, observant and good-humoured who can discipline a student without treating it as any more than a part of growing up. I suppose you could still call this authority -- I've had teachers who were very strict and maintained that distance but were well respected and ultimately well liked because underneath that hard exterior was a beating human heart and a wry smile. But the authority is merely a means to an end; it must always be used by the most softest of people who deep down are just serving the interests of those they serve.
