A strong male lead

He is a strong character in flashback. I suppose it is a little unfair for me to discount that considering it is actually a part of the movie.

 

So, even without a clearly shared understanding of what either "strong" or "character" mean in the phrase "strong male character", we've obviously been able to come up with lots of examples, which seems to disprove the original thesis.

Adding to the exploration, then, I'd question whether I want to read too many of the kind of characters some people seem to be thinking of as strong males. Powerful and admirable? Sure, that's great sometimes, but I generally like to get inside the characters I read, and I think both of those words only make sense from the outside.

Once we've seen the characters' doubts and fears, it's harder to think of them as "powerful" across the board. Once we've seen the faults and quirks that make characters human, it's hard to fully "admire" them, at least for me.

And that's okay. I don't really want to be impressed by fictional characters, most of the time. I want to relate to them.

Atticus Finch would have been a great man, if he were real, but in the book? He wasn't the POV character, and I assume the author had a reason for that. Scout makes mistakes, fumbles about, shows her weaknesses as well as her strength, and that makes her a character I want to spend time with. Atticus? He's fine from a distance.

So for me, I'm either going to want to change the meaning of "strong" to something like "faces weaknesses and challenges but manages to eventually pull himself together somewhat" (a la Homer Simpson!) or I'm not going to go out of my way to seek out more "strong" male characters.

 

Of course you are right, there. In theory, that's why he's allowed to be a badass and not die--although the truth is that Black Hawk Down (I always forget that's two words) is a bad example in the first place because the fates of the characters are the fates of real people and, as such, my social theories really don't apply.

 

One of my all-time favorite novels The Unknown Soldier has a mainly male cast and while they're all very different, most of them I'd describe strong. There's a sociopath who's strong because he's a survivor. There's a comedian who's strong because he's able to laugh even when he's in mortal danger. Then there's the traditional "nice guy" who's got a strong moral compass and who always strives to do the right thing and never loses himself even if some of the others get carried away amidst the terrible war they're fighting (and losing).

Another favorite of mine, Dina's Book has a Russian male character who isn't actually a lead character, but I'd call him strong. He's clever and cunning, and the only one who puts up a fight against the controlling Dina. I really like him; he's a man on a mission and doesn't let anything or anyone distract him because the plight of his people (Bolsheviks) always comes first. He can also play Dina's game, so it's oddly satisfying when she finally meets her match.

As for TV, as @Laurin Kelly mentioned, Jim Hopper for sure. Devoted, brave, willing to fight for his family. I think for a character to be "strong", they need to have something to believe in, they must have principles, and they don't crumble in the face of adversity but instead soldier through. They can show weakness, sure, but at the end of the day, they will still be standing. They don't whine or complain. They do what has to be done and they have the integrity to take responsibility.

 

I could not agree with you more, @BayView . Sometimes bravado is just BS, and frankly not all that appealing.

ETA: By "bravado" I mean the one-dimensional old-school version of bravery.

 

For reference, "bravado" already has its own definition: it describes a show of bravery intended as a facade--an appearance not backed up by action. I mention this because the "old school" definition for bravery, to me, evokes echoes of the Charge of the Light Brigade, which is definitely not an example of bravado.

@BayView, I think your distaste for strong characters who neither exhibit weakness nor experience downfall is exactly what I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to give a name to, and I think it's extremely common in today's gatekeepers.

 

The Doctor - Doctor Who (esp Tom Baker's version)
Uncle Scrooge McDuck (Walt Disney comics)
Lord Sesshomaru (InuYasha by Rumiko Takahashi)
Capt James T Kirk - Star Trek (OTS)
Dr. McCoy - Star Trek (OTS)
Capt Jack Harkness (Torchwood)
Indiana Jones
Han Solo - Star Wars
Prof. Severus Snape (Harry Potter)
James Bond (esp Sean Connery's version)
James Retief (Retief series by Keith Laumer)
Angel (Buffy & Angel)
Spike (Buffy & Angel)
that sailor from U-571 (I forget his name)
Jonathan the Angel (Highway to Heaven)
Pa Ingalls (Little House on the Prairie)
Zorro (all versions)
Jimmy Stewart in everything
Cary Grant in everything.
Vincent Price in everything.
Alan Rickman in everything.

I know, most of them are tv shows and movies, but whenever I think of strong male characters, these are always the first men (Ducks, Dogs, Demons, and Vampires) to come to mind.

 

Isn't it just that readers have a preference for complex, realistic characters rather than one-dimensional "heroes" or "good"people? I mean, I'm reading this as if you think the trend (if it exists) is a problem, but I certainly wouldn't see it that way. What do you think we'd be missing if we didn't have loads of characters of the sort you're describing?

 

One thing I think is relevant is that a lot of the characteristics we used to regard as admirable in men are now considered boorish or outright reprehensible, making the criteria for "strong male character" either uselessly vague ("a woman could do that just as well!") or something more suitable for a villain. It's interesting to compare this void to the many (perhaps too many) criteria we have for "strong female characters".

 

Can you list a few examples of these reprehensible characteristics, and perhaps some fictional "heroes" who possess them?

 

As incredibly subjective as these things are, I'd say these are masculine traits that were considered more admirable before than they are now:
--A willingness to kill without remorse.
--Protective / patronising to women--try as they might, they need to leave some things to the menfolk.
--Never admitting (or seriously experiencing) weakness, or "weak" emotions like compassion or grief.
--Sexually rapacious and / or forceful.
--Promiscuous and judged more leniently for it than women.

James Bond (in the original novels) springs to mind. Pitilessly and unhesitatingly violent, often condescending or borderline abusive to women, reinforcing a global status quo based on nostalgia for the British Empire.

 

I think that "admirable" may not mean what you think it means. Past or present.

 

I'm not sure how that relates to my post.

I'm simply saying, have a look at a good chunk of old-school action heroes or (perhaps more so), male leads in old-school romance novels. A lot of them did possess those traits and were presented and regarded as heroic and admirable examples of "real men" at the time--but they would not be regarded so these days (and I think that's a good thing).

 

I don't think that most of those traits were regarded as admirable. I would argue that they were more forgivable as faults.

 

Has being protective (but not patronising) to women become reprehensible? It's part of what the male sex is for, from the point of view of evolutionary biology. Men are expendable; women are not.

 

I'd say that protectiveness without controlling or patronizing elements is fine, though it should apply to any human, male or female, that needs protecting. But those elements do very often creep in.

 

I am so lost.

What does evolutionary biology have to do with ethics?

 

I like this question:-

ok, to me a strong male MC embodies the following: -

1) judging by myself, I am hugely physically stronger than most women. If we were in a situation where I could protect said woman, I would. Equality can go piss off.
2) The same as above goes for a male. I would protect a physically inferior male.
3) In every other way we can be equals.

 

Well, from the point of view of survival of the species, a woman can only go through a certain number of pregnancies in her life. So there's a pretty hard limit on the number of children she can bear. On the other hand, a man can ejaculate sperm many thousands of times in his life, delivering of the order of a hundred million sperm cells each time, and can therefore, at least theoretically, father oh, a bazillion kids.

Women's pregnancies are precious, from the POV of evolutionary biology, whereas men's ejaculations are a penny a hundredweight, so to speak.

So maybe that's why males of many mammalian species are so protective of the females. "Women and children first" isn't just chivalry, it's species survival.

 

Okay.

What does that have to do with ethics?

 

Yes Minstrel. Your logic is faultless, yet flawed. There is no evolutionary imperative to ensure the survival of other male's offspring, that is abundantly true (do I need to evidence this?) So fundamentally your assertion must be flawed.

 

Who cares? The question was about strong male leads, not ethics.

 

Well, there are species out there who protect all offspring in the group, but that may be because all said offspring have the same father. Anyway, chivalry and all that.

 

Yes, that did move the goulposts, I like to think that my comment did not. Anyone who pretends to be insulted can piss off.