We toss the word 'hero' around in defining any lead that takes a central position. We use the word 'villain' for a character that interacts in a negative manner in telling the story. You're comment on it depends on what you consider a "hero" addresses that slant. My protagonist does the right thing by accident. He's bummed he got fired. He's no hero. In the one defining moment where he might have done something he stayed alive simply by have dead bodies fall on him to provide cover. In no way should we project the term 'hero' on that lead. In fact, the lead doesn't do much of anything. It's the man most people would define as "the villain" that actually drives the story. If I alter the POV just a smidge, the villain can readily become the protagonist.
Well, I am not doing that at all. I am simply discussing archetypes in literature. As you know, there's no "protagonist archetype". That role is referred to as the "hero archetype". I agree that sometimes in discussions, word hero is used to refer to the protagonist, simply because a lot of the time those terms are interchangeable, but in reality, mixing the two systems is like mixing apples and oranges. I disagree with what you said about your hero. Your protagonist is, to me, a typical "accidental hero" version of the archetype. Sure, if you dislike the nomenclature you can choose not to refer to him in this way, but that doesn't make the literary archetype nomenclature wrong as such. You personally might not like it, and you don't have to use it, but arguing in that case would be entirely pointless because we'd be arguing about names rather than the concepts, and we'd both be right and yet wouldn't have a meaningful discussion.. An excellent analysis of literary archetypes can be found in the seminal book called "Hero With A Thousand Faces" or more contemporary "The Writer's Journey", if you want to read more about it.
I agree, however, there is a thread here where several members are exchanging posts to better define the terms. Either the present form of writing has successfully blurred the terms, or people don't know which is which--or care. And ya' know, at the end of the day I don't care either. Why does the protagonist have to be so 'normal' that he meets or exceeds a definition by rote? I refer to my guy as the "lead" simply because of a POV. And sometimes I wonder if the story would be more interesting if the POV emanated from the current "villain." The story would read the same, it might be a nice quirk, and the continuity changes would only take a matter of minutes. Perhaps the terms 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' are now truthfully archaic.
With few exceptions, you could be describing one of my acquaintances. They're quite brilliant in their chosen fields, but one attempted suicide, another has Asperger's, and the last plans on being a bum when he grows up. When an armed conflict of any sort occurs in my personal fictional world without my knowledge, that will be the day I know there's something else is going on in my brain. Seeing as this character is supposed to serve a mentor/contrasting role (the person who's supposed to be outwardly perfect so I can showcase the decidedly less perfect designated protagonist, a petty, slightly cowardly wastrel of a university student and his alcoholic, somewhat vampiric buddy), I'll leave it at that for the time being. He's probably not going to get that many lines unless he becomes the antagonist, and if that happens I'll deal with him then. jazzabel, thank you for your advice, although I'll have to look out for plot-convenient powers now. I hope the voice that yells 'You will NOT mess with the Laws of Thermodynamics!' and 'Shooting lightening bolts from his fingers?! What, are you senile?!' will keep me on the straight and narrow.
Well, I'll try not to take offense, but that's how my autobiography begins. In fact, I like your first line better than mine. I think what we're all dancing around is how the front of the story begins rather than crafting a good story. For example, every time I see one of those viewers' surveys on cable about the '50 top villains' they always mention Darth Vader. I've seen the movies, he's the conflicted protagonist who finally does the right heroic thing. First off, I do believe the lines have blurred, in fact, I deliberately blurred mine. I see no reason why an element of pathology cannot be a definition or a plot point for a protagonist. Hey, I'm nuts and I have papers to prove it. I've done some good things, and I feel 90% of the world's population wastes oxygen. No one is a fully formed 'anything.' To come full circle, take the journey with the characters, write a good yarn and define nothing. It would be nice to see a "synaptically challenged" guy be the ultimate hero, but I'll settle for a supporting role. There are no small roles, only...
You're lucky. My autobiography would probably begin with 'she was a perfectly nice girl before she dropped her cat from the balcony.' Time travel! *Is shot* I'm sorry, I get loopy on my meds. Synaptically challenged? You could be referring to two or three out of the four main/recurring characters. That's kind of vague.
I like your thinking. Almost 75% of my lead is actually me. I really did almost die in a wreck. Hey, write what you know. If you're as crazy as I am, use it. Think about it. Most of the members here have to research insanity. You and I had front row seats. Yeah, a pet peeve. Everyone's a victim, so why not me, too? I'm bipolar, so living in Madison, Wisconsin I profess to be "synaptically challenged." Actually it's a blessing. Never play cards with a bipolar, at least not for money. We think two to three times faster than a muggle. By the time most people decide what they are going to do, I've already gone over their options and planned a remise. BTW, girl, you need info on BP II guys with some pathological tendencies, I'd be happy to be living resource material. Hey, we do critiques here to help writers, I'd be happy to have my brain laundered if it makes a better story.
Sorry, I've been eaves dropping on this thread out of sheer interest in the conversation. I haven't said anything because I've had nothing remotely useful to add, until now. And it's not even relevant to the conversation, but has touched me that I cannot help but comment. Tourist I just wanted to say that I appreciate your honesty about your BP. Even though we are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, it still takes bravery. I also have BP and borderline personality disorder (So they say. Personality disorders always seem somewhat more dubious than other psychiatric diagnoses). Except I "live in the closet" and pretend to be a functioning human being, until I can't anymore. The only people who know are my immediate family and husband. Anyway, thanks.
"I hope I've answered some questions. Here is my question: were you vehement at any point during this criticism? " Why would I be vehement? You asked for people's opinions on a character and I provided mine. He is a bit Mary Suish, but there is potential to provide him with real depth. You mentioned nepotism regarding his position. There is good fuel for the character right there. He is driven not simply to show his skill, but to prove that he DESERVES his position. That he just doesn't have natural talent and a rich/connected daddy. Plenty of people in real life with daddy issues. Very relatable. Even better if the character is the only one who even cares if he deserved his position. Other people only deal with him to get what they want anyway. Why would they care about "that guy" and his issues. Most of the people I know in real life similar to how you describe your character are treated exactly that way. People tell them whatever they need to hear to get what they want out of them. Let the baby have his bottle, as it were. You are free to weigh my advice and hopefully make a better tale for your readers, or not. Frankly people who are easily offended have no business being writers. Once your work it out there for the world to see, it WILL be interpreted countless ways. You seem to think the character described is justified, but I can tell you most people will see him as being close (not completely there yet) to a Mary Sue as stands. Which is fine. You are still developing the character and now have a few insights into how to keep that from happening. Heck you could go back and write him as a Mary Sue from your protagonist's perspective, only to find out as the narrative unfolds that the man is not quite so cookie cutter. Or that the MarY Sue persona is all an act to throw people off. Also, you should realize that people do in fact NOT consider a young woman as threatening as a man. Men are biologically more aggressive and (in most cultures) conditioned to stand up for themselves more. These are simple facts. A common thief is more likely to snatch a woman's purse than try and grab some dude's wallet. He is less likely to get chased and beaten down. Sociopathic women (and plently of regular ones) often use these facts to play the damsel in distress to get what they want. There's fuel for a character right there. Feel free to use it. Ideas are a dime a dozen.
Ya' know, I think I have a bigger problem here than just discussing plot points and the character development you wish to use. Most of the people who will read your work are not crazy. So when you ask me for info on this subject, I cannot help but color my prose from the opposite standpont. It would be like a character on the page defining your readers. And truth be told, I like being BP II, rather I like the manias and the thrill. I even like the underpinnings of being a psychopath. In fact, sometimes I just look at the world of muggles--thinking slowly but to their abilities, being tentative, living in a world of bored out Harleys but buying only a cheese sandwich--and I think, why do they choose to live in world where they don their own blinders? I have sympathy for this slate of characters you have. I feel they would be your brightest super novas. In the end, they are not "over-thinking" at all, it's the world walking around stuck in the mud and ladeling mush into their eyes.
On the other hand, I'm struggling to write a 5000 word short from the perspective of a pedophile who ends up being the victim of a serial killer. Lack of empathy on the part of the victim is a serious problem, and there's no end in sight.
Check out this blog, written by a psychopath who knows he's a psychopath. Basically, my impression of psychopaths is that morality makes no sense to them whatsoever, because they're born without some of the basic emotions that serve as the framework for morality in nonpsychopaths. Seeing someone get hurt brings no instinctive reaction from them. They may be happy, unhappy, or feel nothing depending on how the other person's distress affects them, but they won't feel any concern for the well-being of the other person. They can understand people setting rules and punishing those who break them, but to them there's no difference between telling a kid 'don't talk when the teacher's talking' and telling them 'don't bash your classmate's head with your textbook'. Both actions are against the rules, it would not naturally occur to them to think of one of those actions as being worse because it's hurting someone. If they don't know they're different (especially for a younger psychopath) they'll be assuming that everyone else is a psychopath as well, and that morality is just an elaborate game that people made up. They'll learn to fake the right emotions while honestly believing that everyone else is faking just as much as they do. If they've realized they're actually different from others (which in that blogger's case came when he researched psychopathy after being diagnosed with it) then they'll know that other people aren't always faking when they react differently from a psychopath, and they can start trying to analyze precisely in what ways other people differ from them. But they'll still have a lot of trouble figuring it out, kind of like a person who was born blind trying to figure out what color is. Since they don't have the same moral emotions, also, realizing that society considers them evil will probably not be particularly upsetting to them. Maybe annoying or frustrating if it interferes with them doing what they want, or else just kind of interesting. Oh, by the way, I sincerely doubt he would kill himself. Psychopaths are unable to feel ashamed of themselves (that's a moral emotion) and most tend towards an overly high opinion of themselves. It would be very unlikely for them to reach the depths of despair needed to decide they'd rather die. Much more likely, since many psychopaths don't feel fear very readily, for him to misjudge a dangerous situation and get himself killed stupidly. (Kind of like the many vampires in Buffy the Vampire Slayer who jump at the chance to fight a slayer and get staked almost immediately. In general Buffyverse soullessness seems to be equivalent to real-life psychopathy.)
Do you mean the pedophile lacks empathy, or you lack empathy for him? Pedophiles are basically like anyone else in everything except their sexuality. For whatever reason, they find themselves attracted to children. They know it's wrong, but they can't stop feeling that way, and part of them keeps hoping that they can find a way to have sex with a kid without it being wrong. They basically have the exact same emotional experience as a gay guy who thinks homosexuality is a sin. Only difference is that they're actually right about it. Personally, I feel a lot of empathy for pedophiles. It must absolutely suck to be a pedophile. Either you spend your whole life denying a basic human urge, or you ruin the lives of innocent children. And all this while having a completely normal capacity to feel guilt and shame (they're no more likely to be psychopaths than anyone else). Furthermore, if anyone finds out you have these urges, they will hate and revile you, whether or not you act on them.
I have no doubt that pedophiles are as unlikely to be a psychopath as anyone else. I just can't put myself in his mind. The serial killer is much more comprehensible in that context.
I think of them as kind of like the angsty kind of vampires. Both have a basic biological urge that makes them want to hurt people.
I had an opportunity to work with paedophiles, group therapy and forensic outpatients. I am a very emphatic person and I strive to understand. But there's no room for empathy with vast majority of paedophiles. Paedophilia is a lot less about sex than it is about sadism, power and complete annihilation of another human being (a child). Getting a paedophile to be honest with you is almost impossible, but in those rare instances, mainly obtained during investigation process, videos, diaries, online communications with others with the same deviation, the depth of their cruelty, and enjoyment of other's pain and suffering, is shocking. I have seen tv shows portraying emphatisable paedophiles (like the ones choosing to do the right thing, choosing to undergo physical castration etc etc), never known a real case of it. All of them are extremely passive aggressive and ultimately, extremely sadistic individuals, albeit with kind smiles and word "love" on their lips most of the time. But it could not be further from the truth. And another point - all of them will re-offend, at the earliest opportunity, despite all forms of treatment. And of course, it'll be the children's fault. So, empathy is definitely not the word I associate with that group.
The impression that I get from pedophiles is that it's mostly about control, and having the feeling of absolute control over anyone but a child tends to be difficult, as adults are more intellectually independent. Strangling a child, I imagine, would be a lot like strangling a cat -- this is a being physically weaker than you, with only the vaguest idea of what's going on, and lacking the perception of death most human adults possess. They also don't have vicious claws.
Being insane myself, I think it's great that someone wants to help the fringes of society. I wouldn't want to do that kind of work, and I "speak the language." But at the end of the day I have mixed feelings. Getting help, or wanting to get help, is the key to this issue. And I think writing about pedophelia accomplishes two things. It makes for a great story and draws attention to the problem. But it is a problem, none the less. We still have these guys lose in society, and that's the part that troubles me. I know that 'happy endings' and reader satisfaction are big issues with writing. I just hope that authors don't somehow make active, predatory pedophiles the heroes of novels. There is just some villainy in life that shouldn't get a free pass.
@Mendelevium: Yes, a lot of it is about control, definitely. But the pervasive motivation for paedophiles is one of destruction, sadism and annihilation. Narcissism and malignant levels of passive aggression are the integral component of their behaviour. Otherwise, you have plenty of control freaks around, OCD, OCPD, Paranoid PD, Antisocial PD (or just traits), who exhibit varied and extreme controlling behaviours, but with different motivation and a different impact.
