# Chosen Ones not being quite as outstanding as one might expect...



## Darth Angelus (Jun 19, 2012)

We have all seen this trope countless times. This person, typically male and from unremarkable origins, is destined to be the one to save the world. He will almost always be unique, the only one with the gift or talent to stop the main antagonist. It is so prevalent in the genre that we don't think much about it anymore. Often, it serves as a reason for other characters within the story to know and recognize the main protagonist and distinguish him from his peers. He is the Chosen One.

Aside from the rather obvious conclusion that it has arguably been a bit overused, there is one thing I have been thinking about. In my opinion, these characters generally seem to perform somewhat less impressively than the supreme gift we are told they have might have suggested, at least until the final battle has arrived.
No, I am not talking about how their skills compare to that of their vastly more experienced mentors as they have just started down their path towards their destiny. I am comparing them to their peers, like other characters in their class, who often seem capable of giving them a challenge. Harry Potter did not seem overwhelmingly superior to other pupils of his age in the Hogwarts academy, for example. Hermione outdid him a few times.
Let us take a look at very particularly gifted people in humanity, for a reference. If we talk about the most gifted few in history, in any one area, they seem to generally be head and shoulders above most people you'd call very talented in their areas.
There is nothing that indicates that Albert Einstein struggled with university level physics. He sometimes did miss grades because of lack of attendance, but when he did something, he got top grades. Theoretical stuff that would be extremely hard to the average person, and require great effort to absorb even of the gifted, seems to have just sunk in smoothly. By the age of 30, he was a leading physisist in the world.
Does this sound like the best science student in your collage class? I would say someone like him goes quite a bit beyond that. Even in the most prestigous universities in the world, with the highest entry requirements, I would dare say most students would not be near the talents of someone like him.
Similar talents can be found in other areas. Look at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, showing his amazing gift from earliest childhood. Even if I am not a huge fan of his style, I still believe he would have been one of the greatest musical geniuses of all times.
I am sure you know some of the other great geniuses in their respective areas.

Don't get me wrong! I do not mean to sound elitist. That is not what this is about at all. I am just saying that a person with truly unique talent will outshine your normal gifted student. Someone with a lot more experience could still be more skilled, but their peers with equal training will be no match for them.

If we go back to fiction again, with a few exceptions (Rand al'Thor in _The Wheel of Time_ being one), these characters who we are told have this unique gift, often struggle just as much as their peers to learn their stuff. I can't really think about any more examples than Harry Potter at the moment, and it is mostly a general feeling, but the tendency is everywhere.

Why is it done like this, then? I would guess it is to make the characters more relatable to the audience. A protagonist who rarely if ever struggles, particularly with stuff his peers find difficult, just seems like too much and too far from the audience. It may not even feel realistic, although it could logically very well be more realistic than how the story is actually written considering what we are told about the Chosen One character in question. I think these characters with special gifts are held back by fiction authors before the final battle in order to keep them from becoming too outstanding to be relatable.
In reality, a person with such a truly unique gift would have it constantly, including the classroom, and not just in the climax of the story.

I would say that this is not really a flaw, but actually a rather reasonable priority. Being relatable for the audience is top priority, and even logic and "realism", as much as I hate to admit it, are mostly there as secondaries in order to make characters and other story elements more relatable.

Finally, I might add that I think Chosen One characters should be used with caution, for this reason and many others. I don't feel like all stories that include them actually need them.

What do you think?


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jun 19, 2012)

Chosen One characters are indeed difficult to use. IMO the one thing to avoid at all costs is Destiny - it's the ultimate cop-out in plotting.

When I was creating and plotting _The Rat & The Serpent_, I wanted to use the "little prince" trope, and ideas of folk tales, but I didn't want the whole destiny/chosen path thing, so I was careful to have my mentor character be as hazy and uncertain as one would be in that position...

It's not an easy fence to sit on, however.


----------



## James Coote (Jun 19, 2012)

It isn't about taking a genius and making them easier to relate with. The chosen one is always ordinary because they are a stand-in for the reader. Depending on how the author treats the chosen one, the author can say different things to the reader:

Don't judge a book by its cover. Work hard and you can achieve anything. The meek shall inherit the Earth. With great power, comes great responsibility. Etc etc

Often in real life, people are thrust into situations where they unexpectedly have great power. If you are a lowly waiter on a cruise ship, maybe one day you will have to decide who gets to go in the lifeboat and who has to swim for it. 

As for destiny, that is all about the reader's thwarted ambitions in life. 

Destiny is easy to mess with though. You just have to introduce ambiguity. The prophecy says "The chosen one will be born on the 3rd night after the Moonfeast Festival." Well the Moonfeast happens twice a year. Does that mean the spring one or the autumn one? Does it even mean this year? What happens when two children are born on that day? Or none?

I don't get why chosen ones tend to be men though. I mean, if the chosen one was a woman, I so would


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 19, 2012)

James Coote said:


> It isn't about taking a genius and making them easier to relate with.


It may not generally be the intention, but it is the end result.



James Coote said:


> The chosen one is always ordinary because they are a stand-in for the reader. Depending on how the author treats the chosen one, the author can say different things to the reader:


Respectfully, I must disagree most strongly about the "ordinary" part. The Chosen One can't truly be ordinary in-story, as that would contradict their status. They can just seem ordinary at one point early on in the story, which would be the origin part.



James Coote said:


> Don't judge a book by its cover. Work hard and you can achieve anything. The meek shall inherit the Earth. With great power, comes great responsibility. Etc etc
> 
> Often in real life, people are thrust into situations where they unexpectedly have great power. If you are a lowly waiter on a cruise ship, maybe one day you will have to decide who gets to go in the lifeboat and who has to swim for it.


It is a compelling message. However, it is stretching believability in many cases. If ordinary people could do what the Chosen One protagonist is supposed to do, anyone else in the story should be able to do the same, hence negating the Chosen One status.
The nature of the Chosen One can obviously vary from story to story. Tolkien made a bit of a stroke of genius to make the gift of the Chosen ringbearer, which would be Frodo. What the hobbit had was instead an exceptional resilience to the ring's corrupting power. In fact, Frodo's own lack of power meant he could not use the ring like a wizard or elf lord might have, and hence he would not be as tempted by the ring's power. In that case, the lack of special powers was actually an asset in the role of the ringbearer. In that case, you could say he actually made this message come across convincingly.
Notice, however, that Frodo's role was never to actually overpower Sauron himself.

However, in many other stories, being the Chosen One actually means the protagonist is the only one who can actually defeat the main antagonist, in a direct confrontation. Both Harry Potter and Anakin Skywalker in _Star Wars_ are about that. In such stories, anything less than extremely outstanding aptitude for whatever ability the protagonist is supposed to use to accomplish this makes little sense
Star Wars: Episode I outright says that Anakin's midi-chlorian rate (Force talent) is off the charts, even beyond Yoda. That does not strike me as particularly "ordinary" (how exactly would that be some stand-in for the audience, eho will mostly consist of average people?) Such people generally don't struggle to learn their thing.

Yes, it may be true that people can have unexpected strengths, but there are realistic limits. Most people (myself included, of course) would not be able to write something like the theory of relativity if their life depended on it. Again, I am not trying trying to be elitist or condescending to ordinary people. I am just stating how I see things. If we are told some person is unique in humanity to be able to accomplish a specific feat of great strength, and it is actually about that and not something like Frodo's resilience to the ring's corruption, I cannot see how that ability would be ordinary.



James Coote said:


> As for destiny, that is all about the reader's thwarted ambitions in life.
> 
> Destiny is easy to mess with though. You just have to introduce ambiguity. The prophecy says "The chosen one will be born on the 3rd night after the Moonfeast Festival." Well the Moonfeast happens twice a year. Does that mean the spring one or the autumn one? Does it even mean this year? What happens when two children are born on that day? Or none?
> 
> I don't get why chosen ones tend to be men though. I mean, if the chosen one was a woman, I so would


I'd rather not open the can of worms called destiny. The author can pull almost anything with that card.


Anyway, I partly agree with some of the things you are saying, but only partly. I know you are probably right about Chosen Ones being intended as stand-ins for the audience, even though that is obviously pretty far from what the audience will be.
All in all, I think that Chosen Ones struggling to learn their stuff is usually an acceptable way to sidestep realism and logic as it would make said characters more relatable, but still, at the end of the day it is sidestepping realism and logic nevertheless.


----------



## James Coote (Jun 20, 2012)

I think you're overly attributing genius to your real life examples. If Einstein hadn't been around, I'm sure Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger etc would have eventually come up with the same ideas.

No one is born kick-ass. Einstein wasn't born with a natural aptitude for physics and I'm sure he worked bloody hard. If Mozart had not picked up a violin until age twenty, I highly doubt he'd be any good with it when he did

That's why destiny is so wrapped up with the chosen one. Because from time to time, things do just click for a person and great results follow, and we celebrate that despite knowing that for each genius come to fruition, there were many other _potential_ genii for whom the right circumstances never quite came together (like for Ryan Giggs in this advert). That is how the readers see themselves. 

So when they see a character for whom great things are prophecised, but who really struggles, or has to wait till the climax in the story's events for things to click, that is what they relate to. The reader's life may have been a near miss, and they may feel they could have a second shot yet, hence why it is so gratifying to see a character hit their destiny right in the bullseye


----------



## Lilmizflashythang (Jun 20, 2012)

Don't get so hung up on genius like Einstien and Mozart. After all, Einstien was a genius in physics, but he couldn't tie his shoes until he was 12 if I remember correctly. Genius of that caliber costs the individual other skills. The brain can only handle so much. Many super-geniuses lack the everyday skills we take for granted.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Jun 20, 2012)

Einstein was almost certainly aspergic, as was Winston Churchill and a number of other of so-called genius's. (da Vinci, I don't know about Mozart, but he did seem very focused). Tying shoelaces is way beyond complex physics at 12. (this I'm confident of...)

The thing is, once we accept that one conventional story line is that of a quest, there sort of needs to be a reason to do such a thing, and unfortunately being the chosen one gives impetus. 

But, it's only one plot line and like any other, it's what you do with it that matters. A chosen one who can't cope with it? A chosen one who gets hideously damaged by it? A female chosen one, good lord... (vin from Mistborn, stand up.) A chosen one who gets killed at the end of book one of a trilogy  spoiler: (Kelsier, ditto Mistborn - ok, so it was really Vin, but do we know that Kelsier couddn't have done it?) 
So long as it's a good read, does it matter?


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 20, 2012)

James Coote said:


> I think you're overly attributing genius to your real life examples. If Einstein hadn't been around, I'm sure Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger etc would have eventually come up with the same ideas.


It would probably be true that a few others could do it eventually. However, no offense, but I think there is one thing you are either missing or ignoring. These other people would have been pretty far above the normal person, too.



James Coote said:


> No one is born kick-ass.


True, all people will need some practice to hone their skills, no matter their aptitude. How much time and effort it takes to learn stuff will vary greatly, however. As will the maximum level of skill people are able to attain.



James Coote said:


> Einstein wasn't born with a natural aptitude for physics and I'm sure he worked bloody hard.


Well, yes, I should think he had really high above ordinary capacity to understand that stuff. As for him working really hard, I agree if you talk about his theory. To learn the university level stuff in the first year of a typical physics programme, not so much.



James Coote said:


> If Mozart had not picked up a violin until age twenty, I highly doubt he'd be any good with it when he did


I would not be particularly sure of that. The stuff he is said to have been able to do would put many world-famous musicians's skills to shame.



James Coote said:


> That's why destiny is so wrapped up with the chosen one. Because from time to time, things do just click for a person and great results follow, and we celebrate that despite knowing that for each genius come to fruition, there were many other _potential_ genii for whom the right circumstances never quite came together (like for Ryan Giggs in this advert). That is how the readers see themselves.


Except that seeing yourself as even that would be one huge ego-boosting lie. Most people are not even potential geniuses. Since I have studied mathemetics and computer science at university, I could bring up an example. If you can't EASILY handle first year university mathematics, you are not a potential mathematical genius. Many people I have had in my class in earlier stages of school were struggling with first degree equations.



James Coote said:


> So when they see a character for whom great things are prophecised, but who really struggles, or has to wait till the climax in the story's events for things to click, that is what they relate to. The reader's life may have been a near miss, and they may feel they could have a second shot yet, hence why it is so gratifying to see a character hit their destiny right in the bullseye


I know what the narrative motivation for writing that is. I am just explaining that geniuses, or what you call potential ditto, will not struggle to learn stuff in their genius area like normal people.



Lilmizflashythang said:


> Don't get so hung up on genius like Einstien and Mozart. After all, Einstien was a genius in physics, but he couldn't tie his shoes until he was 12 if I remember correctly. Genius of that caliber costs the individual other skills. The brain can only handle so much. Many super-geniuses lack the everyday skills we take for granted.


For clarification, even if this may be true in *some* cases, it doesn't really negate my point, as I was talking about fictional characters struggling in their own area of genius.
If we had a fictional genius magician struggling to learn swordfighting, I would not have any problem with that whatsoever. I am not saying they should be all-encompassing geniuses or Mary Sues.
If it was not clear in the initial post, I was referring to the fictional equivalent of Einstein struggling to learn physics like an average Joe, not him struggling to tie his shoes.



springs said:


> Einstein was almost certainly aspergic, as was Winston Churchill and a number of other of so-called genius's. (da Vinci, I don't know about Mozart, but he did seem very focused).


Well, even if this may be be the case, I have never heard of a criteria of Asperger Syndrome saying such a person would struggle in a field where they are far above the average. Problems with social interaction does not mean problems learning advanced mathematics or phsysics.


Everything I have ever seen or heard about the issue from a credible source indicate that human talents (in almost every field, individually) would vary according to normal distribution. This does not just include mental aptitudes, but also physical.

Cheers!


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Jun 20, 2012)

Well, even if this may be be the case, I have never heard of a criteria of Asperger Syndrome saying such a person would struggle in a field where they are far above the average. Problems with social interaction does not mean problems learning advanced mathematics or phsysics.

No, they don't fully understand yet how the syndrome effects individuals, but it does throw up a number of individuals who are strong in individual, specific skill sets, whilst still having significant other difficulties, of which social interaction is one of the most well known ones. In fact, I would say being aspergic would mean the chosen one might struggle to complete their task. Nonetheless in terms of the super-humans selected on the thread, they show aspergic tendencies...


Everything I have ever seen or heard about the issue from a credible source indicate that human talents (in almost every field, individually) would vary according to normal distribution. This does not just include mental aptitudes, but also physical.

Absolutely. And given it's a syndrome which crosses over to three other neuro-developmental disorders, the distribution is very, very wide indeed. The majority of people with it don't have the excellence made famous within the ASD spectrum by eg. Rainman, (the sauvant presentation).


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 20, 2012)

To be honest, Asperger or not is really rather beside the point here. Normal distribution applies to the whole population, not just to peoole with some disability.
Being 4+ standard deviations above the average human in a given skill will make tasks related to that skill much easier to learn than the average human would. If you have some disability, it just means that you will not be anywhere near that level for skills hampered by said disability. A person with Asperger Syndrome cannot be a "social genius" obviously, as that would contradict the criteria. However, in the skills where they can actually still be geniuses (such as mathematics and/or physics), if they should happen to be just that, they would hardly struggle in that particular area like the average Joe.


----------



## James Coote (Jun 20, 2012)

We're getting sidetracked here. Being the only one who can wield the magic sword of doom doesn't necessarily qualify you as a genius


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 20, 2012)

No, but a lot of the other stuff presented about these characters would. If Harry Potter is this "brilliant" magician, I should think he would have a way easier time than other students. And fighting Voldemort was never a task for any ordinary wizard.
I would say that Anakin Skywalker's record midi-chlorian rare would make him some kind of Force-genius, would it not?


----------



## Shane Enochs (Jun 20, 2012)

Darth Angelus said:


> No, but a lot of the other stuff presented about these characters would. If Harry Potter is this "brilliant" magician, I should think he would have a way easier time than other students. And fighting Voldemort was never a task for any ordinary wizard.
> I would say that Anakin Skywalker's record midi-chlorian rare would make him some kind of Force-genius, would it not?



Voldemort would have whipped Harry's ass up and down the block if it wasn't for Harry's mom.  There wasn't anything particularly special about Harry.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 20, 2012)

Shane Enochs said:


> Voldemort would have whipped Harry's ass up and down the block if it wasn't for Harry's mom.  There wasn't anything particularly special about Harry.


Of course, when Harry was a baby. I confess I have not read the novels, but I think Harry defeated Voldemort at the end of the series, and his mother was at least physically dead by then, so any contribution she could have given her son was not about direct help in the fight.
This is more or less entirely beside the point of my thread, though. The point was that it is, from one perspective, pretty weird that someone about whom there isn't anything "particularly special" can be this unique savior of the world. As I pointed out in my initial post, though, I am willing to overlook this.


----------



## Shane Enochs (Jun 21, 2012)

Darth Angelus said:


> Of course, when Harry was a baby. I confess I have not read the novels, but I think Harry defeated Voldemort at the end of the series, and his mother was at least physically dead by then, so any contribution she could have given her son was not about direct help in the fight.
> This is more or less entirely beside the point of my thread, though. The point was that it is, from one perspective, pretty weird that someone about whom there isn't anything "particularly special" can be this unique savior of the world. As I pointed out in my initial post, though, I am willing to overlook this.



Nah, she has been saving his butt postmortem for his entire life, pretty much.

Going back to the point of the thread, though, there are many people in real life who have a rags to riches story.  It's not uncommon for people who come from very humble beginnings to turn out much smarter or stronger or whatever than anyone thought possible.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 21, 2012)

James Coote said:


> It isn't about taking a genius and making them easier to relate with. The chosen one is always ordinary because they are a stand-in for the reader.



Very good point - and hereby lies my own big criticism - that in doing so, the trope character becomes nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy in a piece of escapism.

My memory of Tolkien with Frodo is that he did it well - what was extraordinary about him was his ordinariness - but then again, he wasn't fulfilling a prophecy, and it was his best friend's simplicity that saved everyone in the end.

What puts myself off especially is when that wish-fullment fantasy really becomes extreme - the character becomes all powerful, and especially has lots of sex with lots of supposedly beautiful women.

All a book like that says to me is that the author is very insecure, cannot relate to people, and therefore is writing for similar insecure socially inept males.

I don't want to read a book like that.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 21, 2012)

Shane Enochs said:


> Nah, she has been saving his butt postmortem for his entire life, pretty much.


Fair enough. That would just make another point that would stretch my believability a bit as well, though. It still does not alter anything. You can't do something that no one else could because your mother loved you or something like that



Shane Enochs said:


> Going back to the point of the thread, though, there are many people in real life who have a rags to riches story.  It's not uncommon for people who come from very humble beginnings to turn out much smarter or stronger or whatever than anyone thought possible.


Maybe, but from riches to actually unique in humanity is quite a gap. You said it yourself in the word "many", which per definition contradicts uniqueness.

Again, I am not saying either of these bother me extremely much. _Harry Potter_'s primary target audience would be younger than myself, and I have always kept this in mind. The point of the thread is much more widespread than that, however.



I said:


> Very good point - and hereby lies my own big criticism - that in doing so, the trope character becomes nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy in a piece of escapism.


Aye, that too. Personally, I do not think relateability should hinge too much on the character being too similar to the supposed target audience. That feel like just an easy and rather cheap way to do it. I think a well-written story can actually make us root for a character who is different than ourselves.
I do not generally read fiction to see the protagonist as a stand-in for myself, at least not beyond the point that he or she becomes my eyes in the fictional world,



I said:


> My memory of Tolkien with Frodo is that he did it well - what was extraordinary about him was his ordinariness - but then again, he wasn't fulfilling a prophecy, and it was his best friend's simplicity that saved everyone in the end.


Yes, Tolkien did this much better than most authors, in this as well as many other things. The story of the ringbearer was about resisting he evil power of the ring, and to do that, being ordinary and unable to truly wield its power to any significant extent was a major asset, if not requirement.
The great thing about this is that it was flawlessly turned into this asset.
When it comes to a character whose purpose is to perform something extraordinary in terms of skill or power that no one else could do, rather than just resist evil power like Frodo, it just makes little sense to me that they would be no greater than their peers.



I said:


> What puts myself off especially is when that wish-fullment fantasy really becomes extreme - the character becomes all powerful, and especially has lots of sex with lots of supposedly beautiful women.
> 
> All a book like that says to me is that the author is very insecure, cannot relate to people, and therefore is writing for similar insecure socially inept males.
> 
> I don't want to read a book like that.


Lol, yes, there is a fair share of those books in the Fantasy genre


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jun 21, 2012)

Darth Angelus said:


> Yes, Tolkien did this much better than most authors, in this as well as many other things.


 
A good point, and very true.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jun 21, 2012)

Again, I would like to point out that this thread is not about me wanting protagonists to be more Mary Sueish. It is just that if the author wants to tell the audience how special a certain character is, I like it shown, as well. For the main character to be told over and over how special they are by other characters, only to never outshine their peers in much of anything, it does make for some discrepancy.
Now, the main character does not need to (and should not) have an easy time with everything. Challenges are needed to keep the story interesting. It is just that being so incredibly special should make the challenges different than those faced by their peers. These chosen one characters will tend to carry (often immense, if not world-sized) extra burdens that others will not.
I just feel it is weird to be told that this fictional character has this incredibly unique ability to become stronger and greater than anyone else, only for them to be regularly matched others of their experience level.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Jun 29, 2012)

Turning to mythology for a comparison may be useful. As many of you probably know, the Hero's Journey is perhaps the greatest of all ancient myths. They come from all the world's cultures, all the ancient civilizations.

Famed mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote a book on the subject called, appropriately enough, The Hero's Journey. It details the entire process through which the hero progresses on his/her quest.

An excellent summary of the work can be found here:

http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/smc/journey/ref/summary.html


----------



## TomS (Jun 29, 2012)

Darth Angelus said:


> These chosen one characters will tend to carry (often immense, if not world-sized) extra burdens that others will not.



This got me thinking, maybe it's not so much that these characters are the only ones who can but that they're the only ones who will.


----------



## Fairytale Jane (Jul 2, 2012)

Readers need characters that they can relate to. Humans are far from perfect. Why should authors create those that are? One would quickly lose interest. 

P.S. On a side note, albert einstein may have been an intellectual prodigy, but he was a social failure.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 2, 2012)

Sigh, Fairytale Jane. I think I might have noticed those arguments the first fivehundred times they were brought up. In fact, I even foresaw this objection before I started the topic, which is why I covered the relatability aspect in my original post.

"Humans are far from perfect."
Yes, and in my experience humans are also pretty far from being Chosen Ones destined to save the world. That hasn't stopped authors from using that plot device.
How is performance on a level of the role in question the same as being "perfect", anyway? I think that if author wants a character to struggle, that is fine, but then why hype them up to a level of total uniqueness? Did I not explain I wasn't asking for Mary Sues already. All this thread was about was the disparity between these characters's hyped up greatness and their actual performance.
Einstein's social failures are nearly totally irrelevant, as I was talking about these characters performing average in the fields of their actual claimed brilliance (i.e. analogous with Einstein's aptitude for physics).

Seriously, did you even read the topic before you posted? It does not seem like it, because the answers were there already. I don't mean to be rude, and I am sorry if it comes off that way, but in my book it is a bit rude not to even make a token effort to read through a topic and try to understand what the original poster was trying to say before you respond with a few lines that can only serve to push the discussion back to square one, thereby forcing the initial poster to repeat effort they made to explain all over again.

Well, I guess I should say welcome to the forum, however! Please just try to check the threads and think before you post in the future!


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 2, 2012)

TomS said:


> This got me thinking, maybe it's not so much that these characters are the only ones who can but that they're the only ones who will.


A fair point, and it could be from time to time, I suppose. However, it is often more or less explicitly stated that they are the only ones who can. That does not prevent the idea of them being the only ones who will from having merit, however (I think this may actually have been the case with Frodo as ringbearer, but then again _LotR_ never stated no one else could). I just wish this plot device was that well-written more often.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 2, 2012)

No need to feel defensive, Darth Angelus - everyone contributes as they see fit. 

Similar with stories, to be honest - different books satisfy difference reader interests, and provide difference challenges. 

The hope is that the fantasy genre especially is evolving further at the moment to take account of realism more and therefore satisfy a wider range of readers - that's my personal hope anyway - but there's always going to be a place for Dragonlance.

As for characters - there are some novels I cannot read because it's explicit that the protagonist is some form of male wish-fulfillment - excellent swordsmen, brilliant magician, and beautiful virgins open their legs at every turn. 

Luckily, there are other stories out there where emotional arcs for a character to develop are a key focus.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 2, 2012)

Fair enough. I did not mean to be hostile to the new member. Sorry if I seemed that way! 

It is just that they seemed to ignore much of the previous thread, forcing me to explain my position all over again.

I certainly agree with you about not having pure wish fulfillment characters. To that end, I think it is worth considering how much a character should be hyped up as really special. I think the Chosen One is an overused trope, which is often not needed. If an author decides to use it, however, I think the character's abilities need reflect their specialness on some level. They need to perform somewhat better than their peers in some area in order to fully sell the idea to me. Relatability can still be upheld if they are challenged by greater than ordinary problems, anyway, in my opinion.


----------



## Fairytale Jane (Jul 2, 2012)

I always read the given material before responding. Perhaps it is you who needs to reword the original message given that many people have gone off track according to you. 

As for the hype of the character, it's obvious isn't it? He/she is the chosen one and they are supposed to succeed others in their chosen area. For Harry, for example, defeating Lord Voldemort was his area. Hermione couldn't do it even she outperformed him academically. 

I suppose the hype failed to provide you with the satisfaction you were seeking. All of this is really subjective. The plot may be overused by now but what you do with it is the thing that counts.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 2, 2012)

You did read? It is pretty hard to see. Claiming that people who are supposed to perform some action that no one else can should indeed consistently outperform their peers in at least one area is not the same as asking for perfect characters or Mary Sues. Claiming it does would be a straw man argument.
Why should I reword the original message? It mentions relatability of characters and everything. There was no lack of care to spell out the message on my part, just a lack of care of a few readers to pick up the actual message rather than the straw man/Mary Sue version of it. I am not sure why that is, but I do have a theory. I know many people are so afraid of Mary Sues, and I think even that can go too far, so that people reflexively interpret any message that a hero is not as good as they should be to mean someone asks for Mary Sues might explain why it has been misinterpreted by so many.
Now, let me ask you a question. Why should someone who has never been shown to be capable of performing on a level above anyone else suddenly be able to do so in the final battle or main plot point of the story just because the plot asks for it? How is that continuity?

The thing about Hermione, if she is outperforming Harry as a magician, she should logically be capable of doing what he can. It just feels more neat, elegant, and sensible if the character who is best at performing the one task required to save the world is also best at performing in the skill they use. Even if it is a Fantasy story, it should follow some kind of sensible pattern, or the story is just gibberish.
As for the realism argument, again, then Chosen One, destiny and magic must all be thrown away along with the "perfect people". So the argument that one should not have "perfect people" (as if I was asking for it) because it is "unrealistic" makes no sense at all, in the context of Fantasy being discussed. Still, I assure you, people with four or five standard deviations above the human mean in some skill or talent (which is more in line with what I actually asked of these "unique" characters) are far more realistic than many things that actually occur in this genre.

If the hype had no backing in the actual capabilities of the characters, then the story has at least some continuity issues.

Unlike some people, I don't think people neccessarily need to be average joes to be relatable, because you can create world sized challenges that the truly great hero must face in order to keep things interesting, even if learning to cast a simple spell is easier than it would be for their peers. Still, if an author feels they can't make a relatable protagonists without making them average, then why is it too much to ask that they DO NOT make said average-performing protagonist hyped to be Chosen One in the first place? If an author is so desperate for one of his or her characters to be "nothing special", it makes more sense to avoid this trope altogether, does it not? After all, being the Chosen One is being special by definition.
What I am saying is that this trope is waaay overused, yes, but when an author does decide to use it, they should do so properly.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 2, 2012)

Let's keep the argument away from any poster and on topic, pleae, Darth Angelus. 

It's entirely normal for threads to be misread, so if this is the case in this instance, best not to seek to redress that. Otheriwse no thread anywhere online would get very far. 

As for the hero's journey trope - there's little more I can add other than some people will do it better than others. And that's the case with storytelling in general, regardless what themes, backgrounds, or devices they use.


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 2, 2012)

Ok, fine. I guess I will just have to accept the situation, then. It just sounded as if some people asked for Mary Sues, in spite of multiple clarifications to the contrary.
I do not feel like I was flaming anybody, but you are right in that this topic is starting to come close to dangerous territory.

The Hero's Journey is fine as a trope, I think, at least most of the time. It is just when the hero's greatness is hyped to the skies with the Chosen One trope, without any performance on that hyped level on the hero's part, that comes off as a bit lacking in the continuity department. Since the author always had the option of not making the character the Chosen One, I cannot really buy the "average performance is more relatable than genius ditto" argument.


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2012)

I think the issue you're having is the learning of said "amazing unique skill" this can annoy me too sometimes, but then again it does depend on the background...take for example a "gifted, chosen one" who will be a master magician. They have spent their first 15/6 years working in fields, they have no education at all, can't read/write etc and have a very limited imagination. Let's also say that the magic "system" in this world is learned from spells or imagination. This "chosen one" will NOT struggle with using their "gifted" ability, but they WILL struggle with the things that will allow him to access it - the reading/writing and the imagining, but as soon as they have that down, then they can use their powers to their maximum...thus the issue with their failure to use their powers lies with a co-issue. Take for example the truly terrible Green Lantern film. His weilding power was terrible, no imagination and all centred on guns, the other Lanters were able to crush him...if they spent more time working on his imagination then he would be able to use the ring better...for another good example of chosen one that actually works, and with some wonderful writing and twists, try the Mistborn trilogy (also FEMALE "chosen one") But I do agree that sometimes, the "chosen one" is used poorly as a plot device...in one of my shorts, I use a chosen one, however they are absolutely no help in the defeat (kind of) thing that happens at the end, I have used them as a sub plot, still "chosen" but not for the task at hand. Feel free to shoot me down, I quite enjoy a bit of exasperated banter :wink:


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 24, 2012)

Nah, your post is a good one, and relevant to the topic, in my opinion.



Kylara said:


> I think the issue you're having is the learning of said "amazing unique skill" this can annoy me too sometimes, but then again it does depend on the background...take for example a "gifted, chosen one" who will be a master magician. They have spent their first 15/6 years working in fields, they have no education at all, can't read/write etc and have a very limited imagination. Let's also say that the magic "system" in this world is learned from spells or imagination. This "chosen one" will NOT struggle with using their "gifted" ability, but they WILL struggle with the things that will allow him to access it - the reading/writing and the imagining, but as soon as they have that down, then they can use their powers to their maximum...thus the issue with their failure to use their powers lies with a co-issue.


That is a very good point. It may indeed be the case, for some Chosen Ones.
I guess that so long as the reason they would struggle is logical and not convoluted, it is not really a major issue. Struggling with something Else required to access the gift could be logical. However, a lot of stories lack such an explanation. We see Chosen Ones not being one iota better than their peers, for no reason.

As for the rest of our post, I am afraid I haven't really formed any opinion, either in agreement or disagreement.


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2012)

A good example (imo anyway) of a "chosen one" would be Kylar Stern in Brent Weeks Night Angel Trilogy, Brent covers exactly what annoys you, but it also annoys some of his main characters, and it does actually make perfect sense and he uses it as a plot device (genius move imo) and on second reading you get a whole new level of fear coming through (I can't say much more without spoilers) and it is one of my favourite trils...in those stories where they seem to be "chosen" just because it is an easy plot device because people know it so well, then I think the issue may be that the writer "forgets" the whole "chosen one should actually be good at stuff" and just brings it back in to cover why they can do stuff the others can't when it is needed, or to cover a plot hole "oh but they are the CHOSEN ONE they can totally defeat an army on the way to pick up the stone of destiny..." even though there has been no lead up to their skills improving...


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 24, 2012)

I haven't read that series.

I am a bit confused. Do you think ut is good, bad, or what? Is it an example of a Chosen One whose skills are outstanding or is he an average Joe? Does his skill setup make sense or not? I am not questioning you here. You just lost me.


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2012)

Right, he is a chosen one, an extremely well written chosen one, but one who has absolutely nothing special and seems to have chosen himself...he gets trained up as an assassin and is amazing at it as far as his talents allow - BUT he has no magic, and therefore cannot be the type of assassin he has been trained as (wetboy), raising the question why the greatest wetboy ever would take him as an apprentice as he has never had one before. However, the various subplots etc lead you to believe that he is a chosen one, but he is totally useless at what he should be amazing at, but this all down to Brent's amazing plot skills and I can't really say anymore about that on a public thread without giving away MASSIVE trilogy spoilers. His failure angers a lot of characters in the novels, much as it does you :wink: but it is all there for a reason. It is a very clever twist on the whole "chosen one" idea...his skill setup makes sense because that's not quite where his "gift" should be (but you don't find out what it is til later and even saying that is a bit of a spoiler...) and he thinks it is...all very clever. I think it is brilliant myself. Worth multiple reads, I think maybe designed for multiple reads...(SLIGHT SPOILER: his "gifted" ability and it's set-up is INGENIOUSLY brilliant, and he absolutely excels at it)
The second part of my earlier comment it what I absolutely hate in "chosen one" plots though


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 24, 2012)

Ok, thanks for clarification. It makes a bit more sense, now.

I cannot say whether I would like it or it would bother me, for obvious reasons. However, in general terms, if a skill does not fall within area of talent in which the character was intended to perform his or her Chosen One specific activity, then I could definitely accept them being nothing special.
It is just stuff like Harry Potter being "nothing special" as a magician and struggling to learn magic like anyone else (even though he is to kick Voldemort's rear with magic, which no one else is able to) that bothers me (a little).

If that series provides a valid reason for the Chosen One protagonist not performing brilliantly, then it is well-written. All I can say from what I read of your description is that it would take amazing writing skills to pull off, I think.


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2012)

His skill, once realised he kicks butt with so to say...theres a little bit of fumbling at the beginning while he is trying to get comfortable with it, but that last no time at all, and he really is amazing. It is imo extremely well written and well worth a look...


----------



## Kylara (Jul 24, 2012)

Hehehe you may enjoy this...http://9gag.com/gag/4812500


----------



## Darth Angelus (Jul 25, 2012)

Kylara said:


> Hehehe you may enjoy this...http://9gag.com/gag/4812500


Hehe, yeah. Anakin Skywalker was indeed a very disappointing Chosen One, in many ways.


----------



## michaelhall2007 (Mar 25, 2016)

Straight away I think of Neo from MATRIX. Considered by almost everyone that watched the film to be "THE ONE" but he didnt exactly fulfill that role. This is because he wasnt. We were even told that he wasnt half way through the film. It was actually Mr Smith. To be THE ONE you have to be born inside the Matrix (we were told that too). Neo wasnt. He was born in one of those pods. The only one that fulfills all 3 criteria explained in the film is SMITH.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 25, 2016)

michaelhall2007 said:


> Straight away I think of Neo from MATRIX. Considered by almost everyone that watched the film to be "THE ONE" but he didnt exactly fulfill that role. This is because he wasnt. We were even told that he wasnt half way through the film. It was actually Mr Smith. To be THE ONE you have to be born inside the Matrix (we were told that too). Neo wasnt. He was born in one of those pods. The only one that fulfills all 3 criteria explained in the film is SMITH.



Fascinating, isn't it? There's a thread on that here:
Matrix: Neo wasn't 'the One'?


----------



## Rodders (Mar 26, 2016)

Would Arthur Dent fall into the category of a chosen one? A lot of what happens in the galaxy seems to revolve around him in one way or another.


----------



## michaelhall2007 (Mar 26, 2016)

I don't think the addition of a towel would necessarily define him as the chosen one. He was just the last one.
Oh, and before you ask, the answer is 42.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 26, 2016)

In the PS2 game The Bard's Tale, the Bard keeps stumbling across the corpses of former chosen ones, with accompanying songs.


----------

