The Inferior Hero

[Precise Calibre]

One of my favourite pastimes; developing characters and trying to make them interesting.

I find that you need a balance in characters in a story. The main character may be weak in one or more ways, but the supporting characters who are often their allies are almost a part of the main character, because they can make up for the character's short-comings perhaps by being good at things the hero lacks in. If the hero is inferior and his friends are also inferior, you've just overbalanced into a story where not only would it be unrealistic for your hero and his friends to triumph, the overall feeling will be very bland too.

I would argue that Harry Potter is, in fact, a perfect example of an inferior hero; oddly enough for exactly the reasons several people have stated they don't like him. He is an ordinary teenage boy with ordinary aspirations and ordinary friends (who augment him by support), he just has a prophecy on his head. Expecting him to be exceptional at everything with a mindset to selfless righteousness all the time would be unrealistic. He has the same downfalls as everyone else, especially those of a teenage boy. It becomes abundantly clear that he did not expect his world to be torn apart as quickly as it was. His classmates can outdo him on many scholastic levels while, as has been stated, his best skill is broom-riding.

One of MY personal favourite "inferior heros" is Rincewind from Discworld. He is, without question, the most inept wizard in existance, possesses almost no remarkable skills (linguistics aside) and is such an awe-inspiring example of a coward, I'm surprised there are no psychology studies on him. Despite this fact, he manages to get himself both into and out of trouble at an alarming rate and has managed to basically save the world several times, accidentally. The luggage completes him.

My characters as they stand right now include but are not limited to:

A grizzled war veteran turned farmer who is a bit older than he'd like to be when he's suddenly pulled back into the world of violence.

A temple knight apprentice who lacks confidence and is inherently clumsy

A traveling archaeologist with a serious temper problem and a drug addiction

A sell-sword with severe personality disorders spawning from past experience.

 

[Deathfrommassive]

Don't forget the allies. Inferior heroes tend to have superior allies that make up for their short comings. I can't comment on Rincewind having not had the opportunity to read any of the Discworld books, but Harry Potter has quite a few allies that helped him out quite a bit.

 

[Daezarkian]

I agree with the original post, as well as MeriPie's observations. It's much easier for Joe or Jane Average to identify with a more realistic persona -- someone like themselves. Real people are imperfect, flawed, and often don't feel up to the challenges facing them, so it's no surprise that some our more memorable and empathetic fantasy/sci-fi fiction heroes are the same.

(Deckard (Blade Runner) is a great example. I remember being struck by the fact, back when I first saw BR -- I believe I was in the 8th grade, watching it on late night TV -- that Deckard was utterly outmatched, and how much he struggled against his adversaries. It felt like I was used to seeing "supermen" in movies who walked through their antagonists, so it was refreshing.)

 

[Mouse]

I think the important thing is empathy. If someone's got no weaknesses, you can't have empathy for them. I started reading the Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny and had to stop because the main character is so capable, so up himself, so smug. It's all, 'Then I realised I had to do this, so I smiled to my handsome face in the mirror and did it, and it worked. So then I had another look at my manly jaw, and I did this other thing that needed doing with my powerful muscular hands.' I didn't give a damn about whether he succeeded or failed because all I really wanted was for someone large to punch him in the face. I don't think a character has to be inferior, exactly, but I can't stand a character who's entirely superior.

One of my favourites ever ever is Fitz from Robin Hobb's books. He's a big strong guy, a skilled assassin, he has the ability to talk to animals and psychic powers (sort of), a few characters tell us he's handsome, but he's so completely stupid and emotionally and physically damaged that you could never hold all of his skills against him. Half the time he's too much of an idiot to use the right one at the right time and is too busy moralising and whining about how he just wants to live in a shack on his own. I agree that it's interesting to write an underdog hero, but I think it's more of a challenge to create a character who IS skilled and powerful but is still human and fallible and lovable. The only reason Harry Potter as a character doesn't fail entirely is because he is (sometimes) human and fallible.

I agree with everything you've just said.

People complain that Fitz is depressing but I think he's realistic. And God, how I hated the Chronicles of Amber. I also stopped reading because of the main character. I mean, he even grew his own eyeballs back. Come on.

 

[Susan Boulton]

When Frodo can no longer bear the ring, an even more inferior hobbit named Sam takes over and becomes the hero. Sam is even more inferior than Frodo because he is simple-minded and naive.

I would never call Sam "simple minded" he is naive in the way of the outside world, yes. He is out of his depth, yes. He is a gardener for goodness sake. But he has inner strength and intelligence without which he would not have been able to react to the situations he found himself in.

Maybe I am an out of step, but I don't class characters as inferior or superior.

A leading character(hero) is the vehicle in which you travel through a story. His/Her personailty reflects the world he/she lives in and what has happened to him/her and task/problem/quest her/she is on/to solve etc. By labeling a character inferior you are shoving him into a one size fits all box, just the same as if you say a character is a "superhero".

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree, but although I think "inferior" is not the right word here, I do think the basic point stands. Perhaps a better word is "flawed". I would categorise them as believable or not believable within the story.

I can't imagine a lead character without flaws: I suppose some of the older superheroes might count, and there are probably a couple of didactic stories out there where the hero is always right because in being right he proves the author's points, but I think such a character would almost always be boring and unrealistic. Apart from a sort of glorious leader person you could always have a sort of absolute innocent figure (usually a child or some kind of shiny maiden), but again I think this would be difficult to write without the character being very irritating indeed.

As with so many writing issues I suspect it comes down to avoiding gross extremes. While it is probably useful to have some flaws/quirks in characters to make them credible and sympathetic, it's possible to go too far. Heaping flaws on the character can just make them look angsty and fanfic-ish. At the end of the day the writer probably just owes a duty to the reader to make the characters as good as possible.

 

[Daniel Hetberg]

'Then I realised I had to do this, so I smiled to my handsome face in the mirror and did it, and it worked. So then I had another look at my manly jaw, and I did this other thing that needed doing with my powerful muscular hands.' I didn't give a damn about whether he succeeded or failed because all I really wanted was for someone large to punch him in the face.

LOL! Best characterization ever!

 

[Strain Of Thought]

There's another approach to "Inferior" or at least "disadvantaged" characters that I don't think anyone has really specifically described in this thread, and that's giving them radically different skill sets than their enemies, or skills that are not naturally applicable to their source of conflict. The most common way to do this is to have a villain with abundant hard skills opposed by a hero with much softer skills; a good example of this is Spiderman. Spiderman is my favorite comic book hero- and I can't even stand most of them- because he's so underpowered. But he certainly doesn't depend on outside players taking pity on him. Typically he resorts to subterfuge to oppose a villian while he can't fight them openly, methodically studies them in the meantime, learns their weak points, and then devises specific counter-tactics to their strengths. It's very much about making the most of what you've got.

Another soft-skill approach to creating disadvantaged characters is to make them genuinely gifted as leaders but relatively weak in most other categories. Frodo is a borderline example of this but the best example of it I know of is Hazel from Watership Down. Hazel is not the strongest or the fastest or the smartest rabbit, and towards the end of the story he is actually physically lame, but he has tremendous talent for bringing out the best in others. This is definitely not about them "taking pity" on him; rather he convinces them through frank discussion that they must consider their futures, take action to resolve problems while there is still time, and work together to achieve the greatest good for all. He recognizes what talents others have and sees to it that their talents are put to their best use, he seeks out the advice of others where their knowledge is greater than his, and delegates to the extent of completely handing over leadership on several occasions when he is incapacitated, needed elsewhere, or not in possession of sufficient information about the situation.

A second example of the leader-type disadvantaged character is Antimony Carver from Gunnerkrigg Court, who has considerable skills of her own but often finds herself in situations where they are not much use. Thus her most useful skill is her ability to befriend very unusual people, who possess talents for navigating the environments she encounters them in. Again, saying these people "take pity" on her would be completely missing the point- before they help her, Antimony first wins them over through impeccable courtesy and near-total unflappability in the face of their most bizarre idiosyncrasies. Often, she helps them first with very good advice in an embarrassing personal matter before they later volunteer aid in a situation of serious physical danger.

 

[MeriPie]

I agree with everything you've just said.

People complain that Fitz is depressing but I think he's realistic. And God, how I hated the Chronicles of Amber. I also stopped reading because of the main character. I mean, he even grew his own eyeballs back. Come on.

Fitz is pretty depressing, but he has a pretty bloody awful life so I think it's fair enough for him to be depressing. I've never cried so much reading a set of books. I also screamed and threw the book across the room shouting, 'HOW COULD YOU?' when he said all that horrible stuff to the Fool. I wish I was brave enough to torture all my characters the way Robin Hobb does hers.

Chronicles of Amber.. *shudder* I don't know how much I read, I definitely didn't get far. There was something with warships going on, and I was just too disgusted to continue. You've got to be happy when your hero steps up to the mark and performs. Not just happy, but that rush of pride and elation... You definitely don't want to be thinking, 'Oh yeah, here we go again.'

 

[Ursa major]

A different take on this can be found in the H.G.Wells short story, The Country of the Blind.

(There seem to be two version of this story. I think I must have read the original, shorter version. It was so long ago, though, I can't accurately recall.)

 

[Zuhaib]

Both the novel I've written and the one I'm planning feature inferior heroes. They appeal more to me and are relatable to the reader as their flaws are exposed