Historical Hero Upgrade
'It doesn't matter. I won't be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklindid that and Franklindid some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.'— John Adams, 1776
As I've mentioned before, complexity-- especially when that means writing morally ambiguous characters-- can be intimidating. When dealing with historical figures, things can get even murkier. There are plenty of people who were great at their jobs, but were less-than-appealing human beings, or were nice enough by the standards of their time, but hold some views modern audiences would rightfully find unsavory*. (I won't address historical figure overhauls, such as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, since those are a tool of the alternate history genre, and are very deliberately a total departure from the person as they were).
The first type of Historical Hero Upgrade stems from the idea that one's lead character must be likable. Obviously, this isn't true-- plenty of characters who are various degrees of social disaster zones have become popular protagonists. Furthermore, squeaky-clean characters carry a high risk of being boring, since they come off as pose-able good-guy action figures rather than real people. One option is to spend more time on the character's motives, which are presumably sympathetic, so that the audience cheers for them to succeed even if their methods venture into cringeworthy territory. This is particularly true of people who ultimately did a great deal of good but were personally unpleasant and occasionally ruthless in their methods of accomplishing their larger goals.
The second type falls back to the tension between modern morality and historical context. Personally, I think the best way to handle this isn't to brush the issues under the rug, but place the behaviour or beliefs in context. Remember that your characters need to be themselves first and foremost, and that it's OK for the reader to react with discomfort. Just because a character is sympathetic doesn't mean you or the reader have to condone all their beliefs and actions. Personally, I think it's better to give an honest look at a society and people whose morals and behaviour don't align with modern standards than to try to pretend that such problems never occurred, or were only the provenance of jerks.
*I should note that updating the characterisation of a historical figure to more accurately reflect facts is not this, even if the character is portrayed unfavourably in a lot of popular fiction and your portrayal is more positive.
As I've mentioned before, complexity-- especially when that means writing morally ambiguous characters-- can be intimidating. When dealing with historical figures, things can get even murkier. There are plenty of people who were great at their jobs, but were less-than-appealing human beings, or were nice enough by the standards of their time, but hold some views modern audiences would rightfully find unsavory*. (I won't address historical figure overhauls, such as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, since those are a tool of the alternate history genre, and are very deliberately a total departure from the person as they were).
The first type of Historical Hero Upgrade stems from the idea that one's lead character must be likable. Obviously, this isn't true-- plenty of characters who are various degrees of social disaster zones have become popular protagonists. Furthermore, squeaky-clean characters carry a high risk of being boring, since they come off as pose-able good-guy action figures rather than real people. One option is to spend more time on the character's motives, which are presumably sympathetic, so that the audience cheers for them to succeed even if their methods venture into cringeworthy territory. This is particularly true of people who ultimately did a great deal of good but were personally unpleasant and occasionally ruthless in their methods of accomplishing their larger goals.
The second type falls back to the tension between modern morality and historical context. Personally, I think the best way to handle this isn't to brush the issues under the rug, but place the behaviour or beliefs in context. Remember that your characters need to be themselves first and foremost, and that it's OK for the reader to react with discomfort. Just because a character is sympathetic doesn't mean you or the reader have to condone all their beliefs and actions. Personally, I think it's better to give an honest look at a society and people whose morals and behaviour don't align with modern standards than to try to pretend that such problems never occurred, or were only the provenance of jerks.
*I should note that updating the characterisation of a historical figure to more accurately reflect facts is not this, even if the character is portrayed unfavourably in a lot of popular fiction and your portrayal is more positive.
No comments have been added yet.
