The Orion Team. discussion
CONVENTIONS OF SPYING
>
Can the "damaged hero" template be taken too far?
date
newest »
newest »
It's a balancing act isn't it? I don't necessarily care for the squeaky clean hero either with the perfect life and the generous bank account. But it can go to far to the other end as well. I know the character isn't a spy/thriller character but Doctor House was that way. After a couple seasons I couldn't stand the jerk. Eventually I think that even an anti-hero needs to show some redeeming traits or the writer has failed. Even James Bond has his good points. He's a hard s.o.b., fanatic and something of a mysognist, but he isn't a sadist, rapist, or psychopath and he doesn't harm children.He has a sense of honor. Now the character has changed over the years in both print and the movies, but he is still a hero. Tarnished and flawed, but a hero. I think some writers loose control of their characters.
Mod
You raise some excellent points about the template being a difficult balancing act and James Bond is a good example of how if managed successfully, it can make a character so much more interesting. Authors have to develop their characters when they use the template in order to make the worth caring about.
For example, Brad Taylor has the Pike Logan series. The main character is a slightly arrogant former Delta Force operator who is damaged when his wife and child are brutally murdered. During the grieving stages where he's trying to drink himself to death, he finds a purpose again by attempting to help a hapless civilian find her kidnapped uncle. Along the way, they begin to bond and the main character begins to mellow and become much more likable.
Perhaps it also depends on how long the character stays in a "damaged" state. If he doesn't recover from the trauma soon enough during the story, the reader will mostly be exposed to the more unpleasant aspects of the character.
Mod
Also another good example of a well developed damaged hero from television (although he had his own tie-in novels) would be Jack Bauer. He's suffered a horrifying amount of psychological trauma which would drive anyone in the real world insane. Several of his associates and mentors have betrayed or abandoned him, those he loves constantly die on him or suffer due to the danger he attracts, his superiors constantly abandon him in a seemingly endless cycle of stopping terrorist plots and he also experienced the "hospitality" of China's Ministry Of State Security for two years.
Yet he's mostly polite (if a bit loud) tries his best to do the right thing (except in Day 8's closing hours where he nearly starts WW3) and is constantly willing to go beyond the call of duty to try prevent massive loss of life (Like in Day 2 where he decided to fly a nuke out of LA.)
Yes. Eventually the trauma and damage has to be smoothed out or the character becomes annoying. If you no longer like the hero then the story has failed. It might be more "realistic", but it doesn't work for me.
Mod
"Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reader may see what they are made of."
— Kurt Vonnegut, "Eight Rules for Writing Fiction"
Samuel wrote: "Found a quote which sums up the "damaged hero template" very well
"Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reade..."
I am not sure if that quote would fly with many readers. Many readers tend to be turned off by graphic descriptions of tortures and sadism, like what happened in '24', when repeated scenes of torture by Jack Bauer drew heavy criticism from the viewers and critics. Tragic events, like the murder of a loved one, will work to motivate a damaged hero, but plain cruelty is not necessary in my mind.
Some past historical military leaders, who have been the subject of many books, were clearly damaged/imperfect heroes, like George Patton and Douglas MacArthur, but their stories still fascinated millions of readers. A damaged hero spy/soldier certainly could be the center of a good book, but the writer has to be careful in balancing his story and avoiding too many excesses.
"Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in order that the reade..."
I am not sure if that quote would fly with many readers. Many readers tend to be turned off by graphic descriptions of tortures and sadism, like what happened in '24', when repeated scenes of torture by Jack Bauer drew heavy criticism from the viewers and critics. Tragic events, like the murder of a loved one, will work to motivate a damaged hero, but plain cruelty is not necessary in my mind.
Some past historical military leaders, who have been the subject of many books, were clearly damaged/imperfect heroes, like George Patton and Douglas MacArthur, but their stories still fascinated millions of readers. A damaged hero spy/soldier certainly could be the center of a good book, but the writer has to be careful in balancing his story and avoiding too many excesses.
Mod
"Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them — in orde..."
You have a good point Michel. What you just said about plain cruelty and causing unneeded suffering to protagonists occurred in the military thriller I mentioned in my first post. The author didn't seem to know the right moment to pull back. At the end of the story, he had turned a professional if somewhat arrogant SAS trooper into what can only be described as a maniac who would be at the top of a asylum waiting list.
However,my interpretation of the quote was not to turn a protagonist into a sadistic monster through making his life miserable but more of a warning to authors, cautioning them against letting their characters have an easy life and becoming seemingly unstoppable juggernauts who tear through the opposition like bullets through cardboard. Give them set-backs, force them to take hits, take away what they rely on most in order to see whether they falter or overcome it.
Mod
A damaged hero executed well? The main protagonist of this book. Betrayed by his "family" and forced to live for a few years running around North Africa, while he's a brutal fellow, he also makes a genuine effort in keeping his humanity intact as best he can in the bad circumstances he finds himself in.
As a Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan I wanted to explore war's cost on a human. I believe there is a misconception in the Thriller genre about what it would take to be protagonist if that person was real.
Wouldn't the answer for such a damaged hero be to retire from the business and try to rebuild his/her life somewhere quiet or in a less violent job? Mind you, most writers would then turn that in a case where bad guys find back the retired hero and force him/her to return to the bad days, as in the movie 'A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE', with Vigo Mortensen. Personally, I find hard to believe a book premise where a damaged hero goes on doing what he is by then hating to do, unless something compelling, like blackmail involving the safety of a loved one, forces him to.
You know I asked myself the same question when writing this book. I've know alot of Special Mission dudes in real life. Guys who only wanted to be a soldier. Some get killed, some get wounded, and some come home and get out of the military. Imagine being Mitch Rapp, and one day it's time to hang up the cleats. What does he do then, go get a job at WalMart?The question became,
"Why would someone like this continue on?"
The first answers, without giving up the plot is, "beacuse he has to. Pretty easy to write that one- Don't give him a choice.
The second relates to the first part of this post. What would I do if something I loved, something that I had bled for, something that I had earned was taken from me? Would I pack it up and head home? Is this in my nature if I am this character?
Why does it take some atheletes so long to retire when they are passed their prime? Why doesn't Tiger put up his clubs when everyone says he's through?
The answer for my character was, "because this is who Mason is." If I took that away from him does he have an identity anymore?
Would Viggo Mortensen be the character he was in History of Violence if he didnt act in the diner?
If you put a lion in a zoo. Put a cage around him so that he cant hunt, or kill, or be free, is he still a lion?
The Orion Team.
Books mentioned in this topic
Clear by Fire (other topics)Osama: The first casualty of war is the truth, the second is your soul (other topics)
Last year when flying back home from a holiday, I picked up this book due to my tablet dying. Having read most of the works written by the author's ex-colleague Andy Mcnab, I was curious at what my first Chris Ryan book would be like.
What stood out for me in "Osama" was the main character, Joe Mansfield. A highly unstable and psychologically damaged SAS trooper, the book chronicles his attempts to stay alive against a conspiracy.
The "damaged hero" template allows writers many things. Firstly, it makes the characters richer psychologically if they have demons to face up too. Secondly, the reader normally would have a much easier time sympathizing with a main character who's suffered much instead of one who's lived a charmed life. Thirdly and most important, it allows them to be flawed to some degree and provides the opportunity for authors to let said flaws to affect their character.
Mr Ryan was using such a template for Joe Mansfield and has done so in previous works. However in Osama, I noticed that if executed poorly, having a damaged hero as a protagonist can be more trouble than it's worth.
Personality-wise, Mansfield was unlikable. Foul-mouthed, borderline psychotic (violently chokes a woman half to death while interrogating her), masochistic to a horrifying degree and prone to self harm Sure one can justify the psychological damage he suffered in the story as the cause of this due to the fact he looses a comrade, is framed for murder and is suffering from sleep deprivation due to his pig headed negligence, but I found some of the villains, especially the CIA officer who signs off on Mansfield's killing to be a little more likable....but not that much.
There are other books which have done the damaged hero template as well. Take Brad Taylor's "One Rough Man", where the protagonist starts off as a bit arrogant and condescending but slowly begins to become a lot more likable as he's forced to confront his demons in a quest of redemption.
So my question is this. At what point does a "damaged" hero in a spy/military thriller turn into a unlikable jerk with as much sympathy as a criminal?
Love to hear your thoughts.