The "Invincible Hero" trope.

[Samuel , Director]

A trope/convention that many spy thriller protagonists suffer one way or another. Despite the money, guns backstabbing bribed politicians, and other resources that antagonists may try to use on their foes, it won't save them from getting killed horribly in the end. The link below from the lovely TV Tropes and Idioms site elaborates on this trope/convention in more detail

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...

[Samuel , Director]

Now here are a few questions to kick off debate:
1) Why is this trope popular? Is it because it gives readers a sense of wish fulfillment when reading stories with characters who have this trope applied to them? Or Something else?

2) In the post 9/11 era full of cynicism and general despair at the state of things, is this trope out of place in the spy/military thriller genre?

3) Is a story which attempts to try avoid this trope with its protagonists much more fun/enjoyable than one which does apply the "Invincible Hero convention?"

4) If you're making a series, does this trope/convention become an absolute necessity?

Would love to hear your thoughts as always :)

[Samuel , Director]

In my opinion, this troupe will always exist as without it, the "action" side of the spy/military thriller genre will wither away and die. It's also a foundation of the genre. Unless one is attempting to write a thriller in the vein of "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold", or "Harry's Game", this convention will always be utilized.

[Checkman]

If done skillfully it can still be very effective and popular. Just look at James Bond. Obviously people still enjoy the troupe, but the way the invincible hero is portrayed has changed. It seems that people want a little more depth and complexity. In my opinion I think people want the hero to be more accessible. Less distant. No I don't see it going away.

[[deleted user]]

Samuel wrote: "Now here are a few questions to kick off debate:
1) Why is this trope popular? Is it because it gives readers a sense of wish fulfillment when reading stories with characters who have this trope a..."

Why is this trope popular? I believe it is because most people want to see the good side win. A winning bad side normally will depress the reader (at least in my case) and may discourage him/her from reading on. That happened to me when reading the Honor Harrington series (sci-fi, I know) by David Weber, after too many million innocents got killed by the bad guys, who apparently escaped scot-free.

Is this trope out of place in this era of cynicism and despair? I don't think so, because desperate people will normally want to have some hope left to them.

Is a series which avoids this trope more fun/enjoyable? It depends how well it is written. Killing too many of the heroes too often will normally kill your series.

Does this trope become an absolute necessity when making a series? Not an absolute one, but if one main hero dies, someone as interesting as a character must be ready to take his/her place to keep the reader interested. Sometimes, after a few books in a series, a hero may have to die in order to reinformce the realism of the action.