What makes you the hero of your story? -

[Smolrolls]

You know how in movies, books, comics, video games etc. you relate more to the villains than the heroes?

I mean, between Grand Admiral Thrawn and Ezra Bridger, who would you rather be? And who would you rather side with?

A farmer posted how culture influences society: You make art like Star Trek where you're not political, don't make art for the sake of a political cause/message, where its so good it influences people to become left-leaning without you, the creators and audience, knowing it.

You got lolcows, socialists, rioters, politicians, priests, the whole cadre of cliches who think they're heroes because they said the right words like incantations, to "relate" to the crowd, because they offer offerings to their gods, to pet causes like environmentalism, according to Tucker Carlson, which gives them excuses to outsource jobs, cut down benefits, abuse fence-hoppers, h1b visas, citizens and foreigners. I mean if you boil down to it, these "heroes" do the things they do because of money, for power, out of fear, and their so self-deluded that the "ends justify the means" that they have the temerity to hide their greed behind a veneer of self righteousness, and have the gall to sic the mob after you if you call these politicians, rioters, etc. out on their crap.
They're like children; They're one-dimension villains; They're more shallow/less depth than fake-fictional characters.

So what makes a REAL hero? The kind you'd not only relate to, but wish him the best of luck and even slip a few donations to? And what makes a good villain that you'd find his cause understandable and not boring/delusional/disgusted like the social justice "heroes" above?

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

I'm not gonna touch real-life situations in this but i'm gonna share with you this plot chart i created:

In my new project i'm working on, one of the main things i described are the near differences between the main cast of protagonists & main characters affiliated with and the antagonist group and the others main characters linked.

I mean, the objetive of that is simple; creating two sides of the same money; probably the antagonist force is more extreme, violent & reckless but for the same purporse as the protagonist side. And the final duel between the main ones i idealized, with a lot of emotions initially from the protagonist side are faded off over time for a lot of things passed (incluiding the death of a allied vital character) on the plot; hard emotions (he just can't forgive vengeance & hatred, but in a better cold state btw) aren't present in that end confrontation.

The thing is... my protagonist, being a hero only for the chivalry ideas; isn't a hero inside the world; he's not recognized as one (at least officially), keeps a secret identity away from the people, he killed people for saving others and many other things more like a anti-hero actually.

From the antagonist side, they're not one, two are unrelated but moved from the same objetive; destroy the lineage of the protagonist, winning a 10-years war and control the others lesser nations. They sacrificed a lot for those goals (meaning of life, familiy, friends, etc).
The final achievement is making peace in the planet, the same objetive as the protagonist.

Believe me, isn't easy to archive those ideas and explaining better in a own narrative, but at least i'm glad to writing these type of complex things in a story. Now i only keep going with the work.

 

[Tim Buckley]

Bad writing.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

I'm not gonna touch real-life situations in this but i'm gonna share with you this plot chart i created:

In my new project i'm working on, one of the main things i described are the near differences between the main cast of protagonists & main characters affiliated with and the antagonist group and the others main characters linked.

I mean, the objetive of that is simple; creating two sides of the same money; probably the antagonist force is more extreme, violent & reckless but for the same purporse as the protagonist side. And the final duel between the main ones i idealized, with a lot of emotions initially from the protagonist side are faded off over time for a lot of things passed (incluiding the death of a allied vital character) on the plot; hard emotions (he just can't forgive vengeance & hatred, but in a better cold state btw) aren't present in that end confrontation.

The thing is... my protagonist, being a hero only for the chivalry ideas; isn't a hero inside the world; he's not recognized as one (at least officially), keeps a secret identity away from the people, he killed people for saving others and many other things more like a anti-hero actually.

From the antagonist side, they're not one, two are unrelated but moved from the same objetive; destroy the lineage of the protagonist, winning a 10-years war and control the others lesser nations. They sacrificed a lot for those goals (meaning of life, familiy, friends, etc).
The final achievement is making peace in the planet, the same objetive as the protagonist.

Believe me, isn't easy to archive those ideas and explaining better in a own narrative, but at least i'm glad to writing these type of complex things in a story. Now i only keep going with the work.

You're using the word anti-hero wrong I think. An anti-hero is someone that doesn't want to be a hero but does good things because he has to in order to accomplish an aligned goal. Deadpool is an anti-hero in most stories because he kills bad guys because bad guys are his personal enemies, and works with good guys because good guys are the enemies of his enemies.

There is nothing about killing someone for saving another that is inherently anti-heroic.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

You're using the word anti-hero wrong I think. An anti-hero is someone that doesn't want to be a hero but does good things because he has to in order to accomplish an aligned goal. Deadpool is an anti-hero in most stories because he kills bad guys because bad guys are his personal enemies, and works with good guys because good guys are the enemies of his enemies.

There is nothing about killing someone for saving another that is inherently anti-heroic.

Yeah, you're right; probably in my earlier stages of the novel i thought of a more violent approaching and use one of the main characters as the focus of the story. I'm not gonna edit that since it's my fault and i accept the error.

 

[Safir]

Bad writing.

Exactly.

You know how in movies, books, comics, video games etc. you relate more to the villains than the heroes?

I mean, between Grand Admiral Thrawn and Ezra Bridger, who would you rather be? And who would you rather side with?

Shit writing. Of course I side with Thrawn over some gormless bitch, but I will also side with my ethereal spess princess waifu against any oppoonent, real or hypothetical, "despite" her being the literal incarnation of goodness, because Rebels is a shit show and Spess Train Over 9000 is not.

A farmer posted how culture influences society: You make art like Star Trek where you're not political, don't make art for the sake of a political cause/message, where its so good it influences people to become left-leaning without you, the creators and audience, knowing it.

No, you (they)'ve got the causality wrong. "Political" art leans bad not because it's political, but because it's made by hacks promoted for political reasons. You personally can be as political as you want because your own skill is a known quantity. But from a set of writers, those promoted for political reasons obviously lean bad. Also obviously, from a set of published writers, the majority of those promoted for political reasons would be those belonging to the dominant ideology (neolibs). But it bears repeating: you personally can be as political or apolitical in writing as you want, just be good.

And I think neolib politics is one of the main reasons why people side with antagonists. A neolib writer's hero fights for the neolib status quo, or to revert a dystopian world to neolib state. But the average viewer doesn't like the present state of the real world and where it's going. He's more likely to give the alternative a chance and sympathize with revolutionaries against the neolib order or visionary dictators. Dictators are also compelling because most stories aren't complicated enough to prohibit easy solutions, and those are evidently best implemented by an existing or hypothetical dictator character - in that light the heroes' soylent-guzzling isn't compelling. Finally, many stories feature existential threats, and manufacturing democratic consensus with an eye toward reestablishing normalcy in the long-term is at best misguided.

 

[Sped Xing]

I'm the self-indulgent author insert of my own story.

 

[Jimmy Durante's Ballsack]

I keep killing people and getting away with it so that must mean I'm the good guy.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

I keep killing people and getting away with it so that must mean I'm the good guy.

I sense Fallout vibes in that.

 

[Half Mast Erection]

When it comes to writing "relatable" heroes, no one can be relatable to EVERYONE legit, but they can tough a lot of things. That can either mean the reader or viewer might be more attached to them, but what makes it far more compelling, is when the story revolves around that, making it a central part of someone's journey in relation to the overall story.

There's also the fact that when it comes to being relatable, there are some things that hit harder than others. Like, getting a job is tough. Hashtag relatable.

But what about having a dysfunctional family? A lot more emotion is probably garnered from that kind of relatability. What about a fathers son or daughter dying for whatever reason? The more specific the reason, the more specific the relatable crowd will be, but overall, we can kind of get the feeling of losing someone or something we loved, whether it's a person or a pet, or anything similar.

In the case of villains, which can work for heroes, make it that their dialogue is filled to the brim with charisma to add more to it. Make them genuinely believe what they are doing is either right, or understandable where they're coming from. Like, if you decide to give a voice to a story, having VA's and shit, the villains actor needs some gusto that the hero doesn't have if you want to set them apart. Something the hero lacks. Whether it be a lack of drive to go as far as possible to do what they want, or how passionately they speak about the things they do and who or what they are. Helps feed the idea of this character into viewers.

It's like comparing Johnathan Joestar to Joseph Joestar. One is less likely, while the other is more likely, to be the favored Jojo. And part of that is due to personality and how they behave and speak, especially when given a VA in the anime.

 

[Cheerlead-in-Chief]

Having shitty luck in life. Does that count?
Usually protagonists in tragedies have a Humiliation Conga Line, as tvtropes.org (urg) loves to cite.

 

[Stoneheart]

I sense Fallout vibes in that.

well you eat the people you kill in fallout... also alot of chems and gambling...

 

[The Last Stand]

I'm the hero of my own story. Because it's me.

That said, I can be a bit of an asshole. Intentionally and unintentionally.

 

[Merried Senior Comic]

I'm just another person. I don't like other people and I'm a bit of a shut-in but I'm no more special or unique than any of the other 7 billion of us.