What makes for a great hero?
Alexandra Sokoloff in her SCREENWRITING TRICKS FOR AUTHORS has her readers/workshop participants make lists of great heroes, villains, endings, etcetera from films or books. Mostly, these lists show the participants what they like/want in a hero/villain/ending.
These heroes, in no particular order, comprise my list: Odysseus, Aeneas, Hector (y’all know I like epic poetry), Frodo and Samwise (from the movies, thank you Peter Jackson!), Lew Archer, Aragorn, Atticus Finch, Spenser, Horatio Hornblower, Irene Adler, Elizabeth Bennett, Jane Eyre, and Mattie Ross.
Odysseus, in the ODYSSEY (he’s different in ILIAD) is the adventuring hero looking to get home, come high seas, angry gods (Life isn’t good when Poseidon’s pissed off at you.) and rapacious suitors. We can all relate to wanting to go home. Frodo and Samwise (THE LORD OF THE RINGS) also fall into this category, with slight twists. They go to Mt. Doom to save the Shire--and they do save it, but not for Frodo. Frodo’s a little like Moses. He gets to see the Promised Land, but he doesn’t get to live there.
Aeneas (THE AENEID) is the flawed hero. He’s certainly more human than Akhilles, and his duty, of which he has to be reminded, is much different from that the earlier Greek warriors. He gets to found an empire--Rome--but he has to abandon a good woman--Dido--to do it. He sucks it up and does it, and while he regrets Dido’s death, he still puts duty first.
The most attractive and self-knowing--he recognizes his own flaws--modern Aeneas is Lew Archer (THE CHILL, THE IVORY GRIN). Like Aeneas, he does his duty with some prodding. Unlike Aeneas, he knows instinctively it’s going to end badly for somebody. While he’ll likely regret it, he won’t cease to seek the truth. Aragorn (THE LORD OF THE RINGS) falls into this category, too. He has to be persuaded to take his place as King of Gondor. As Arwen reminds him, he is Iseldur’s heir, not Iseldur himself. Master Elrond, later, has to give him a good prod, too.
Horatio Hornblower may well be the ultimate in this department because he does what he has to do. He just does it, without much prodding except by Admiralty orders and bloody circumstance. Hornblower doesn’t recognize that he IS a hero; often, he thinks he’s a flop, a failure. This attitude makes him remarkable as a hero.
His female counterpart is Jane Eyre. She’s the quiet hero, who does what she has to do to survive in Victorian England. She doesn’t think of herself as a hero, or a heroine. Despite all the challenges she faces, she surrenders neither integrity nor self. Unlike Hornblower, she does know her own value; like Hornblower, she is well rewarded in the end.
Hector is the tragic hero. He knows he going to fail. He knows Akhilles is going to kill him and that Troy is going to fall. He knows why all this is going to happen, too. Thanks, Paris, you dimwitted brother of mine. Of all the bloody and bloody-minded characters in the ILIAD, he is the most attractive to me. He loves his wife and his son, but that love cannot hold him back. He does what he has to do. It kills him.
As far as I am concerned, the best modern version of Hector is Atticus Finch (TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD). He knows he cannot win the case he has--to defend a black man on trial for raping a white woman. He knows cannot defeat the racial prejudices of the Deep South. That doesn’t stop him from providing the best defense he can. Were it merely a matter of law, Atticus Finch would’ve achieved an acquittal, but it is not a mere matter of the law. His client is found guilty. The noble defense almost cost him a life, too--not his, but his son’s.
(For the record, I cannot imagine anyone but Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch. It was his only Oscar win. Furthermore, I think Hollywood pulled one of its best adaptations ever, and thankfully, the screenwriters left out the character of Aunt Alexandra.)
There’s the existential hero, and that’s Spenser. Robert Parker’s hero may not be the best out there, but he’s my favorite. That may have as much to do with Robert Ulrich’s portrayal of Spenser in the three-year TV series as it does with Parker’s writing. Spenser is always the thoughtful man, always asking the big questions in his everyday life. The unexamined life is not worth living, said Socrates. Spenser always examines it.
Elizabeth Bennett (PRIDE AND PREJUDICE), Jane Eyre, and Irene Adler ("A Scandal in Bohemia") might also be existential heroes. They have to contend with the very nature of existence and the expectation placed upon women. None of them discuss, as Spenser does, the big questions of existence--the closest would be Irene Adler, especially as she’s been developed by Carole Nelson Douglas (GOOD NIGHT, MR. HOLMES). These women address the troubles of their existence by their actions or non-actions. Irene outwits Sherlock Holmes. Jane perseveres in who she is and what she wants in the face of all obstacles. Elizabeth has to overcome her own prejudice before she can defeat her circumstance, much of which she created herself.
(Postmodernists take this: res can exist before verbum.)
The avenging angel exists often enough in literature. The Count of Monte Cristo and Gully Foyle (THE STARS MY DESTINATION) come to mind. (Sorry, Hamlet. You can’t make up your mind, so you let circumstances run over you.) My favorite in this category is Mattie Ross, from the novel, TRUE GRIT, largely because she’s so unusual. Mattie’s age and language make her comic. The reader’s reaction is almost the same as Rooster Cogburn’s: “No way, baby sister”. Yes, way, because baby sister is relentless--a pint-sized avenging angel who makes a hero out of what amounts to nothing more than a legal hired killer.
Is Mattie after justice or revenge? She makes the Law go after a murderer in a jurisdictionally challenging situation. Revenge given the cover of justice, or just legality? She wants no more than what’s coming to Tom Chaney for the murder of her father--trial, conviction, and hanging. She meets the letter of the Law for justice even if she violates the spirit of the Law with vengeance.
As you can see there are all kinds of heroes, and I like a variety of them in my reading. I do tend to be more partial, in order, to the flawed or reluctant hero then the tragic hero. I can relate to Hornblower and Archer and Aragorn. I haven’t the wherewithal to emulate or write Hector or Atticus Finch, even if I can admire them.
The Earl of Armitage comes closer to Hornblower and Archer. In that, I think I have a wise choice in my protagonist.