Should heroes be heroes?

[katikat]

In one of the GW forums, someone posted this part of an interview with Brad Wright about what SGU's characters will be like:

And the characters themselves will prove to have moralities that are surprisingly like quicksilver. "In Universe, all of our characters are both heroes and villains," explained Wright, "and remarkably have the ability to slip in and out of the skin of both." Source

Well, my response to that was:

I like my heroes to be heroes. Yes, making tough decisions but not to the point where it's hard for me to like them. I'm the old school gal that likes her heroes to do the "right thing", to have some "code of honor", morals that they stick to not only when it's convenient. That's what I do in real life and that's what I like to see in my shows. I stopped watching BSG for the very reason that the "grey areas" became a stinking sludge of immoral, selfish behavior. Glorifying villainism and selfishness under the pretense of "flawed characters" is not my thing.

And of course, immediately I was told how wrong my opinions are etc. Whatever.

I know that it's really "trendy" and "in" these days to have characters that are less then stellar when it comes down to integrity but I hate this trend, I really do. When I watch a show, I like to root for my characters, I want to be able to say "I would like to be like that one day." Pollyanna-ish? Sure.

I don't mind flawed characters. I mean, can you imagine anyone more flawed than Rodney McKay with his bitchiness and hypochondria and neuroses etc.? But I could still love him because he was in no way a coward. He knew what was right and he did it - even though he yelled and whined and complained all the time. Would I be able to even like him if he hadn't risked his life to save Elizabeth's in "The Storm"? Or if he hadn't rushed out to save Sheppard in "The Defiant One"? No, I don't think so. And I can't watch someone I don't like week in, week out.

I'll rather not be "hip" or "in" or whatever and support characters with integrity and "code of honor" than swoon over someone with "quicksilver morals".

Comments

[llywela13.livejournal.com]

No, I'm with you on this one. I don't mind if my heroes make mistakes. I don't mind if they have weak moments and get led astray and hit rock bottom, as long as it is acknowledged that they have done wrong and redeem themselves afterward. I love a good redemption arc. What I don't like is being told that it's okay for them to compromise their moral standard, because when you start blurring the boundaries like that it is only ever the start of a slippery slope down to saying that there are no standards or boundaries needed at all, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, only two sides of the same fence.

I think it's what makes me so uncomfortable about how negatively SN has portrayed the angels and heaven and whatnot - I need there to actually be something good about the side that is supposed to be good! And it isn't good enough, to me, to say 'oh, but the hunters are the force of good'. There has to be something to differentiate heaven and hell, or what's the point?

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't mind the angels being bad - I'm pretty much influenced by the Japanese manga ;) But I like that Sam and Dean more or less keep their focus. They make mistakes, bad mistakes but they don't slip from good to bed from one ep to another. They have their rules and they do their best to uphold them.

[mremre.livejournal.com]

And the thing is, they don't even have to follow the mainstream moral code (for whatever flavor of mainstream you prefer); the characters just have to HAVE one that they stick to. Thus, Dexter killing bad guys OK; House being an UTTERLY MORONIC human being OK; Sam going darkside for his brother OK... They're all interesting characters, without compromising themselves (well, more or less. But that's throwing plot device and story arc into the ring which is not the point here so...=).

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I want them to have some code of honor. Like, I'm a thief but I would never kill somebody or steal from handicapped or something like that. But they have to be true to their own integrity, not change the rules from one ep to another. I just don't get why "flawed" means "morally ambiguous" these days. I can be flawed but still try and do the right thing.

[tinx_r]

I am totally with you on heroes-being-heroes. Flawed characters can only be so flawed before I stop caring about them

I guess that's why I love Riptide so much... the boys may not be perfect in a lot of ways, but their code of honour is their own and unbreakable :)

*hugs*

[katikat.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Even heroes have flaws but they should still be likable and I should be able to root for them! Like Cody, when he saw a pretty face, he forgot about everything but in the end, he always chose to help his friends and put their best above his own selfish needs.

[astri13.livejournal.com]

Glorifying villainism and selfishness under the pretense of "flawed characters" is not my thing.

THIS!!! It's something that is getting lost more and more with an easy fix of "ah, it's okay, it's human to do this".

It's also human to kill, abuse, show unimagineable cruelty and whatnot. Is that, too, okay? Not every action can be excused with it being human. Shouldn't be at least.

Now I can like characters who have very dark things in their past but I need that to be acknowledged and them not only to experience consequences for this but actively work on redemption. You don't need to start out a hero for me but you better should work hard at becoming one.

[katikat.livejournal.com]

My point exactly. Why do writers think that "flawed" equals "selfish, immoral, cowardly" these days? Look at McKay - he started as selfish but he still knew the difference between right and wrong. And he progressed from a deeply flawed to a great hero, but still flawed. What's wrong with that?