Two weeks ago, I wrote about the ingredients for a hero, and I think it’s cool that someone asked about how not-so-clean-cut heroes fit into my list of ingredients. This is where what I call the Hero Spectrum comes in.
I don’t think hero characters are as simply defined as either “heroes” or “antiheroes.” All characters are based on some level of human characteristics, and no human I know fits neatly into any category.
And I also don’t think that the hero of a story is necessarily the same as the protagonist of a story. We tend to use those terms interchangeably, but it’s not precisely accurate, in my opinion. For instance, in A Game of Thrones, how many of you thought Ned Stark was the protagonist? Go on, don’t be shy. I did, too. But it’s kind of hard to think of him as a protagonist when he went and got himself into irreversible hot water. And what about Daenerys? Her behavior is certainly heroic in places, as is Jon Snow’s, but would you have considered them protagonists? Not really. And then if you keep reading through book three, A Storm of Swords, you start to think that maybe Tyrion Lannister has a little bit of the hero in him after all. And maybe—the seven forbid!—even Jaime has a little hero in him.
In truth, it’s hard to pin down the protagonist of any of the books in A Song of Ice and Fire. They are all protagonists of their own stories, but there’s no overarching protagonist in the series (unless you consider that Westeros is the protagonist, which is a possibility). However, there are many hero types, and I think that series really illustrates well how a Hero Spectrum can play out. With that in mind, here’s my rough outline of a hero spectrum.
The White Hat Hero
The guy can do no wrong. He’s pretty dang close to perfect—morally, spiritually, physically. He wins every battle. Women swoon over him. He’s adored by the masses. He’s also boring as a stump. Oh sure, it’s entertaining to watch his antics for a while, but when the hero is perfect, there’s no room for him to change and grow. I prefer my characters to change and grow.
My best candidate for this category: Richard Cypher/Rahl.
The Obedient Hero
This hero does what’s right because it’s the right thing to do. Noble to the very core, he may not be the best fighter or the most confident guy, but he operates from a center of strict adherence to a code of right and wrong. The code may be wrong, but he obeys it. The failing of this guy is that he often ends up a pawn of destiny or fate or other bad guys.
A good candidate: Ned Stark, whose belief that everyone else was as noble as he, ended up being his…ahem…fatal flaw.
The Accidental Hero
This guy can’t avoid being a hero. He tries, but no matter what, he falls into heroic behavior on a regular basis. He’s probably an average sort—maybe even the farm boy or noble blacksmith—and he can’t help but be thrown into ridiculous situations where he has to do heroic things to save other people—or occasionally, the whole world. Not to be confused with the Reluctant Hero, the Accidental Hero is usually willing to help—no one has to talk him into it—because he’s a nice guy. He doesn’t demand pay or anything in return.
My first thought is Durnik from David Eddings’ Belgariad and Mallorean series. I loved Durnik. He was just a nice guy. Not perfect—just a decent fellow who ended up all over the world with a bunch of sorcerers.
The Pragmatic Hero
The pragmatist does what’s best, not necessarily what’s right. He might be the survivor. He’s willing to take a few others along with him, but only if they hop on board when he’s leaving. I think some of our favorite “look out for number one” heroes fall into this category. Not quite reluctant heroes, they are more than willing to jump into the fray. They may just have unorthodox methods and/or less than noble motives.
Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister, Kylar Stern (okay, I ALMOST finished the first book, so I could be wrong about him, but I tend to think of him as a survivor, which would be a pragmatist to an extent) would fall into this category. They’re usually the crafty guys, too.
The Reluctant Hero
Now we’re getting somewhere. These are my favorites. The Han Solos of literature, these guys want to know what’s in it for them before they take the hero gig. Money? One of their favorite motives. Sex? Sure, that can be nice, especially if it comes with money. Glory? Eh, maybe—if the job is a sure thing. No sense risking their necks for glory if there’s a chance they’ll lose. These guys are hard-headed and strong-willed, and they often buck against fate and destiny as well as duty and nobility. Similar to the Pragmatic Hero, they look out for number one, but not so much from a survivor or outcast perspective—more from a proactive viewpoint. They LIKE being rogues. They revel in it. The whole hero gig just messes with their image.
The Antihero
No discussion of heroes would be complete without a mention of the antihero. I read somewhere there are no true antiheroes in literature—only heroes who need a bath. I tend to agree. I think the truest antiheroes are the Macbeths of literature—the villain protagonists. I’m not sure I can think of a real antihero. Every time I come close, I think of some redeeming quality that could turn an antihero into some other type of less-than-perfect hero. Let’s face it—even Macbeth was brave. But I think what we tend to do is use this category as a catch-all for the heroes who don’t fit into other places. Even the thieves, liars, rapists, adulterers, and other assorted bad guys can be redeemed, and they can still be heroes if they’re the most sympathetic guys on stage.
– – –
I think within the Hero Spectrum there is a lot of room for overlap, too. A Pragmatic Hero can easily turn Reluctant. A Reluctant Hero can turn Obedient once he’s seen the light. Han Solo started out pretty reluctant, but in the end, he saw the light and came to the rescue and turned somewhat obedient. That’s character growth.
My Hero Spectrum is a work in progress, so tell me—did I miss some? Do you agree or disagree about antiheroes? What are some of your favorite examples in these categories?
