Which kind of hero is your favorite? The Superman-type who is practically perfect? Who knows what’s right and does it no matter the consequence? OR the flawed, relatable hero who has much room to grow? It’s an interesting question. I tend to think the more relatable character is superior because we can empathize with him. He may not be perfect, but neither are we. So we relate to him and his struggles. However, the Superman-type hero also is interesting to watch, when done right. We may not relate to him, but we agree with what he stands for, and we admire his determination to keep on the straight path. So which hero is better? Or maybe neither one wins that prize? Let’s talk it through! Starting with the relatable hero.
We empathize with relatable characters because they remind us of ourselves. Why? Because they either have the same flaws we do or have a similar problem in their life that we can relate to. Anna from “Frozen”, Lucy from “While You Were Sleeping”, and Hiccup from “How To Train Your Dragon” are examples of this. Anna is a hopeless romantic who listens to her naïve heart. Lucy ends up stuck between a lie and a hard place. She doesn’t want to live in a lie, but she also doesn’t want to lose the life that she’s always wanted. Little Hiccup, however, just wants to find his place in the world of burly Vikings. It’s important to point out that we don’t need to empathize with these character’s exact situation, just the core emotion that drives them. For instance, you probably have never had a prince ask for your hand in marriage directly after he met you. (if you have, then you are a legend, and I’m not worthy to be in your presence.) BUT you probably have been led astray by your heart/feelings. And I doubt you’ve ever found yourself in the same predicament that Lucy found herself in. But you can understand her desire to have love and a family. And perhaps, deep down inside, you also wonder what you would be willing to do in order to hold on to your happiness. This understanding of emotions is key to having a relatable character.
What about cons? The phrase “too much to handle” comes to mind. Some people appreciate the deeper look into a person’s soul. Others, however, don’t like what they see. I believe this would count as a con. It can be annoying to watch your beloved character make the same mistakes you would. It can be even worse to watch a character repeatedly mess up without change. Even if that’s what we do (mess up all the time), we don’t necessarily want to watch our characters do that. So, just like the rule for writing dialogue, be realistic but not TOO realistic.
What about the admirable hero? First off, these characters don’t have to be perfect to qualify. But they do need a strong, admirable quality that sets them apart. Examples: Superman, Pattington the bear, & Ben from “The Intern”. Superman has a strong sense of justice and a heroic heart. Pattington is wholesome and kind, seemingly not able to do anything evil. And Ben is set in his old-timer ways, treating everyone with respect and having a hard-working attitude. I think what makes these characters shine is pretty obvious. They are just… GOOD. They are characters that inspire greatness. Can they appear cheesy and unrealistic? Absolutely! But I believe they sometimes appear that way when we don’t understand them. I mean, human kind is only getting worse as time goes on. We aren’t exactly winning any awards for “most righteous”. We’re used to seeing people act selfishly and hatefully. And when we don’t understand something, it seems cheesy to us. That’s why it’s so hard to make Christian movies. The world doesn’t understand because they don’t have faith in Jesus. Thus, that makes the entire experience unrealistic. But, especially speaking as a Christian, we should be growing and becoming more like Jesus Christ.
If you think about it, perhaps the reason we can swallow some of those well-written, unrealistic characters is because they remind us of the perfection we find in God. The perfection that we should aim for. We inwardly HOPE that we would be as heroic as superman and as kind as Pattington. But ultimately, that should lead us back to our precious Savior. Isn’t He the most heroic of all, saving us from our sins? And He is the definition of kind and good. Any goodness that the world portrays on TV copies it from the Bible. Truth is, the world’s works are a poor counterfeiter of God’s Word.
Anyway! All that being said, I think it’s still important to give your admirable heroes some flaws and inner struggles. Sure, they can know what the right thing to do is. And, yes, they can even desire to do it. BUT it should be a struggle. That’s why, when working with these characters, it’s best to have them versus the world/society. It will be a very boring story if everything is easy for them. Nobody wants to watch that. It is completely unrealistic. So make it hard for them! Concerning flaws, I think it’s fine to give them a few flaws. Nothing too evil–just enough to make them more realistic. Make sure their core personalities are good. And struggle doesn’t mean that they’re damagingly flawed. The more struggle and inner conflict, the better. It’s not when the firefighter does his job that we’re amazed. It’s when he’s at substantial risk or has to sacrifice something in order to do his job. That’s when we take a step back in awe and admiration.
So! Which kind of hero do you like better? I, myself, can’t choose. I see the good in both. And I enjoy watching both, so long as they are well written. But please let me know!