In Defense of the Good Characters

Ruth and I are always talking about stories, our own and other people’s–what we like, what bothers us, what could be done better, what we wish we saw more often.  I thought I’d transform some of these conversations into blog posts, to get them clear in my own mind and to share them too.  The first thing I’ve chosen to do is be a bit of an apologist for the good characters in stories.

I’m not thinking good as in the silly Dungeons and Dragons alignment system, which I’ve never liked.  Even though I’ve run a bunch of games in that system, it still gets on my nerves.  I mean, the concept that worshipping something blatantly labeled as EVIL would ever be a valid religious choice in a functioning society . . .

But that’s a topic for another day.  I’m not even really talking about good characters versus evil characters here, because rarely does a truly evil-intentioned character end up as the main focus of a story, and if he does, it’s liable to be a wild, brief, tragic ride.  Not that it can’t be fun to watch a villainous protagonist go—Light from Death Note comes to mind.  But you just can’t get attached to them.

I’m thinking more of the contrast between the shady anti-hero with a checkered past and the virtuous hero who has always tried to do the right thing.  Anti-heros are fun.  I’ve been known to write one, from time to time.  But they tend to get all the praise and the limelight.  Girls like the bad boy.  And where does this leave our poor hero?  How can he compete with his darker-toned rival?  A strong moral compass, a selfless streak, and a sometimes plodding determination just aren’t as badass as casually shooting the hostage, joining the bad guys only to betray them later, and walking away from explosions without ever looking back.

Criticisms of heroic, honestly good characters abound.  They’re weak.  They’re too bland, too predictable, too boring.  (I think there’s a TV trope for that.)  They’re Mary Sues or Marty Stus, unrealistic and without flaws.  They’ve just been overdone in literature and film, and it’s time to move on.  They’re not really virtuous at all, but are bigots or chauvinists or zealots trying to push their own ideals on everyone else.  And most damning of all, they can’t carry a good story because the drama of fall and redemption, of seeing a dark and broken person come round right in the end, is just so much more thrilling than watching someone who was right all along.

I think that most of these criticisms might be valid about certain good characters, especially poorly written or poorly characterized ones, but that they’re not valid about all good characters all the time.  I think a well-written good character has just as much chance of being compelling as a well-written edgy character.  It might be easier for an author to go with the edgy character, but it’s worth it to take the more difficult route.  I wish there were more films, books, and comics with strong, compelling characters who were honestly good.

So let me get at each of these criticisms, one by one.

1.  Good is weak.

Sure, there are plenty of nice female characters in anime who are weak and do nothing but provide moral support and cry.  I want to smack them for being such poor examples of morality.  It’s actually very hard to be a selfless, moral person who stands up for what she believes in, whether in this world or another.  Why aren’t there more Mother Theresas?  Because it’s not easy.  The strength of a good person might be a quiet strength.  It might not look badass.  But it’ll go deep, and that kind of person isn’t going to just fold and fail.

2.  Good is boring.

Well, it could be, if our good character was a very dull person.  But bad could be just as dull.  Image a book whose protagonist was a corrupt city official skimming money out of the coffers of, say, the City Parking Authority.  I once sent my roleplaying game party through a portal into Hell—where they had to fill out a lot of paperwork.  No one sort of person really has the corner on dull.

Good may be somewhat predictable.  Villains often use this to their advantage.  “Ah-hah, I knew you would come to rescue the hostages.  And now you have fallen into my evil trap!”  But who would the selfless hero be if she didn’t show up?  That’s part of what makes the good person so endearing.  She’s dependable.  The sort of person you’d want watching your back.  If she were piloting a giant robot, you’d jump right off the top of Tokyo Tower with no worries, because you’d know she would fly over and catch you.

3.  Good has no flaws.

This is why a lot of people hate Superman.  He can do everything and he’s always perfect.  But even he has that one weakness, and the better writers who’ve dealt with him emphasize his humanity (yes, aliens can be human too).  Flawless people don’t work very well in stories, because stories are about conflict, and not all conflict can be external.  People who are flawed, and who sometimes make mistakes because of their flaws, are more interesting than the perfect.

So how can someone be flawed and still be good?  I think most of it is in the intent.  The morally upright hero may be misled, may make errors in judgment, may sometimes do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  But this is a kid, or a man, or a sentient rock or whatever, with his heart in the right place.  He’ll never intend evil.  And if he finds that he’s been mistaken, that his flaws have gotten in the way of the mission or been detrimental to his friends, he’ll go out of his way to put it right.  Honestly good heroes tend to be men, or rocks, of principled action.

But to get back to the notion of Superman, it’s really the humanity of the good character that keeps him from being insufferable.  Take John Crichton from Farscape.  He’s a good man, by my definition of the word.  He says that all he wants to do is find a way home, but when it comes down to it he won’t do the wrong thing or betray his companions in order to get there.  When he’s given an amazing power, he is determined not to let it be used as a weapon, and he goes to literally painful lengths to keep it from being so used.  Despite this, John’s about as far from a Marty Stu as they come.  He uses Earth jargon none of his alien friends understand, he fails at a lot of the things they’re good at, and he often looks stupid—a man with some flaws and drawbacks, and we can sympathize.

4.  Good is overdone.

This one is easy to answer.  Maybe once it was true, back in the four-color days, but it isn’t now.  I had a hard time thinking of good characters to talk about in this post.  It was easy to remember lots of rather amoral likable bastards.

5.  Good is bigoted.

It’s probably people who’ve been burned by bigots who believe this.  Personally, I don’t think the overzealous fit very well into the good category.  When I write or read about a good character, I want her to stand up for her beliefs and try to improve the world, but I also want her to love others.

I think the best example of this is Cordelia Naismith from Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigen series.  Cordelia is from Beta Colony, where the prevailing virtues are democracy, freedom of information, sexual openness, and pacifism.  She ends up married to a soldier from the planet of Barrayar which is militaristic, stratified by class, morally conservative, and atheistic.  Cordelia doesn’t agree with the Barrayaran way of doing things, and when she has the opportunity to bring about some freedom of information, for example, to Barrayaran women, she does so.  However, the way she has the greatest influence is not by spouting her morals, but by loving her enemies.  Because she is a theist and believes that God is near to the broken, she has an incredible capacity for loving the unlovable, and in so doing, helping them become the better people she believes they can be.

Loving one’s enemies is one of the hallmarks of truly good characters.  It’s not a wimpy thing, when done right.  It’s about wanting the best for someone even when they’ve done plenty to harm you, and being genuinely sorry when the villain can’t be saved.  The Doctor, in Doctor Who, is precisely this sort of person.  I’m particularly reminded of his relationship with the Master in recent seasons.  The Doctor is another great example of a successful good character, by the way.  He’s a pacifist, and has a strict moral code, and he feels great guilt over the things he’s had to do in the past.  And yet he’s often lighthearted, impulsive, and full of crazy fun.

6.  Good characters don’t make for an interesting story.

I do agree that stories of fall and redemption are absolutely fascinating, one of my favorite sorts of plot, in fact.  And it’s hard to tell that kind of story when your good character absolutely refuses to do the wrong thing, to fall.  But there are other ways to make the consistently virtuous character part of a fascinating story.  Here are two ideas.

Let the good character go through an arc not of fall and redemption, but of brokenness and recovery.  Bad things happen to good people, especially in fiction.  Despite their best efforts, they can end up with scars both physical and mental, which they’ll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.  A fine example of a good character who has this sort of arc is Ender Wiggin, from Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game series.  He commits a horrible action, but it isn’t really a fall, because he is a child with no sense of the true consequences of what he is doing.  Even though it’s not his fault, however, he is profoundly changed and scarred.  He leaves his former life behind and becomes a wandering wise man, dedicated to making sure nothing like what he did will ever happen again.  It makes for a good story.

Another way to have your cake and eat it too is to make your good character part of an ensemble cast.  Surround her with people who don’t quite share her moral backbone, give them a few tricky dilemmas to solve, and watch them go.  If your good character gets a little rigid, not to worry, one of the other characters can loosen her up.  And when your good character refuses to make the wrong call, someone else will do it, and suffer for it, and the plot can progress as necessary.

One great thing about ensembles is that they offer the good character the opportunity to be involved in a redemption storyline, without having to go through a fall themselves.  They can be the person who offers redemption to a fallen friend.  A truly good character is exactly the sort of person you would want rooting for you if you’d completely screwed up.  A good character has an immense capacity for forgiveness, and for believing in second chances.  If you have a traitor you need to bring back into the fold, or a former enemy just about ready to join the side of the angels, put your good character on the job.  He’s not going to give up at the first sign of backsliding, or take personal offense when the guy in need of redemption gets prickly and difficult.  He cares enough to stubbornly keep working until his efforts pay off.

I love the sort of exchange that goes something like this:

“Go ahead, leave me/kill me.”  With the usually unspoken, I deserve it.

“No, I’m going to save you.”  Often accompanied by dropping a weapon or reaching out a hand.

This is a close cousin of jumping in front of an arrow/bullet/laser beam, or grabbing the hand of the enemy falling off the cliff, both of which good heroes are also prone to indulge in.

Don’t shoot me for using this example, but if the Naruto series ends the way I think it should, it’ll have just such a redemptive moment.

Two final examples of good, heroic characters of whom I am particularly fond.  Both have great ensemble casts surrounding them, by the way.  One is the main character, and one isn’t.

Allen Walker from the manga D-Gray Man.  Even though he has to defeat Akuma (demons) in order to save humans, he cares about the lost souls of the demons, too, and brings them peace even as he destroys them.  Allen is kind to a fault, never gives up on a friend, and has been known to memorably jump between combatants to try to get them to stop fighting.

Sam Gamgee from Lord of the Rings.  In many ways, he’s the real heart of the story.  He doesn’t have a self-centered bone in his body; he’s doing all this to help his friend.  He keeps going, past all hope, and it’s because of him that the Ring is finally destroyed.  It’s fitting, really, that he gets the final line of the book.

I’ve got a couple of good characters in the works, in stories I’m writing.  It’s not always easy to write them, but I think it’s wonderfully worthwhile.

Are there any obvious candidates I missed?  Anyone else working on writing good characters?

4 thoughts on “In Defense of the Good Characters

  1. I hope to read more about your thoughts and developments of your hero/good characters. I am not as well read or smart as you so it would be interesting to read about your developing a character and understanding how you came up with this character.

    I think in order to help your understanding of what it is to be a heroic or good character is to look at examples that are not within the genre you are writing in. Heroes don’t just reveal themselves only in sci-fi, fantasy, or war driven epics/conflicts. You can find heroes or good characters in situations that are not normally thought of as heroic in the generic way. I’m looking at my collection of DVD’s and see characters in those movies that are heroic and good that my fit what you are looking for, but these stories are not in the genre you write in. Yet, I think they can be written in a sci-fi/fantasy genre but in my opinion, maybe some of the writers write stories that can be too shallow as to not allow the character to develop. I think what you are getting at is saying that the reason why there are no “good” heroic characters is because the stories are just plain bad, not because “good is boring”, etc.

    I think writers take the easy way by just making their heroes flawed because it is what sells now and makes them money and thus people follow the money and want more of that type of writing. Good isn’t really boring, it is the writing or the story that is boring. I think that is what needs to be said. It is easy. Just take the Superman story and instead substitute Superman for an anti-hero type and bingo, there is your new book or movie. The story stays the same but the characters change around. Isn’t that what is going on in movies today? Not trying to bash the sci-fi/fantasy genre because it has happened to all genres. It is a matter of an audience wanting to be entertained rather than exposed to a new story.

    The sci-f-/fantasy/comic book/movies are driven by the money machine now more than ever and to keep it up, they constantly feed us the same old story, but just change the characters around. Different names and different faces. It is just a matter of laziness. You said it yourself, it is hard work to write a good character and a good story. Think about it. Change what you wrote about the criticisms good and replace it with the story.

    Good is weak —-> The story is weak
    good is weak —–> the story is boring
    good is overdone —–> the story is overdone

    Anyway real quick, getting back to characters that are good…Superman…yes he is perfect on the surface but I think you can find arguments that he is flawed just by what he represents. Dr. Who is light hearted and funny because he does have a dark side to him that he doesn’t want to let his companions know about and it is generally centered on his loneliness. Rock Lee who is my favorite hero at the moment come pretty close to being a pure good character, but I am sure one can find flaws in him if you search. what am I getting at? Just because a character is flawed, does not mean is is not a truly good character.

    Keep it up Jess, I’d like to read about your thought process on this.

    1. I suppose I am talking primarily about SF type stuff in these essays, along with adventure films/books of various sorts, and historical epics. I probably should have clarified that. Of course in a romance, or modern literary fiction, or some other genre the idea of the hero might be very different.

      I completely agree that many of the good/heroic characters that readers or viewers find dull have become that way because of a poor story. I think that good characters, just like any sort of characters, can be well or poorly done. The trouble I find is that some people automatically assume that just because the character is good/heroic the story will be dull, which is clearly not the case. The story stands or falls on how well it is executed, not on what sorts of characters or situations the author has chosen to portray.

      There are certainly lots of dull and cliched SF books and films out there, that cling to old ideas and don’t do anything new. There’s also SF that breaks new ground and does exciting stuff, and SF that plays with the cliches in fun new ways. I think I’m going to write about cliches in SF next.

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

  2. Love this! And I completely agree! And SAM IS THE BEST!

    That was… not a very insightful response. I confess I am a very haphazard character and story writer, so I’m not the best at talking about it, but kudos to you for putting together an awesome and compelling argument!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *