• Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work

Are all characters superhuman?

Kalyke

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
182
Location
New Mexico, USA
I think that everyone has been programmed to expect characters (in film) to be able to physically take far more punishment than a real human body would be able to take. I was watching a recent re-make of Conan the Barbarian movie and last night started thinking about how he could run, fight, slay 4 guys march home, all without breaking an egg in his mouth-- while I destroyed the cartilage in my knees after falling from one regular size stair step.

In books we tend to create situations (usually in action movies) where most people would break bones or become so tired they would sleep all the next day. In an older book (Hudson's Green Mansions) the main character either sprains or breaks a leg in the jungle, and he does not go on like a modern-day hero, he actually found a safe place and lay there for about 6 weeks waiting for the bones to heal eating ants and lizards and drinking the water dripping off of the leaves. This really seems much more realistic (although it still has the veneer of magical realism) than some Ramboesque character moving forward with a splint made of two pieces of wood and some handkerchiefs, and then, ten minutes later is running and slaying as though he'd never hurt himself.

I am wondering if there is a tendency to create human protagonists who seem to have "superhuman" traits? Are there writers who create characters who actually have "human" or even "near-human" physical responses to pain? Actually, a long time ago, I really liked the novel "Gorky Park" by Martin Cruz Smith. Renko, the main character, got stabbed in the stomach in the book, but in the movie, he was nicked by a knife in the hand-- this decision was probably because in the book, Renko's convalescence created a huge time gap in the story, and if his hand was just nicked, he wore a bandage for a while, and then it was forgotten a few scenes later.

In some stories, injuries create a frame, like "The English Patient" (movie again) which is all told in flashback as a severely burned man tells a nurse of the situation that led up to him getting burned. About the only Movie (and possibly book) where I have read both-- I say possibly because I do not remember the book-- was "Cold Mountain" by Charles Frazier where a soldier, Inman, is wounded in a battle and while in the hospital decided to desert. The story basically follows the path of the Illiad or Oddesy, (blind man, sirens, etc). But to this post, he is wounded in the neck at the beginning, and he must deal with that neck wound throughout the entire story and in the end it kills him (so in a sense, he has death with him at all times).

I think Inman was the most realistic of the wounded protagonists, but still, he did many things that a person with an unhealed bullet in the neck wound would not have been able to do.

I have nearly died twice in my life. Once when I was 21, I had bad peritonitis caused by a leaking appendix. It had been leaking about a year. I was in the hospital for 10 days, and after an operation still had to recuperate for a month or so. When I got to the hospital, I was told that if I had not come in, at most I would have lived another 45 minutes.

I think the thing is when you are on the verge of dying as I was, you have no energy-- so when I see someone get up after being shot in the side and then run around doing "hero things" I honestly do not believe it.

Obviously characters in books are not real people. This is a good illustration of exactly how much they are not people. But on the one hand, I am concerned about how misleading this is. I get the sentiment "try, try, try-- no matter what obstacles" but I wonder if people get the idea they are substandard or lazy because their favorite movie character has these fictional abilities?

Does anyone have thoughts on this? Have you had issues with plotting a character to keep on going when you know darned sure he or she would have been in bed recovering if it was a real person?

And tell me about how some characters have all the luck, like the people in San Diego running from the dinosaur? They were under its feet and yet, it grabbed other people but it always seemed to be following them specifically.
 
Last edited:

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
14,866
Location
Massachusetts
I mean, literature and film are often about escapism. If I wrote a book with me as its protagonist, he’d be a fat middle-aged introvert of moderate intelligence. Adequate fodder for many stories, but he’s not going to sky-dive onto Air Force One to kill ninjas. And be fair, isn’t it fun watching Charlize Theron or Donnie Yen or Keanu Reeves kick the asses of a roomfull of goons?

I think Hollywood has created audiences that expect stabbings, gunshot wounds, falls onto hard pavement, being knocked unconscious by blows to the head, etc to be no big deal. Do audiences understand this is unrealistic? I’m genuinely not sure.

And maybe movie-length material encourages this treatment? Audiences expect to be flies on the wall, and watching someone convalesce, or having discontinuous jumps over that convalescence, is boring / at odds with that? Just pretending the hero can walk it off is lazy, but it seems to sell. :tongue
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
First, let me say that I agree that the feats of many characters in movies (especially) and books are beyond what most people are capable of. Introversion is right - much of this is about escapism; who would want to watch or read a MC huddling in the corner crying their eyes out?

OTOH -

In martial arts, we have a tenet or aspect we call 'Indomitable Spirit', which too often is confused with perseverance. The later is sell-able to parents of young students because it instills the will to keep trying until you succeed. But the truth of the former is scary, and so it's largely ignored or defined incorrectly.

Years ago, I attended a lecture where the speaker invited a member of the audience on stage, then placed an item on the floor and said, "try to pick that up". When the person picked it up, the instructor took it away, saying, "No, I said TRY to pick it up". Obviously, the lesson was that trying and doing are different things... just as are perseverance and indomitable spirit.

Indomitable spirit is the sacrifice of self to achieve a goal. (The Irish legend of CuChulain comes to mind, but I won't bore everyone with it). Most among us would give up their life to save their child - but would they do that for another child?

What we see and read are stories wherein the MC exhibits indomitable spirit, the self sacrifice of self to save another or to attain a worthy goal.

The human body can do incredible things - especially when under emotional or physical stress.
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,333
Reaction score
4,578
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
I recently completed a manuscript where it's necessary, at the end, for the hero to be knocked unconscious by the villain. So the hero gets a punch to the head, and wakes up later with a splitting headache.

Now to be realistic, he could have a concussion, with vomiting and blurred vision and memory loss and so on. But if I went down this route, he wouldn't be in any shape to stop the villain afterwards.

This being a romance, though, I expect my readers not to expect 100% documentary-style realism. I've read a popular romantic suspense where the hero was shot in the shoulder, and hours later had vigorous sex with the heroine, the shoulder wound apparently ceasing to exist. So... consider the audience, too.
 

Aegrin

Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
38
Reaction score
2
Location
Shire... wait, no... Poland
Well, we want our characters to do risky exciting things. Preferably a lot of those things, and live long enough to celebrate. But I discovered that is more fun to punish characters and force them to deal with injuries. I did that with some and it turned out pretty well, I did have to rework plot (I'm char driven so I go where chars go), but my book goals didn't suffer. Conan is great. But I'm tired of seeing nearly indestructible badasses.
 

Michiru

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
244
Reaction score
31
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Great observation! I would say yes, characters are almost always written to be more than actual humans are, but not just in terms of being stronger and luckier. I remember reading a "How To" guide for beginning romance novel writers that said the hero and heroine must be a little kinder, a little bolder, a little better looking, a little more interesting than the actual people the writer would meet each day. They had to have traits and lives that readers would recognize and empathize with, but avoid the failings of real people living that recognizable life.

In the same vein, action characters are stronger and braver and luckier and more skilled than actual humans (when you read memoirs and such by actual soldiers in battle, I'm always struck by how everyone is fragile and spends most of their time messing up--not that they're weaker or more accident prone than anyone else, but they are JUST AS weak and accident prone as the rest of us). Mystery characters are smarter, more interested in justice, more driven, and generally with less ego (so that Policeman A's ego won't ruin things for our detective, unless he's a small-time villain meant to add more hurdles for our hero).

Whenever I try to write characters with real issues that don't go away, everyone tells me the story is "depressing" or the characters are "unlikable." My honest guess is that we don't like ourselves much. No sarcasm intended.
 

Drascus

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
148
Reaction score
19
Location
The Pacific Northwest
The thing about being perfectly accurate to life is that... well I can just remember my own life to get that. Or if I want perfectly accurate people in extreme circumstances, I can read someone's memoir.

When I go to fiction I am looking for something different. I want story to take precedence. I want memorable characters that are less realistic in pursuit of a good story. When reading non-fiction (or near-fiction) biographies the story has the advantage of being true, it's something that really happened. Even "it really happened" isn't enough for a lot of people. Stories "based on a true story" tend to be more popular than actual true stories unless those stories are pretty darn exciting.

With fiction I may not forgive weird coincidences that really happen in life because I know it wasn't a coincidence, it was a choice the author made. Same with character flaws, injuries and recovery, etc. These are all choices that the author made, and I would like the author to make the most entertaining choice.

Writers are entertainers. The story must entertain. To entertain you have to show me something I can't get by looking at my own life or glancing across the street.
 

Kalyke

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
182
Location
New Mexico, USA
When I go to fiction I am looking for something different. I want story to take precedence. I want memorable characters that are less realistic in pursuit of a good story. When reading non-fiction (or near-fiction) biographies the story has the advantage of being true, it's something that really happened. Even "it really happened" isn't enough for a lot of people. Stories "based on a true story" tend to be more popular than actual true stories unless those stories are pretty darn exciting.

I hear that "nothing happens without a reason" a lot these days. That is actually a false impression brought about by the belief in a narrative, and in some cases, a prime mover (in some instances a religious one). This is also used by the religious right (mostly) to prove that evolution does not exist. But the fact is that quite a lot of things happen for no reason-- by accident, by fluke, because of the actions of certain chemicals over a long period of time. Although people want to squeeze everything into a narrative (often one that supports their preconceived belief system) That does not mean that a narrative is not the stringing together of events which would be considered totally "accidental" if they were not a part of the narrative. To make all "plot points" which happen in a narrative caused by some action/decision made by the main character does not mean that the events were not accidental. -- obviously time compression and characters who exist to advance the plot are needed in some narratives-- That actually points to the author's hand-- meaning it is a "fake" version of reality. Intereesting idea.
 

Lakey

professional dilettante
Staff member
Super Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,714
Reaction score
3,965
Location
New England
obviously time compression and characters who exist to advance the plot are needed in some narratives-- That actually points to the author's hand-- meaning it is a "fake" version of reality. Intereesting idea.

This is a really important point that I think some less experienced writers struggle with in the effort to make their characters or plots or dialogue "realistic." Fiction isn't reality. Even the most realistic fiction you can think of is not an undistorted reflection of reality. It is a simulacrum of reality, usually constructed with the purpose of exploring some idea about the world, asserting a theme or raising questions about one, and so on. As authors we have absolute control over everything we highlight in or omit from our stories, and it's on us to use that control to make sure that the elements we choose combine to underscore whatever theme we are trying to deliver. That means we choose details and events that have thematic or metaphoric resonance, and (in the interest of conciseness and keeping the story moving) omit the ones that don't. We do this consciously but with a light enough touch that we aren't beating the reader over the head with those resonances -- because then it starts to feel contrived and unrealistic.

Example: In my favorite novel (which I happen to be rereading now for the umpteenth time) there is a marvelous scene where two characters have a conversation about love (and implicitly about sexuality) while they are trying to get a kite in the air. The kite is a powerful metaphor for several things going on in the conversation -- I won't get into the details but it operates on several levels, through its metaphor underscoring the book's larger themes, exposing truths about the characters and their present relationship, foreshadowing the future direction of the relationship, and so on. These characters could just as well have had this conversation in a donut shop, or in one of their homes, or while walking to work. Any of these choices would have been perfectly realistic. But the author chose to set the conversation in the midst of an activity that adds depth and resonance to the content of the conversation -- she made, if you will, a hyper-realistic choice, specifically choosing a setting that is as realistic as any other but adds something more than realism to the scene.

Applying that idea to the original question -- are characters superhuman -- I might say that characters are hyper-human in the way that kite scene is hyper-realistic. If the story is to be worth reading, it must excite readers in some way, whether that is through escapist fantasy, or though exploring truths about human relationships, or both! If you are writing the kind of story in which characters must have violent physical confrontations with their enemies, then must be able to take a bullet and find the strength to keep fighting, or there isn't much story. In the case of stories where the conflicts are perhaps less physical, the characters must have qualities that come into conflict in a way that is calculated and specifically chosen by the author to create a conflict that is relevant to the theme the author wants to explore. For instance, if I want to write a story about the futility of war, I do myself and my readers a disservice by choosing two random characters and setting them down in a living room to have a conversation about war. What if they agree? It might be very realistic but it isn't a story. To have a story, I have to create characters whose views about the theme are at odds, and then put them in a situation where those views are tested. And if I'm doing my job well, I am fine-tuning those characters and their situations so that everything points back to the theme in some way -- hyper-realistically.

:e2coffee:
 

Kalyke

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
182
Location
New Mexico, USA
If you are writing the kind of story in which characters must have violent physical confrontations with their enemies, then must be able to take a bullet and find the strength to keep fighting, or there isn't much story. In the case of stories where the conflicts are perhaps less physical, the characters must have qualities that come into conflict in a way that is calculated and specifically chosen by the author to create a conflict that is relevant to the theme the author wants to explore. For instance, if I want to write a story about the futility of war, I do myself and my readers a disservice by choosing two random characters and setting them down in a living room to have a conversation about war.

This is also where so many "beginning" writers (I would say "inexperienced") get it wrong when they are asked what the story is "about." It is never about the actual action in the book, it is always about the main idea. For example, the main story in The Lord of the Rings (all of the novels) is about the fascist growth in Europe as witnessed by the author. All the rest of the "stories" are sub-plots.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Action movies in particular seem to rely on characters who have titanium bones or something. Sometimes it's because it's a superhero thing where the character really is superhuman. Other times the director wants to establish the character's grit, or because they have certain special effects at their disposal, darn it, and they want to use them! However, I don't think people being beaten bloody and walking barefoot on shards of broken glass (ala Bruce Willis--to be fair, the movie was called "Die Hard") and jumping onto moving trucks from overpasses or whatever necessarily figure into most romantic comedies or interpersonal dramas or whatever. So no, I don't think all characters are superhuman. There is a so-called "everyman/everywoman" type character who is not supposed to be that special, except they are in extraordinary situation, perhaps, or the focus may even be on some slice of everyday life.

Action/adventure type moves have kind of taken over film in recent years, probably because they work better with subtitles in lucrative foreign releases than movies that rely on more nuanced dialog or on culturally specific circumstances people in other countries won't relate to as much.

Superhuman, or at least humans who are on the high end of the "tough" distribution, do figure into some heroic fiction. Sometimes the plot requires a character who can take a beating and put up with an extraordinary of pain of physical hardship and still succeed. This isn't necessarily a thing in stories focused on everyday life, or literary fiction etc. Some characters are entirely human, and they aren't presented as necessarily being stronger, smarter, better looking etc. outside of the normal range of human ability. Some are decidedly ordinary, even deeply flawed, and their problems aren't completely solvable, or require a terrible sacrifice to resolve. Are these stories "too depressing"? I suppose it depends on one's audience. Not all successful fiction is escapist.

Some action or adventure type genres also don't always have superhuman characters. I can think of some fantasy and SF novels where the consequences of injuries and physical hardship are described pretty accurately, and characters take a normal amount of time to heal. Some (particularly in so-called Grimdark nowadays, but in other kinds of fantasy and SF too) have characters who are deeply flawed, or who are profoundly injured and haven't healed mentally or physically (Inquisitor Glokta anyone), or who struggle to achieve their goals, even fail.
 
Last edited:

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,655
Reaction score
913
Location
Seashore
I have just been asking myself if my character is too smart and too capable... I guess she might be maybe MIT grad, Navy SEAL level capable. Could exist, but very rare. My story is a fantasy, but I like to keep things to some level of logical plausibility. My problem is that she's both a great athlete (sword fighting) and a crack scholar. I'm just going to keep going with it and hope the story is engaging enough, and my explanations plausible *enough* that people won't go 'whoa - wait a minute'
 

Drascus

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
148
Reaction score
19
Location
The Pacific Northwest
I hear that "nothing happens without a reason" a lot these days. That is actually a false impression brought about by the belief in a narrative, and in some cases, a prime mover (in some instances a religious one). This is also used by the religious right (mostly) to prove that evolution does not exist. But the fact is that quite a lot of things happen for no reason-- by accident, by fluke, because of the actions of certain chemicals over a long period of time. Although people want to squeeze everything into a narrative (often one that supports their preconceived belief system) That does not mean that a narrative is not the stringing together of events which would be considered totally "accidental" if they were not a part of the narrative. To make all "plot points" which happen in a narrative caused by some action/decision made by the main character does not mean that the events were not accidental. -- obviously time compression and characters who exist to advance the plot are needed in some narratives-- That actually points to the author's hand-- meaning it is a "fake" version of reality. Intereesting idea.

I'm not saying that nothing happens without cause within the narrative. Lots of things happen by coincidence in any story. But those coincidences are chosen by the author, outside of the story.

In real life a coincidence might be very convenient and solve a problem out of nowhere. In a story I would balk at the same coincidence because I know it was a choice that the author made.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,777
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I remember a writer telling us at a conference that in fiction coincidences are great for getting characters into messes, but they shouldn't (generally) be used to get the characters out of messes. Readers generally want characters to solve their problems via their own agency, or at least by making some kind of prediction or putting 2 and 2 together and discovering there is actually a pattern to beneficial "coincidences" that have been happening.

I suppose an exception might be if a fortuitous coincidence occurs that ties up one plot point but introduces more for characters to untangle.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
15,824
Location
Australia.
If I wrote that sort of energy, I'd throw a hat-tip to adrenaline. We've all heard of people doing superhuman things under its influence - and I'm happy to believe in it. More than happy.

But even without adrenaline, I think humans are capable of extraordinary feats of courage and stoicism. It's up to the writer to make it possible for the reader to suspend disbelief.
 
Last edited:

Kalyke

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
182
Location
New Mexico, USA
I have just been asking myself if my character is too smart and too capable... I guess she might be maybe MIT grad, Navy SEAL level capable. Could exist, but very rare. My story is a fantasy, but I like to keep things to some level of logical plausibility. My problem is that she's both a great athlete (sword fighting) and a crack scholar. I'm just going to keep going with it and hope the story is engaging enough, and my explanations plausible *enough* that people won't go 'whoa - wait a minute'

While in college, I knew an Olympic gold medalist. She was both highly athletic, and highly intelligent. I can't say if it was "Navy Seal" level, but she was pretty impressive.
 

CathleenT

I write
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
5,097
Reaction score
1,981
Location
Northern California
This is also where so many "beginning" writers (I would say "inexperienced") get it wrong when they are asked what the story is "about." It is never about the actual action in the book, it is always about the main idea. For example, the main story in The Lord of the Rings (all of the novels) is about the fascist growth in Europe as witnessed by the author. All the rest of the "stories" are sub-plots.

I'd be careful with this one. This is what LOTR is about according to you. Your experience as a reader is valid, but only for you. My experience of that book is very different. And yours doesn't agree with the author's statements.

I'd say LOTR was very much about the power of human resilience. Of the refusal to bend the knee to evil and what that costs.

To me, it's also a great example of not having superhumans as main characters. Personally, I've noted the superman/woman trend, and I dislike it intensely (with occasional exceptions when it's very well done, like Wonder Woman). Perhaps because I've refused to have magic users as main characters, I'm constantly annoyed because it seems like every single protag has to be a wizard or a vampire or a super-spy or what have you. This is one subset of fiction, the one that Brandon Sanderson in his writing videos likened to James Bond. He related how when you watch a Bond movie, it starts with Bond being awesome. It's not earned. It's expected. It's just part of the sub-genre, part of the pleasure that devotees of this particular form experience.

But to try to fit all fiction to this model would be a mistake, IMO. Multiple archetypal characters exist (if you believe in such constructions) and one of them is Everyman. That was really the essence of Tolkien's hobbits, and I find it interesting that everyone wants to visit Hobbiton, but nobody seems to making much of a go out of Lorien or Rivendell.

To me this says that there's a subset of people who want Everyman or The Girl Next Door to succeed. That subset is not currently being well served by fantasy writers. Something to think about if you write this genre.

I don't like where it's been going since Harry Potter, and I've decided to write stuff that's different. Where simple courage and a refusal to accept the unacceptable matter. OTOH, it's not like I've just bought Maui with the proceeds of my latest book and movie deal.

Maybe you're better off following the trend. Just know that you are, and don't believe that the trend is the sum total of literature in a genre. It's always best to be intentional, I believe. : )
 
Last edited:

Kalyke

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
1,850
Reaction score
182
Location
New Mexico, USA
I'd be careful with this one. This is what LOTR is about according to you. Your experience as a reader is valid, but only for you. My experience of that book is very different. And yours doesn't agree with the author's statements.

I'd say LOTR was very much about the power of human resilience. Of the refusal to bend the knee to evil and what that costs.
Subjective.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
15,824
Location
Australia.
For example, the main story in The Lord of the Rings (all of the novels) is about the fascist growth in Europe as witnessed by the author. All the rest of the "stories" are sub-plots.

I'd be careful with this one. This is what LOTR is about according to you. Your experience as a reader is valid, but only for you. My experience of that book is very different. And yours doesn't agree with the author's statements.
I have to say, I wondered about that statement, too - but it was delivered with such authority I thought perhaps there'd been some new pronouncement from Tolkien's estate or something. Kalyke, is there some new pronouncement, or is that just how the books are taught now? Or was it purely your take on things? (which is fine, but it sounded so very definite.)

It's not a new idea, but it was brought up when the books were still quite new and as Cathleen says, it didn't really gel with the author.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
I'd be careful with this one. This is what LOTR is about according to you. Your experience as a reader is valid, but only for you. My experience of that book is very different. And yours doesn't agree with the author's statements.

I'd say LOTR was very much about the power of human resilience. Of the refusal to bend the knee to evil and what that costs.

Subjective.

Actually, no not any more than any reading. Take yours, for instance:

For example, the main story in The Lord of the Rings (all of the novels) is about the fascist growth in Europe as witnessed by the author. All the rest of the "stories" are sub-plots.

This is a terribly predictable reading, and so off the mark, that it's one of the things you cover in undergraduate Tolkien classes as a "Please don't do this."

As CathleenT noted, this is a reading Tolkien himself pointed at as problematic, for a number of reasons; it's allegorical, for one, and for another, Tolkien began LOTR before the war. Was LOTR influenced by his war experiences? Absolutely, and his experiences at the Somme and trench warfare especially, but to his mind, and to a fair number of Tolkien scholars, it was more about the value of Everyman, and, more importantly, about the loss of English rural culture to industrial development. You can see all manner of supporting evidence; Michael Drout has spoken and written about this to some extent, as have Jane Chance and Verlyn Flieger.

All readings are subjective; the point of close reading is to show support for your reading. As a writer, it is the writers job to create that support for the narrative, the plot, and the character development, to arrive at a character who may be extraordinary, with reason and purpose, rather than a cardboard placeholder or Mary Sue/Marty Stue/self-insertion.
 
Last edited: