Worthy of discussion!

Anna Genoese has a TERRIFIC subject on her blog today, and since it ties in to recent threads about "Do you fall in love with your hero" and "What is an Alpha hero?" I thought I'd bring it over here to get your views. Read the entry (and the comments, if you're feeling up to the challenge) and post back here. What do you think? Agree, disagree, or somewhere in between?

So, what makes an Alpha Hero "arrogant?" I actually just got picked for a panel at RWA in Dallas and one of the topics offered for the panel was about avoiding arrogant Alphas. I have my own ideas, of course . . . but what about the rest of you? What elements of personality turn a "strong leader" into an "arrogant a$$hole?"

A good example, Susan! Let's try an older show--The 'A' Team. Four men, all Alphas in their own right. Not a beta among them, but with VERY different personalities. They had different ways to express themselves . . . and applied them equally to men and women.

Hannibal -- like Jack of SG, he's the "leader" of the group. He lets his people handle their specialties, but you get hints and bits that he's every bit as competent to TAKE OVER their job if it came down to it and one was disabled. He DEMANDS the best from his people and won't coddle them. Sometimes he's closer to Gordon Ramsey of Hell's Kitchen. "It's just a cut. Doesn't even need stitches. Quit whining and get back to work!" Does that make him arrogant (or Gordon, for that matter?)

Face -- The "playboy", but great to have at your side in the clutch. He's warmer and fuzzier than Hannibal and is happy to seduce any woman who comes within a country mile. He'd rather not confront people, but CAN if required. He's INCREDIBLY arrogant, to the extent that he truly BELIEVES people are there for his own personal use. He manipulates them freely--will lie, cheat or conk them on the head and steal for his goal. But if the goal is HONORABLE, does that make a difference? Is a reader willing to go along for the ride . . . let him manipulate, so long as they understand the goal?

Murdock -- The "wild and crazy" one. He's borderline psychotic, but will die for you without hesitation. But he'll also drive you over the edge with smart-a$$ remarks, and a quick temper. If the mood strikes him, he'll just as easily put a person in tears or leave them screaming in pain. Is THAT arrogant?

BA -- The "strong, silent" one. Prone to anger, he's never hesitated in hitting things and people. But he's a softy for the underdog, willing to stop a firefight to pull a puppy from the field. But he yells and screams at people--intending them to be emotionally hurt. How about that?

This is why it can be frustrating to a writer, trying to pick something and make it believable.

So, what say you all? Are ANY of these arrogant? Have you written/would you write a character like one of these?

So, he doesn't come across as arrogant (too often) because he's usually one step ahead of everyone else.

Click to expand...

Now HERE'S a terrific offshoot of the conversation! When you're writing a hero who is "one step ahead" how do you approach the different POVs? What is one step ahead in the hero's mind (on paper) can some across completely differently than those who are WATCHING. At what point in a plot with a "leader" as the hero do you give the "Ah-ha!" moment to the heroine that changes her mind about the guy--if she thought him arrogant because of his constant jumping ahead on a project?

See, my hubby is this same way. When a person is so much of a leader that he jumps ahead, it can seem to be random actions . . . not even applying to the crisis at hand until later when turning the sprinkler so it wets down the roof prevents the house from burning down (because he happened to notice a smoky smell in the air on the way out the door that morning.)

How about if you're in FIRST person from the heroine? How far into the book should the frustration about feeling clueless last?