Weak Characters

[ElectricBlue]

I hate traditional fight scenes. If the character isn't winning by being clever with his surroundings there's no point in me watching it personally.

Jackie Chan is the master at using the scenery - any one of his movies, doesn't matter. And make sure you check out the off-takes - even for a gymnastic genius, sometimes his timing wasn't the best.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Jackie Chan is the master at using the scenery - any one of his movies, doesn't matter. And make sure you check out the off-takes - even for a gymnastic genius, sometimes his timing wasn't the best.

I fucking love Jackie Chan. Even his bad movies are a blast to watch.

 

[TxRad]

Most of my characters are doing good to do five or six pushups.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

Darling, you can imagine him with a nine inch cock if you like. Jane was not prescriptive

Wide and Britches-ripped?

 

[Emilymcplugger]

A short essay on what makes a good protagonist.

I would saw flaws, and how they overcome them are what make great protagonists.

Let’s take a number of great ones.

Rick blaine
In CASABLANCA Humphrey Bogart plays the role of cynical, jaded, bitter saloon-owner Rick Blaine to perfection. Rick isn’t just world-weary, he’s downright sick of it and wants it out out of its misery…or does he?

One could easily look at Rick and see a weak character whose let heartache get the better of him, but it never comes across that way.

George Bailey
“George Bailey, I’ll love you till the day I die”.

Wow. What a wimp George Bailey is. Letting others have all the fun while he has to save Bedford Falls. Bedford might as well fall with those lazy assholes relying on him all the time.

Can’t hear in one ear, afraid of success, gets caught married in a rundown old house full of kids when he should be designing cities of tomorrow. Weak? Maybe he should have jumped.

And finally.

Rocky
Such an iconic protagonist I don’t even need to put a surname. He’s incredibly weak. Lacks the strength to train and push himself, takes the easy route in life being hired muscle for some loan-shark. He’s a bum! Just relies on dumb luck, doesn’t make things happen something happens to him.

Wuss.

You see we could do this with many protagonists from John MaCLaine (PTSD by the end of the first Die Hard) to Rambo (same. In tears breaking down at end of FIRST BLOOD) to one of my favourites Nicholas Angel from HOT FUZZ, a lonely, depressed man using hyper-professionalism to mask his sorrow who learns the value of having friends by shooting half the village.

Flaws make good characters. Reachers might be great every now and then but they get boring. Variety of protagonist is key.

But as always, just my opinion, man. Just my opinion.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

It seems that every book I get these days has the major character as a weak, insipid, barely able to keep himself from being killed. These are action novels where you want a star, not a schlock!

One had the main character passing out or getting knocked out every time there was action. Somebody kept having to save him!

It seems to me the trend to try and show your major characters as flawed humans has gone too far!

Anyone else noticing this?

In the Lam and Cool series of books by Earl Stanley Gardner, using the pen name of A. A. Fair, Lam got beat up in every story at least once and only won one fight in the series. Bertha Cool was a portly gal and didn't care what anyone thought about it. Donald Lam estimated her weight at 220 pounds. That series of books ended in 1967, so the trend isn't new at all.

However, I'm not entirely certain being willing to fight when you don't have a chance of winning is a flaw, nor do I think it is a sign of weakness.

 

[gordo12]

A short essay on what makes a good protagonist.

I would saw flaws, and how they overcome them are what make great protagonists.

I agree. What's been bothering me is that these characters are presented as flawed, but are NOT improving. Often getting rescued by underlings. (Action kind of books)

 

[gordo12]

In the Lam and Cool series of books by Earl Stanley Gardner, using the pen name of A. A. Fair, Lam got beat up in every story at least once and only won one fight in the series. Bertha Cool was a portly gal and didn't care what anyone thought about it. Donald Lam estimated her weight at 220 pounds. That series of books ended in 1967, so the trend isn't new at all.

However, I'm not entirely certain being willing to fight when you don't have a chance of winning is a flaw, nor do I think it is a sign of weakness.

Was the series popular? I don't recall the title, but then I was more into SC-fi.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Was the series popular? I don't recall the title, but then I was more into SC-fi.

It was a long series of books written under a pen name because they didn't publish more than one book by an author a year. It had 29 novels released from 1939 until 1970, with an additional story released in 2016 from the rejected story The Knife Slipped which was found among Gardner's papers at the University of Texas and released under the title Hard Case Crime that year.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It was a long series of books written under a pen name because they didn't publish more than one book by an author a year. It had 29 novels released from 1939 until 1970, with an additional story released in 2016 from the rejected story The Knife Slipped which was found among Gardner's papers at the University of Texas and released under the title Hard Case Crime that year.

Now I have to find that book! Thanks, Mary. I've read all the Perry Mason novels and short stories. I've also read Cool and Lam, but not that one. Gardner had a series of novels and short stories with a DA as the hero and a sleazy Defence Attorney he defeated in court, his Ani-Mason stories. I haven't found them yet, but I know they are out there, somewhere.

 

[CyranoJ]

I have no idea what the OP is on about. In a market where Lee Child has been cranking out a bestselling Jack Reacher novel every year since '97 and has influenced a half-dozen other Stoic Antihero Characters who are almost equally popular (the John Savage novels, Evan Smoak of the "Orphan X" books, Cutter Grogan et cetera) it seems absurd to contend that there is a "huge trend" toward "weak" protagonists.

(I'm not surprised that this supposed "trend" is a vague, amorphous thing taking place in books that apparently can't even be named or identified in any way. Wokephobes are almost always freaking out about some vague bullshit that turns out to be largely irrelevant in the light of day.)

At any rate, the masculinist power fantasy is alive, well and easily accessible, boring as some of us might find it. That books and shows simply exist that feature other kinds of protagonists is a perfectly fine thing; if it isn't your thing there are plenty of other selections out there for you.

 

[gordo12]

I have no idea what the OP is on about. In a market where Lee Child has been cranking out a bestselling Jack Reacher novel every year since '97 and has influenced a half-dozen other Stoic Antihero Characters who are almost equally popular (the John Savage novels, Evan Smoak of the "Orphan X" books, Cutter Grogan et cetera) it seems absurd to contend that there is a "huge trend" toward "weak" protagonists.

(I'm not surprised that this supposed "trend" is a vague, amorphous thing taking place in books that apparently can't even be named or identified in any way. Wokephobes are almost always freaking out about some vague bullshit that turns out to be largely irrelevant in the light of day.)

At any rate, the masculinist power fantasy is alive, well and easily accessible, boring as some of us might find it. That books and shows simply exist that feature other kinds of protagonists is a perfectly fine thing; if it isn't your thing there are plenty of other selections out there for you.

I read all those Jack Reacher and other books too. Mostly what I'm talking about are amateur writers who seem to think that being weak is somehow attractive. I read a lot of Kindle books.

This is a discussion and doesn't need insults added to it. If you can't abide by that, stay out of it.

 

[CyranoJ]

This is a discussion and doesn't need insults added to it. If you can't abide by that, stay out of it.

Bruh, you can't claim to be conducting a "discussion" based on literally nothing. When you can't identify any actual examples of a thing you claim is happening, you can expect people to call bullshit. Which is what I'm doing.

Like, I could give you three dozen examples of the kind of book I'm talking about right now. You cannot furnish one specific example of all these supposed books full of gormless heroes being rescued by their underlings. Let me put it a little more politely: I find this very odd. And I do not find "I read on Kindle" a satisfactory explanation for this oddness.

 

[gordo12]

Bruh, you can't claim to be conducting a "discussion" based on literally nothing. When you can't identify any actual examples of a thing you claim is happening, you can expect people to call bullshit. Which is what I'm doing.

Who says we can't discuss nothing? You? Seinfeld made a whole show about nothing. My impression, as I talked about in the beginning, was that I was seeing a lot of weak characters as leads. I asked if anyone else was seeing that. Maybe they do, or maybe they don't.

They don't seem to be objecting to the discussion.

Crawl back into your hole!

 

[CyranoJ]

Who says we can't discuss nothing?

I mean, you can, it's just a meaningless exercise that I, for one, will mock the fuck out of.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

I read all those Jack Reacher and other books too. Mostly what I'm talking about are amateur writers who seem to think that being weak is somehow attractive. I read a lot of Kindle books.

Ah right, well this explains why we didn’t know what you mean. We were all wracking our brains thinking about professional writers when it’s amateur/non-professional writers (who make basic errors) that your talking about.

If you’re not liking what you’re getting perhaps get something different. Might I suggest non-fiction journalism, or classic works.

Get out of your current “readers of this also bought…” funk.

What do you think?

 

[gordo12]

Do you need some toilet paper to wipe that mouth?

You don't have a right to disrupt threads others are enjoying.

 

[MillieDynamite]

There are a lot of bad Kindle books out there. There are also a lot of great ones. Erotica on Kindle is as mixed a bag of nuts as the writing here. Perhaps the terrible covers make up for the lousy writing. Hold on that doesn't make sense. Even good or great covers don't make up for bad writing. All in all, many erotic titles are a letdown at all pay sites. But there are jewels among the turds.

 

[CyranoJ]

Do you need some toilet paper to wipe that mouth?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/d77920333ffcbf77de59ab05a9ea243b/tenor.gif?itemid=13577382
At any rate, I can't say it's exactly shocking to me that you don't want to hear that the premise of this thread is ridiculous. I'll just second @Emilymcplugger's advice; sounds like it would probably be useful if you're trying to avoid these various nameless books.

 

[gordo12]

Ah right, well this explains why we didn’t know what you mean. We were all wracking our brains thinking about professional writers when it’s amateur/non-professional writers (who make basic errors) that your talking about.

If you’re not liking what you’re getting perhaps get something different. Might I suggest non-fiction journalism, or classic works.

Get out of your current “readers of this also bought…” funk.

What do you think?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. We're not talking about the Clive Cusslers or 007. I tend to read amateur works because I like to see what other writers are doing. And no, I never use the "readers also bought" function. Most of mine come via BookBub on their daily email.

 

[gordo12]

At any rate, I can't say it's exactly shocking to me that you don't want to hear that the premise of this thread is ridiculous. I'll just second @Emilymcplugger's advice; sounds like it would probably be useful if you're trying to avoid these various nameless books.

Why bother posting here if it's that traumatic to you?

 

[MillieDynamite]

So Bookbub works for selling books, then.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. We're not talking about the Clive Cusslers or 007. I tend to read amateur works because I like to see what other writers are doing. And no, I never use the "readers also bought" function. Most of mine come via BookBub on their daily email.

 

[Emilymcplugger]

Sorry if that wasn't clear. We're not talking about the Clive Cusslers or 007. I tend to read amateur works because I like to see what other writers are doing. And no, I never use the "readers also bought" function. Most of mine come via BookBub on their daily email.

Yeah, get out it.

You seem to be in an algorithmic spiral due to current tastes. This is how conspiracy theorists wind-up down the rabbit hole but you’re in a “weak protagonist” one (this is new).

If you’re after better protagonists though you’re in the right place as Literotica has THOUSANDS of them…but…stay out of LW (Loving Wives) that’s potentially even more toxic.

 

[gordo12]

So Bookbub works for selling books, then.

I've seen some stats and, to me, they don't impress. I buy a few every month, but overall, I don't think many authors get their money back. I seem to recall it starts @ $1500/email. They send them out 7 days a week. Also, a lot of those books are on KU which I have so it's attractive to download them.

 

[CyranoJ]

Why bother posting here if it's that traumatic to you?

You can basically just imagine me reposting that Big Lebowski "WTF" gif in response to all your further attempts at face-saving. That'll spare the bandwidth, at least.