Dear Authors: Your Characters ROCK!

I am in love with some recent character trends within media in general, and specifically the fantasy genre. But I would love to hear your take on my opinion! What type of protagonist do you want to see in your next fantasy epic?
Patreon: / danielbgreene
Discord Server: / discord
Twitter: Da...
Instagram: / dgreene101
GoodReads: / daniel-greene
WorldHoppers: / @worldhoppers8021
WoT Artists to check out!:
Edsel Arnold
EdselArnold.com
Paul Bielaczyc
PaulBielaczyc.com
Ariel Burgess
ArtistArielBurgess.com
Seamas Gallagher
SeamasSketches.blogspot.com
Joe O’Hara
StudioJOHara.com
Amy Romanczuk
BookCzuk.blogspot.com
Jeremy Saliba
JeremySaliba.blogspot.com
Start The Wheel of Time here: amzn.to/2IQsnys

[@DanielGreeneReviews]

I seem to have not stated my point as clearly as a like with this video. To boil it down, I think characters tend to be getting more relatable and struggling with themselves and their place within their worlds. This is a trend I really enjoy. Some characters seem to be thriving with this new standards, see Captain America struggling with his patriotism. While other struggle, see Superman being grumpy and fish out of water. This is not 100% true all the time. There were characters all the way back to Ancient Greece that struggled with morality. But I do believe it is becoming more common even in big blockbusters type movies. We as an audience are now expecting to relate to all of our protagonists, and if we don’t, it often hinders our enjoyment of the media we are consuming. Do you like this new trend? Do you miss more wish fulfillment based heroes?

[@ryanratchford2530]

Daniel Greene I like the new trend, of ambiguity & complexity. Game of thrones gives us a more interesting look into humans & politics. But even if you’re tiered of Grimdark, You don’t need all your characters to be morally grey/ jerks- Brandon Sanderson says that he views every single one of his characters a Good People in their core- and its only due to their situation & human flaws that lead them to make mistakes or struggle with doing the right thing. I think that’s another good way to approach it if you don’t want everyone to be horrible grimdarkers. It’s more true to life & just more interesting. I also prefer Captain America facing the US government other the Nazis because pure evil has been done so much (& is usually an instinctual default in stories- Us vs Other/Enemy mentality) that it will pop up from time to time but I don’t see any need to encourage it. Realistic ambiguity is far more interesting. Pretty much every major government occasionally does very ambiguous & sometimes horrific things (studying any point in history will teach you that) and having characters try and deal with that & pick sides & make hard moral decisions is fascinating to me.

[@tracib.7725]

You did fine! I like them both... Sometimes I want to focus on the adventure and action and not worry about if my hero is sad because he killed random soldier number 8 and the truck load of emotional conflict that it dumps on him/her. But I do love me some complex deep characters who ARE the story just as much. In literature as in food, variety is the spice of life.

[@skynikan]

If it's well done, I think both of these are able to create amazing stories. In general stories tend to adjust themselves to the audience and their expectations. 70-80 years ago we had very clear distinctions between good and bad, during wars societies don't tend to morally question themselves and the enemy, except you're really on the wrong side :D WW2 might be the best and worst example for that at the same time. If you are able to make such a clear line between good and bad in your life, you might want to consume fiction that shows you just that: a pure hero on his straight path towards righteous victory. Today, at least in mass consuming, mostly peaceful societies, that's a totally different question because we think about the world differently. We want to understand everything, judging something quickly is not what people want right now, ethical problems get questioned from every side possible. I think that's exactly what fiction represents, because we all want to find even the slightest part of ourselves in the characters. I enjoy this trend because it gives me the opportunity to discuss with friends or people on the internet, so the time I actually spend thinking about the fiction I consumed is longer.

[@ZachValkyrie]

I hope the trend continues. If it does, my book is sure to resonate with audiences!

[@maohpeach1425]

hows about captain america looking conflicted as he punches a modern nazi?

[@fairycat23]

"Do you wanna see Captain America punch Nazis, or do you wanna see him question the United States government?" Well~, if we're boiling it down to THAT, then I think he has enough time in the day for both.

[@moonisusman4072]

@@calebmauer1751 I don't like or dislike trump but it'd be just funny to see that.

[@DryBooks]

I really need both. I am in LOVE with the flawed character and the complicater villain. It really does bring a weight to the story that the mary sue can't. But, I also enjoy the character that is too good to be true, fails but has his/her heart always in the right place no matter what. The romantic in me really likes to escape to a world where people like that exist.

[@ryanratchford2530]

Completely agree. Realisim, depth and nuance are nearly always more interesting. And even with HP & Voldemort, there where a lot of similarities between the two- both half blood orphans who grew up in the muggle world completely unaware of the Wizarding World, and both felt like Hogwarts was their true home. (And due to Magic Plot stuff they have a lot of similarities in unique abilities & a psychic connection) But where they differed was when they both found a home in Hogwarts, Harry connected with friends (power of freisnhip & all of those themes the series incorporates heavily) whereas Voldemort remained very inclusive & apathetic.

[@myself2noone]

Frodo failed. Got no redemption. Much was made about the ending of Return of the King, but the reason we see Frodo failing to live his life after that is because he's living with the guilt of giving into The Ring. He's able to smile in the end there because doesn't have to live in this world anymore. Just saying.

[@cayranm]

This is an interesting take, and I'm sure there is truth in what you've said. But I do think it is more likely to have been Tolkien putting to paper his experiences with going on his own dangerous adventure; PTSD. Whether he really knew it or not. Now, I understand that Tolkien cared nothing for allegory, but his experiences clearly permeate the adventure, and as a veteran of the First World War, he more than likely suffered from PTSD. Frodo's inability to return to his life is because he is fundamentally changed, his experiences collectively have made him unable to return to the life he once had (his wound from the Ringwraith a physical reminder of his trauma). He's no longer just a Hobbit from Bag End; he's a warrior, an adventurer, he's made and lost friends, his mind was poisoned by the greatest evil power Middle Earth had known in aeons. He has seen the darkest depths of the world, and survived. I agree that guilt played a role, but that it was far more reaching in terms of psychological damage from all of his experiences, not just the fact he succumbed to the ring alone.

[@Ismael-kc3ry]

Him giving in to the ring itself was a demonstration of Tolkien writing a flawed protagonist. Frodo leaving Middle Earth was because of his PTSD

[@bigdurk4115]

Wolverine went through some great characters development over the decades

[@DanielGreeneReviews]

I haven’t read enough of his material or watched most of the X-men movies so I can’t really say one way or the other. Regardless, Wolverine is awesome, and I love HJs performance in general. Logan was incredible.

[@SH-qs7ee]

I think the best comic character to look at like this is Magneto; from a 2 Dimensional bad guy who revelled in his villainy, and created a group actually called Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, to a much more tragic figure with a past that explains his world view perfectly. In some ways I think the role of the antagonist has evolved more than protagonist; we as an audience are a lot less likely to want a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil while not minded a hero that is just wanting to do the right thing

[@DanielGreeneReviews]

Magneto has long been one of my favorite comic book villains. Wonderfully deep and relatable while just taking things to far to corrupt his overall not entirely wrong point.

[@jordendarrett1725]

I like how you choose to focus on something positive for this episode. KZbin is filled to the brim with people who just love trashing on everything they can in the most mean and obnoxious ways. That said, I'm happy to see that people these days prefer more morally gray characters, because it shows how we as a society are beginning to be able to see things from others' shoes, individually and culturally speaking. It's another step towards globalization.

[@Erik-pu4mj]

Nando V Movies recently made a video (second one coming), "The Hydra Problem." It gets at that inability to follow through with questioning the American government, in favor of the easier-to-digest punching Nazis. He described a 'literal sigh of relief' when Cap didn't have to make a morally gray judgment--to question Fury and the helecarriers. I, like NvM, want to see the Caps follow through and tackle tough questions.

[@filipab0oks]

I absolutely love Dalinar and how he questions everything all the time. I'm reading Oathbringer atm and I was having some hard time with young Dalinar's chapters , it doesn't even feels like the same character at all !

[@kathleenbrashier2579]

I think Dalinar being very different when he was young is absolutely the point of those chapters, so yeah, he should feel like a different person there. I think Brandon was trying to show how much growth Dalinar has gone through in his life, and what he's changed about himself along the way.

[@janhavi1977]

Great video! I really appreciated you pointing out morally grey does not necessarily mean grim-dark. I actually think Harry and Voldemort had a few similarities, but because Harry Potter is mainly children's literature, Harry had to essentially be the good guy and Voldy, the bad guy. I genuinely appreciated Rowling writing a flawed main character though, because somehow with childrens' lit, it's difficult to write non-Mary-Sues. Even as a kid, I always felt Harry was super-relatable, because he wasn't perfect. While he wasn't extremely complex, or morally grey, he was written pretty well for a children's book. I love your discussion videos, thanks! :)

[@jaxpk2669]

Cough* Geralt *Cough

[@sotakunaii]

omg he's so NOT flawless or is that what you wanted to say?

[@CamWolfeAuthor]

I do love when I notice during reading that the Author has made an obvious attempt at having some parallels between the protagonist's inner conflict, and the external conflict. It's satisfying to be a reader in a time where there's more value in the heroes being unsure about their "quest", rather then the heroes of old where it was "me good guy, me kill bad guy, no questions" haha 😂

[@marktgreene]

I’ll take the original Captain America and a good old John Wayne movie for my fantasy/escapism. I know this is a HUGELY politically incorrect position, but it’s from the gut of this liberal. (There’s enough ambiguity in real life.)

[@marktgreene]

@A Box of Chublets Hmmm. Not exactly my point. I don't see media as an emasculating agent, and I appreciate literature with personal conflict and nuance, I just happen to prefer black and white in my pure escapism. Still, we can have a rational discussion about Indy's need to shoot to kill the guy with the sword; why not just shoot him in the kneecap (ouch!)? Do we know he was really EVIL?

[@KitchenSinkSoup]

You can also have fun with some of the stuff that looks stupid now.

[@bruncla2303]

@A Box of Chublets no grey area? what about killing nazis that surendered? some of them were just soldier obeying orders. Is there still no grey area is it still just nazi evil allie soldier good?

[@jordendarrett1725]

@@bruncla2303 true, people don't understand that

[@SunGawdRa]

I can dig it.

[@b_e_a_n_1_988]

Great video, i think you hit the nail on the head. Sanderson is coming out with some insanely relatable characters. If u mix the morally grey with the little guy beating the big guy, i think thats where you get some really great stories like mistborn.

[@tarnishedtemplar3835]

I am conflicted on this quite a bit. It is nice to read Characters that have our flaws and importantly overcome those flaws to succeed or at least do the better thing. At the same time I don't want morally ambiguity to become the sanction norm. I feel like we dilute morals when we sanction that gray area; we send the message that you don't have to try and be a better person. Not saying that is what all authors intend, or if that is their motivation. I guess it is like everything else; all things in moderation. I love characters like Samwise. I also love Dalinar. Captain America represents the line where I get conflicted. I actually enjoy some of MCU's evolution of the Cap. Especially Winter Solider with how they handled it. You understood Cap's position, how America had changed from the Freedoms he fought for. Though I would have been actually quite happy if it didn't have Hydra as the big bad in that one, I think the story would been just as good as a split within Shield. They didn't really capture that with Civil War, and even more so in the fact that Cap just walks away, which feels like a total departure from his personality.

[@benjaminforsline3313]

I like the more reliable characters like Kaladin, Dalinar, ect.

[@benjaminforsline3313]

Relatable*

[@nathansequeira182]

Kaladin isn't relatable. He is too good, it's unrealistic

[@kathleenbrashier2579]

@@nathansequeira182 I disagree that Kaladin is unrealistic. I know people who are trying (sometimes succeeding) to be good like that, and they fail just as often and hurt people around them just as often as Kaladin. I love Kaladin and appreciate his struggles.

[@rowangibson3196]

I recently picked up the eye of the world. And that lead me to you. I’m now reading the great hunt, I love your videos and have inspired me to get back into fantasy! :)

[@AlexAppleby]

I love the characters who try to be honourable and good in a world that has no room for it, like Ned Stark in Game of Thrones. Unfortunately 9/10 times that character would definitely die.

[@lukemichal7867]

Mal Renolds from Firefly......love his flawed but morally conscious character.

[@ashleywilkerson7514]

In summary: Variety is the spice of life and fiction.

[@thelightningking8772]

I think that it really depends on the type of story for me. Using your Lord of the Rings example, I really loved how mysterious and unknown Sauron was throughout the books. The most terrifying thing about him was that the extent of his sight and reach were unknown and that placed a certain pressure on all the characters that was especially present in the books. I think that this would have been lost if Tolkien used some of the time to expand on his backstory. In the same vein, I also like villains, like Kefka from Final Fantasy VI, who are just so irredeemably evil that they would lose their impact if they were written as more morally gray characters. On the other hand, I do love antagonists who can form an ideological conundrum with the protagonists. One of my personal favorites is the World Government from One Piece. You have this government that literally controls the world, and we see it fleshed out from just a roadblock that the Straw Hats need to overcome every now and then to a corrupt organization that sees its citizens as objects. Within the WG there are people who have their own views on the idea of justice and its relation to freedom. We see them struggle to find their own means to better the world at large, while still being under the shadow of this incredibly powerful, enigmatic entity. I also just wanted to say that my favorite gray character that Tolkien has written would probably be the steward of Gondor (I forget his name). He had some legitimate reasons for some of his actions and I thought he was interesting. Anyway, great video.

[@Bowtiedhillbilly]

I think there is a space for both. One of my favorite kinds of stories is having an unequivocally evil bad guy, but the moral aspect of the story revolving around how low the heroes are willing to sink to stop them.

[@Gigglepud]

Really interesting observations and a great discussion! I love both!! Nothing like a fun, wish-fulfillment story to nurse my hurts after some deep morally ambiguous story with flawed main characters :D

[@mtallen56]

Daniel, have you seen The Wire? I think they do an amazing job of dealing with characters in the way you describe in this video.

[@dinocollins720]

Kelsier is a perfect example of this. Great review Daniel

[@tracib.7725]

Great video!! I like them both. The new characters are so real, relatable and fantastic that the story seems more real and I am invested more in how it comes out for them as people more so than what actually happens action/results wise in the over all story. But, sometimes I just want a simple adventure without all the moral, ethical or emotional drama. I just want to escape to a different world that doesn’t have all that. Either way, it can be enjoyable depending on what my reading desires are at that time.

[@ImSupposedToSleep]

I think this trend/change is probably also influenced by social, political, economical, ... factors. I'd say that in the years druing and after the second world war, people needed these morally perfect characters to survive and create hope. They were also probably enforced by the government and society in order to avoid criticism from the people. Fighting a war is easier when it's black versus white, not when you have to question your enemy, yourself and your government. But then during the Vientam war, people did start questioning their government and realizing that maybe those who claim they are the good ones actually have ulterior motives. And then comes technology and internet and nothing is what it seems anymore. There's been a loss of trust in the bigger systems (politics, economy, ...) and I think this is reflected in our culture. How can we write about morally perfect people when this is not the case in the real world? Of course, not all characters will be morally grey, some will be written as The Chosen One. However, I think those are now being read as more of an escapism. That's what I think and how I feel of course. Great video and interesting discussion. I've been watching quite a lot of your videos these past few days and I'm amazed at how passionate and intelligent you are. And also wanted to say that Pips is super cute!

[@prigg88]

I like a mixture. I've been thinking how sci-fi and fantasy can talk about and delve into issues that other genres can't like what does it mean to be human and where technology can take us, what is the nature of our reality, free will vs determinism and I think the characters need to fit what story your telling. I love fantasy but I think one TV show I loved that isn't fantasy had a mix of both of these qualities, the West Wing had competent characters who would always strive to do the right thing but sometimes they used bad methods and you could see characters struggle with what they considered moral. The characters were still incredibly optimistic and its maybe the one show about politics that is very wish fulfilment.

[@deiniou]

I might come late, but I do wish more people wrote about people to look up to. For example, I am not such a fan of Aragorn in the books but in the film, he is my favorite and I am not sure why. As I kid I used to love Legolas, but now as an adult... Yeah, he is the kind of character I would like to follow.

[@sofielundsskolan]

... uh. I have reservations about agreeing with this sentiment. It mostly boils down to that I think it's only a trend in typical "mainstream" stuff that becomes part of the zeitgeist (in some general sense, possibly including what is remembered/preserved through extended periods of time). As you yourself kinda noted in your comment, there have existed very varied characters for as long as there have been stories, but I'd go further and say that they have not only existed, but also been available in abundance for just as long. Fantasy as a genre more specifically becomes a bit harder to apply this framework to since it depends on how old you consider the genre to be, but if we don't go back more than a couple of hundred years, THEN I could agree with your assessment. I also wouldn't be surprised if in shorter time intervals, one could find that these minor trends regularly fluctuate. Incidentally, there was some famous ancient Greek person (I forget the name) who bemoaned the masses' proclivity for comedies (and I guess satyr plays) - as in ancient Greek comedy, not what we mean by comedy today - which pretty much echoes the opinion that what is considered "mainstream" is not as nuanced in general (greek tragedy rather consistently contained flawed protagonists). Which is just me saying that people don't really change all that much over the epochs, and that many perceived trends have appeared and faded away several times throughout history.

[@sofielundsskolan]

Also the focus on material adapted from stories with their roots in pulp fiction (Indiana Jones and superhero blockbusters) I think limits the scope of what you're dissecting to that category, and its evolution through a media format transition to something that typically has not had the same assortment and concentration of tropes (film). I guess I think we should just be a little more careful about using very broad generalizations?

[@Rashadmcka]

I do recall leaving a similar comment in the Moral Grey video. I'll reiterate it here a bit if that's ok. It's always a bit weird because on a technical level, I totally agree with everything you say, but I find myself just voicing the other aspects that I feel are relevant... if that makes sense? I remember using the Harry Potter example as well and I think its a great example. I personally find that there are so many "grey" characters I find myself wanting more righteous characters. I think a full cast of characters with multiple ideals is what makes characters dynamics even better, I find myself just wanting to follow a good person more often now. They don't have to be the Protagonist, they don't have to have the same ideals as me, and they definitely don't need to conform to the stereotypes of a manly man doing Heroic things. Heroic ideals that can waver but never actually stop them, is something I find commendable, and one of the aspects that may set them apart from the other characters. On a side note, it's a bit funny (i mean creepy) watching these older characters that are technically the pure hero but when you watch them in a modern context, they are often what I would consider if not "grey" a bit sketchy at best. They are often arrogant, narcissists, who don't take no for an answer... especially when they try to kiss the female lead (looking at you Blade Runner)...

[@cyanic3148]

I think a character who really tries to be morally good as much as they can, but the world they're in just does not facilitate that is also a very interesting character, like the Superman example, how interesting would the story be if he was to morally function like the older depictions of him? Where he really wants to help people, and as much people as he can, but despite all his abilities, he's not fast enough to be omnipresent, not strong enough to push a planet out of an incoming gamma burst (though he probably is, but it works better if he's not in this example lol), he acknowledges that he's in a unique position of power and uniquely suited to helping many people, so despite everything and despite not being fully perfect, he tries anyway, because someone has to start I think that's the best depiction of Superman, not as wish fulfillment of being this badass flyng deity, but a symbol for hope Apparently, Astro City has a good arc similar to this, it's not actually Superman, but it's a great depiction still

[@KierTheScrivener]

I definitely love the relateability, but it is still nice to mix it up every once in a while

[@dylanbaker9016]

Wow daniel has big beautiful anime eyes.

[@HarantheBlue]

"Moral ambiguity" in character actions isn't really a complex thing, in my mind. You can think of it as a mechanism of built and released tension. When a protagonist does something wrong, it taints their character in the reader's eye (or it should). But... it's also a tool that causes the reader to connect to him or her, because we know that darkness, we empathize with pain. But when a character shows no remorse for a wrong choice, they become flat and unsympathetic. Now, this is a great tool to make the reader angry or frustrated with the character, but if it's left unresolved too long with no hope in sight the interest of the character diminishes. That's the way I see it, anyway, you build that moral tension then you release it in a satisfying way. That's a good emotional ride. The other problem I have is when the author makes excuses or justifications for a character making a wrong decision. It's just really cheap, and it shows the moral constitution of the writer's own mind. People feel guilt for bad personal mistakes, and if you don't you have some reevaluating to do, because you're not doing yourself any favors. Guilt is a basic biological brain pattern, but is something that modern entertainment seems to be confused with. Characters grow in relatability when they do something wrong, but that's not the end of the road. They become more relatable when they suffer because of their mistake, and they become glorious and beloved when they use that suffering as a catalyst for change and make strides toward goodness and power (Prince Zuko in Avatar is a fantastic example of this! which I would say is why he's arguably one of the best characters). Here's my beef with Stormlight Archive (and I hope this was intentional on Sanderson's part; I hope he knows what he's doing): At first, I couldn't quite identify what felt off about some of the characters, and I realized this is the reason. There's unresolved moral tension. Two specific examples: Dalinar's arc and Shallan and Adolin's relationship at the end of Oathbringer. (SPOILERS) In his younger days, Dalinar was genocidal, and I'm going to re-read it but I didn't feel like there was enough of a return for him. I feel like Sanderson was trying too hard to maintain seriousness in that regard. As for Shallan and Adolin, here is what completely switched me off: Adolin murdered a guy, tried to cover it up, no psychological repercussions (yet), and Shallan is just okay with it because of something she did when she was mentally unstable... In the real world, murderers are locked up (or worse), and it takes some serious psychological missteps to get yourself there. Despite being portrayed as the nice guy, there is something disturbingly wrong with Adolin (and Shallan, for that matter). Again, I hope Sanderson knows what he's doing here and has plans to tie everything up, but that's where I lost sympathy for those two. I've got Kaladin's back, I've got Dalinar's back, but I can't stand behind Shallan and Adolin after the end of Oathbringer. Sorry.

[@ThePsychoNyx]

Superman is a key example in how the modern audience doesn't care as much about the simplistic hero, it kind of goes further into why people prefer Batman over him because he is relatable and not in a 'Superman is an alien and Batman is human' way but because he's flawed and singular and he's struggling to retain his moral good? The issue with his representation in the recent films is that it felt like they were trying to mould him into a character which required the audience to do the work to make him fit as well as kind of going against a lot of he already was. On the term of Mary Sue I think it heavily goes into people not knowing what a Mary Sue really is, someone OP without any explanation or difficulty who just gets through everything (Kvothe *cough cough*). It's fine to be OP, as long as we understand the struggle of why but mainly have human flaws. We are all messed up in some area and that's what makes us real. That plays hugely into why it was most likely that initial storytelling was quite simplistic and singular and now is more complex because we are beginning to acknowledge the complexities of human beings beyond stereotypes and wish fulfilment I think it could be possible to look at every story as a product of its time period and what is important to the author which can influence the themes, in our current social/economic/political and ecological climate there are so many variables and arguments that there is just so much to explore and consider. Being in such a digital age and having such accessibility to information worldwide only pushes the idea further that there will always be things to disagree on and at its heart empathy is what will be drawn out from these differing perspectives EVEN when we disagree.

[@scottfisher744]

I absolutely agree and love the debates of "how far is too far to achieve the greater good". Something that stands out for me to this day is not a protagonist, but Magneto (Ian McKellen) from 2000's Xmen. He was bad (because they told us so, then showed us), but there was a point that could almost be argued as to the why he was doing it. The character really believed what he was doing would be a boon to all mutants and even to the people affected in the climax. The first time I was really interested/invested in a villainous character at all.

[@krystololsen2318]

I think that character like Sam Gamgee and others definitely have a place and a purpose and that when things tend to be harder and tougher we look toward characters like superman to give us hope in humanity. Even though I throughly enjoy the trend that characters are becoming more relatable and overall more interesting because everything is not black and white and causes us to think, stories like Game of Thrones, however, while very intense and interesting can tend to bring people down and have a despairing view of the world. So, I think both are great if done well and we can gain a lot from both as an audience.

[@rnyc04]

For me, it depends on the book's intended purpose. There are some books that necessitate characters to answer and deal with moral questions whereas, in others, it's a black and white scenario. My motivation for reading the book also comes into play when deciding on which types of characters I want. More often than not, I gravitate towards characters who deal with moral questions because they're more relatable in today's setting. Nevertheless, once in a while, I enjoy those undeniably good and right characters for my books just to create more diverse mindsets and reading environments. :D

[@cynthiapayne9906]

Wisecrack did an interesting video along these lines, talking about the evolution of villains in popular media over the last several decades as a reflection of the changing common fears and concerns of the day. There has been a steady move towards more ambiguous bad guys with more understandable motives and, of course, whenever the villains change so do the good guys. I'll get put in your spam filter if I link it, but the full title of the video was "Why Our Villains Are Different Now (Thanos, The Joker, Killmonger) - Wisecrack Edition"

[@bisexualichigo4227]

I’ve taken a liking to characters to characters with moral ambiguity. Not like anti heroes, but with ideals that are not the same as others. And yay. I was 900th like

[@EspiritoDeDafne]

I prefer complicated and flawed characters. And I love to analyse complex villains and morally gray characters. But my favorites are those characters who are heroic and admirable while still having humans flaws, like a character who is impulsive and kinda arrogant and have no respect for rules, but is undeniable selfless to a point where he would with no hesitation give up of the life that he knew to protect some innocent people he barely knows (I'm describinga specific character, but is a good exemple of what I'm talking about)

[@imjames29]

I just went searching for reviews of The Demon Cycle series and although it's not on this channel after my search I realize how much better this channel is than everything else. Bookwise

[@jeremydanchuk1897]

The DCU could have done so much with Superman, exploring his near godlike power and trying to find his identity eventually becoming a beacon of hope in the Christopher Reeves vain. In order for him to get there he would have to make mistakes that cause him loss, have real friendships as both Clark and Superman, flirt with the darkside try imposing his will on the world and coming to the understanding of individuals frees will. Of the more modern characters that are fun to read and watch, I am really surprised you did not mention Glokta, and I would include Nine Fingers, I am also really liking John Wick and the Equilizer and for TV Lucifer.

[@errtu123]

"serving the Light, who are using their being in the Light as a power advantage and abusing those around who don't have that power" - that describes Aei Seday perfectly. Only besides military power, they also have crazy powerful magic that is basically unchallenged until the Black Tower arose.

[@malcomalexander9437]

It should be noted that the works of Michael Moorcock(a very prolific Sci-Fi and Fantasy author in the 60s and 70s counter culture, and he ran with Hawkwind for a bit. Also, yes that is his real name) are not about battles between Good and Evil, but Law and Chaos(Warhammer took a lot from Moorcock, their Chaos is basically his Chaos, right down to the Chaos Star), in an eternal struggle between them and the Cosmic Balance, with the protagonists of his stories(both Fantasy and Sci-Fi stories are linked by his multiverse) being Incarnations of the Eternal Champion, an agent of the Balance.

[@malcomalexander9437]

If Law were to definitively win then the universe would become a sterile stagnant stasis where nothing can happen. If Chaos were to win then you get a stagnant quagmire where the only constant is meaningless change. In short if a society got overtaken by Law then you get the setting of 1984(or maybe Nazi Germany, they were serving Law unknowingly), if a society gets overtaken by Chaos then you get The Purge on Purge Night but worse(but on a constant basis and not tied to one night a year).

[@hikethemike7349]

Therefore I love Roland Deschain as character. He is sacrificing a lot of loved ones for his final destination the dark tower. But is it really worth it? He is a great, morally interesting character. Great video as always Daniel!

[@j.mbarlow5952]

The more I watch your channel, and come to understand where your preferences lie, the more I want to hear your thoughts on Children of Hurin. Still my favorite book. (Is it considered modern fantasy? Being recently published?)

[@FairladyZ2005]

I like both. But I hate grimdark because everyone is equally awful. That's just depressing and boring. I think it's important to have character foils. It's hard to have, for example, Batman be the more complicated guy if he doesn't have boyscout Superman to play off of. So Superman remains interesting not by becoming more gray but because his "baseline goodness" is the standard by which other Justice League members' grayness is measured. Meanwhile, Batman still isn't as gray as a hero who kills, etc. And it's in those conflicts of different types of gray, not everyone just being the same shade of gray, that things get interesting. The more flawed characters you have, the more you need a spectrum of "gooder" and badder" characters to play off off. That is what I find exciting. It's something that makes modern books like A Song of Ice and Fire so good. There is a lot of gray, but it's also a spectrum raging from really good guys like Samwell Tarly to monsters like Ramsay Snow. The spectrum makes all the difference between grimdark and bittersweet.

[@sayuriwickramasingha1560]

agree💯.that is why my fav show is GOT

[@andrewreising4541]

For the most part, I agree with your assessment of Tolkien, but I think that the one outlier is Frodo. He makes mistakes and succumbs to weakness time and again. He even fails at the end, and the ring only ends up destroyed due to Gollum's reckless obsession. So I definitely think he is the major exception here.

[@LauraSarahsMusicFilter]

I only read "Your Characters ROCK!" - and thought you were talking about the Character Tournament... 😭

[@RiplashII]

I'd be curious about your take on "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

[@RotaFury]

Hmm that's a tough question personally for me it's both a bit of an out I know but let me explain. I like having the deeper relatable characters because they can be interesting fair more so most the time. However having some slightly less relatable is nice for action stuff or when I want a break from real issues.

[@Gnomleif]

I need both. I grew up with Bruce Lee, Arnold, Stallone and Van Damme, and they will always be a part of me. And while the premise of the goodie-two-shoes hero is more simplistic than the morally challenged character, I do think they have their place. If nothing else it's simple, stupid fun where you get to turn of your brain for a couple of hours and just enjoy an entertaining ride. And don't tell me you didn't feel just a little bit torn in The Last Crusade, when Indy was considering trying to grab the Holy Grail. Also, at least in my personal opinion I don't think Sauron _quite_ fit the bill. Yes, he is a dark lord. There are also things that, at least in my opinion, points to him being more of a primeval force of evil that's ever present in the world, and can never truly be destroyed. That's just me, though.

[@Kim-gy9pl]

It depends on my mood. Sometimes I want a feel good classic style and sometimes I want to get lost in the nuances of complex characters

[@emily-katec2165]

I just want to see Captain America punch the Nazi's! Here is the ultimate question: why would I want to see characters fail in moral situations? I do that everyday. People that I love do that everyday. People that I loathe do that everyday. Story should show us how to "struggle right." Show us how to struggle and be in a black environment and STILL have hope and faith and love. Anyone can stay resilient when all is good. Show me a character "keep to the high road" when temptation meets him at every turn. The new Captain America is NOTHING special. I am tempted to put on black and give up everyday. Big deal. I prefer this for my escapism: compassion and enthusiasm and commitment to good actually GROWS as society around the protagonist gets darker. I can see gray everyday. Give me sunshine. This all comes down to core beliefs: Are Goodness and Beauty truly worthy of unwavering commitment at all personal cost to your own thoughts and feelings? If the answer is yes, I am not interested in seeing characters struggle for long periods on this issue. To me, those people are parasites, that want to take goodness and beauty and love when they find but are not committed to it for its own sake.

[@omer8882]

Ugh you’re always so on point. I wish more KZbinrs had such a critical thinking

[@samuelleask1132]

I’ve gotta be honest, my personal preference for escapism in fantasy means I prefer more black-and-white, morally-unquestionable “Good” characters, but I definitely agree that this is more of the older style and is not always as interesting as the more nuanced characters that people like Brandon Sanderson are so good at writing

[@kopicat2429]

Some years back i would agree 100%. Loved flawed MCs and severely disliked the heroes who were all good. But now, i'm back to loving the old style heroes who are all good :p Got enough drama and flaws and stuff in real life. I want my fantasy to take me away from it all :)

[@revan0890]

What is great about WoT is that there is Evil, evil, good, Good, Evil-good, and Good-evil.

[@Kikilang60]

I always hate busting your chops, because I love your channel. The reason pulp was so popular in pre war America was in was consider garbage. As any fring type people will tell you, once people ignore you, you're totally free. We like to to imagine the world was born, and new when we first noticed it. It's not. The history of the pulps, was it growth, and maturity. In the early day, it was very simplistic. Much of stayed that way, but that material was what people cut their teeth on, they you moved on up to the good stuff. Detective pulp was prime example of that. The character were not flawed, but our view of reality was flawed. Books like The Maltese Falcon, or The Big Sleep were ground breaking. After World War two, we had Post War movement, which was we can't afford to be innocent anymore. I'm Assuming you've seen Skyfall. A bit darker then most James Bond movies, wouldn't you say? Nope, the James Bond in the books was sociopath, plain and simple. The torture scene from Skyfall was taken directly from the books. Sure comic books were black and wlhite, but those were written for children. The simple black and white morality you think was the past, was just the death of the post modernism in literature.

[@philipgeyer926]

You need to read more classic fantasy. There is no way you can honestly describe classic fantasy characters like Conan, Frodo, Aragorn, Ged, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Thomas Covenant, The Black Company, Paul Muadib, Pug, Rand Al'Thor or FitzChivalry, to name only a few of the best known examples, as monodimensional characters. Most of your examples come from comic books, which to be fair were originally written for children and natural matured as their readers matured - so that example doesn't count. You need to be more informed before making sweeping statements of this kind. If anything, characters seem to me to be becoming more superficial of late. I see a trend of characters progressing from multifaceted to increasingly grey and non-commital.

[@erin7800]

i think it's more that with classic fantasy it's easier to say a character's on the good or bad side. Even though Frodo, for example, was a very flawed character, nobody would ever really consider whether he was actually good or bad - it was always clear that his overall cause was good. I don't think he's framing characters like the ones you listed as monodimensional - I just think he's pointing out that it's not really questioned whether their overall cause is good or bad. I also agree that a lot of characters are becoming more superficial. I think it might be because a lot of authors are realising that people now tend to prefer the sort of morally grey characters talked about in the video, so they just decide that their character has to be like that and don't put much thought into why they'd be morally grey or whether it makes sense.

[@NathanSMKnapp]

Can you clarify what you mean by "relatable"? You use that word often when talking about the dynamic between a reader and characters in fiction. I'm especially curious about your take on it because the fantasy genre (more than any other genre) seems far removed from a contemporary lived experience. So, are you referring to psychological/emotional relatability, in which we should be able to identify with the psychological/emotional journey a protagonist is experiencing? I'm working through this idea, where I'm unsure how well a reader can or should relate to a protagonist because some experiences in fiction are not relatable either in the domain of a literal life experience or in the domain of the inner psyche. For example, in Lord of the Rings Frodo has a physical task that I cannot relate to and the psychological toll of carrying the ring is something that I cannot relate to either. I still find him an incredibly captivating character. Any thoughts?

[@vaso28]

I don't need to relate to the characters that i read. I just need a good story. But i do enjoy when the protagonists aren't as "good" ,or sometimes i enjoy it when the "bad" antagonist wins. I find the stories where the "bad guy" wins more interesting. In real life it's all grey and even if you do everything right doesn't mean you will prevail. One of the reasons why i love ASOIAF is that in the very first book Ned gets killed.

[@jameschristopher5601]

What about having the hero lose at the end of the book? Your right about Mary Sue. I am writing a book series have gray characters. One of my hero's fight one of another hero for a reason in the book same book that the hero loses at the end of that story.

[@gorgonzolastan]

I watched raiders of the lost ark again recently. Indiana Jones isn't overly black and white. The scene where the scimitar guy starts with the sword tricks come to mind. He doesn't try to fight fairly, he just shoots him. Now that I'm typing this I think several of the things that make him seem grey may not have at the time. His sexual aggressiveness, for example. I guess, at the time, that was expected for the leading man James Bond, etc.

[@Tyfighter-ef8el]

I don't think Captain America and Superman as character's don't need to be updated, the context and environment needs to be updated. the MCU Cap isn't that dramatically different from his comic book version, it's just that is his traditional "do the right thing no matter what" mentality is transplanted into a modern setting of moral ambiguity, Which not only makes him admirable but there are consequences to his rigged moral code (this was even true for the comic book version, particular during the 70's). The problem with Superman isn't that "he's outdated" it's that the context and environment for his character hasn't changed since the Richard Donner movie. If, like Cap, Superman remained himself in world that was morality complex, I guarantee people would turn around on the character.

[@EricMcLuen]

Going through the backlog and it is interesting watching this after watching your dislike of Jorg. I thing a more interesting comparison would have been Batman vs. Joker. As a side note you might enjoy Superman Was Jewish as is tells the story of the comic creators and how their background shaped the characters they created.

[@ShadowPa1adin]

The Captain America-thing you described in the video happened in the comics during the seventies, after Watergate (google "Steve Rogers Nomad"). A lot of this isn't exactly new.

[@Ghost-dx5vd]

I believe wheel of time wasn't the greatest example to use here. Ok morridin/ishamael was one of 14 (15 if you count the dark one) of the main villains that didn't go to the shadow for purely selfish reasons. Even then his reasoning is not something relatable at all. He was insane as was his notion of "we are all gonna die one day, may as well speed it up and make it today". You've mentioned before that you wished Lanfear was written to have a last chance of redemption and do something good for once and I agree. Jordan for all his accomplishments wasn't the greatest at creating nuanced villains.

[@sillwullivan83]

I wouldn’t say that Indy is a wish fulfillment fantasy character for the hyper masculine character. He has a fear of snakes, is generally more scholarly then browning, he generally uses his allies as a crutch (being saved by children multiple times in the series), and isn’t really a beacon of moral justice (considered by many to be grave robber). Hell, he gets his asked kicked and almost beaten through most of the series. He generally losses most of the big final fights in his movies, generally winning through wit then fighting. He’s certainly macho, but he’s got more him then just being the ultimate macho masculine figure.

[@phoebuslore]

Interested in your opinion on Lady Hawk - movie from the 80's. Don't know if it was based on a book or not.

[@teehee-yn3jh]

JLU and JLA Superman is one of the best ways to characterize him. He can be relates to modern times, but DC ain't trying anymore

[@ilitardo160]

I laughed so hard when he said Henry Cavill name😂

[@bilalkhares9337]

One thing that I think should be mentioned is that a character can be flawed to the point of being unlikable or we can just not care about or support them

[@kaga13]

Sauron is more grey than people make him out to be, that's not his real name for one; his original being Mairon, Sauron is what the elves called him and it stuck. Sauron was a corrupted Maiar/Angel/Demi-god that was obsessed with order and used Morgoth and his status as a Dark Lord to bring the world to heel under his version of order vs what he saw as disorder if he let the free peoples do as they wanted. I also don't see the Indiana Jones being the quintisential male fantasy; he definitely punched his share of Nazis but he was also a scientists and a historian that had real problems and often didn't do the manliest thing to get the job done (shooting the dude with the sword scene for example).

[@ChiIIChief]

I love to see the old style every now an then but I think it would become boring very quickly if everyone was doing it again. I love the struggles that so many modern characters go through when trying to decide what’s right or wrong, or if they even care. But I am completely exhausted from grim dark. So many of those books don’t feel like real people making bad choices but like we’re following a bunch of sociopaths and sadists. Not saying that grim dark is bad, I know there are a lot great grim dark books out there.

[@revan0890]

What I enjoy mostly depends on my mood.

[@chameleonarcher]

If you're looking for moral greyness and complexity in Middle-earth you have to go to the First Age. You will very quickly be relieved of the notion that "Elves are always good and right". Sure by the Third Age they're all chill in their forests dispensing wisdom, but uh...not so much before.

[@keriant]

It just seemed to me that you prefer what is now commonly labelled as "anti-heroes" (Batman, for example?), and it definitely feels like that has been the recent trend in fiction lately. I guess relatability is indeed a desirable quality for many people these days. That being said... man, I still love the Indiana Joneses, the Luke Skywalkers, the Supermans. I think sometimes as die-hard fans we tend to overanalyze what is simply meant to be a fun, highly consumable, highly-satisfactory book or movie experience. There are deeper books/movies that should be explored for deeper meaning and relatability while others are simply meant to be "consumed", and always looked at with a pinch of salt. There's room for both!

[@goldenbrigain7031]

I don't think indi was really a super masculine guy. He was a historian going on exhilarating adventures but he never had raging muscles and was spending all of his time punching nazi's. He was running away from armies of armed men, thinking his way out of situations, and putting his best foot forward when it came to his drive to find out the truth and discover the lost secrets of the ancient world. He definitely had a good time putting down evil people, but it's not like that was ever what brought him to the amazing places and situations he ended up in. His signature weapon was a whip and he used it well. The closest I can really think of an example of indiana Jones being a hyper masculine figure is how in every movie he ends up with a girl...if I'm remembering right. But I don't even think he actually got with most of them per movie and they actually had some purpose in the story helping him for their own needs, even being inspired from time to time and grabbing his ass out of the fire. It's not that I think you're wrong about the point you're trying to make, but you really could've found a better example than a man who's entire movie franchise was based on the love for the intellectual pursuit of remnants of records of human life and the bravery it takes to overturn the will of people in power not by overpowering them, but by outthinking them and having a better character as well as lots of good friends.

[@bhatfield1417]

I agree there are reasons stated, for why certain characters fall on one side or the other, but in all honesty and imo WOT doesn't have the best portrayal of morally Gray. Most evil characters you meet can be categorized fairley early into meeting them and at the very least have some quirk eluding to there true motives.

[@denisafasola9395]

I love conflicted characters because they make the plot more interesting and more alive. I mean, who cares about how I feel about a character? if I see myself in a character's shoes? It's irrelevant. To me that's not the reason morally grey characters are so popular today. When presented with a choice X, it's pretty obvious what a standard good (or bad) character would do. But a morally grey one? It's more nuanced, it's not a straight forward.

[@breezy3392]

What does it say that Daniel has to keep clarifying that he is not condemning one aspect of writing when he talks about another?

[@f1rstgator]

You need a spot on a show with a decent check.

[@mathsalot8099]

Infinite possibilities does not mean every possiblity. There are an infinite number of points on a line, but there are also an infinite number of points that are outside of that line. That's math.

[@errtu123]

Im so interested in your viewpoint on Fitz Chivalry

[@TheLoser95]

I only read "the farseer trilogy" form robin hobb. actually thats a lie. i could not finish the third book because i could not stand fitz any longer. He is so incredible incompetent, it cringed me out of the series. (Spoilerstuff: i think i quit when he got fooled so easily in his dreams to snitch his loves homeplace) But somehow, i see this as the biggest strength of the series. Having this character, thats supposed to be the hero, fail so spectaculary at every task he is given but not really realizing it, makes him very relatable to many people. but it did not float my boat

[@errtu123]

@@TheLoser95 In his dreams? It was through the Fool that his enemies found that out. Which is very reasonable. Telling a friend that is as close as a brother, the secret that will ensure said friend will care for one's daughter after one inevitably dies. I know this series can be very slow in pacing sometimes, but to say Fitz is incompetent is clear misrepresentation of his story. In almost every serious task he is given, he is one against many, with minimal training in Skill, no formal training in Wit and he was never very skilled in fighting with conventional weapons. And he still perseveres. He is not perfect (obviously), but he is far from incompetent.

[@MasterDrewboy]

Daniel You look like blonde Chris Evans my man! Well we are taking about Achilles and Hector, right? Hector is that noble paragon while Achilles is the morally grey, selfish warrior. Even ancients knew of morally grey people in their literature. More examples: King David in the OT Samson Hercules Moses

[@safinan8008]

Hi!! Good video!! 🥳

[@rodrigo3732]

6:07 it happened in naruto a couple of times,though.

[@hellothere2464]

Rodrigo that may be an understatement they talked a LOT in that show

[@seanrandolph2059]

Daniel I love you bud, but you really gotta read some more of the superman classics, if you haven't. everytime i hear you talk about him i cringe. maybe you have read some of his greats books but if so, i dont understand how you could come away with a take like Superman is "above it all." i'd recommend all-star superman for starters because it's my personal favorite, please consider taking a look.

[@tyd2877]

Loved this video!

[@TheKrazyLobster]

Indiana Jones is the Ultimate Man and Hero. Just gonna leave this here :3

[@QazwerDave]

I hate Mary / Gary Stues, but Tolkien didn't write a single one !! Morals is not enough to be a Mary Sue, Sam is not one.

[@name7251]

Which character would you consider perfectly 10/10 relatable and human?

[@gargamel1940]

Little finger.

[@kpimkpim349]

As much as it seems like writing morally grey characters is an improvement, it an extent, it's a cop out. It's e x t r e m e l y hard to write pure good or pure evil and as much as we want to say that we want characters we empathize with, in reality, most people see each other as good and bad and not 'grey'. People barely have any empathy for someone driving slowly in traffic, so asking for empathy for the guy trying to pull off a genocide or kidnap a kid in a book is unrealistic. It's actually a cop out because making a 'good guy' that is good without being hated by the audience, a force-fed, obnoxious, or corny, is difficult. Making a villain who is at his core 100% trash is difficult.

[@vatsdimri3675]

I think totally moral wish fulfilment characters have its place and I do like them. But I think such characters are more suited as side characters. I also think the definition of Mary sue should not only include morality but also how much powerful our character is. Like in the case of Lord of the Rings, most characters were morally good guys but they weren't super duper powerful. Frodo wasn't great fighter nor he had any powerful abilities he was just normal guy. And yes he did resist power of the ring, but even he got seduced by the power at the end so I don't think he was mary sue. Maybe Aragon can be said as mary sue.

[@gargamel1940]

ASOIAF has the best characters I have seen in fantasy.

[@ZubinMadon]

Daniel gotta read some Jane Austen!

[@althechicken9597]

I think I would've preferred Harry Potter to have a relatable but still slightly evil villan from the snakey boys over the big bad dark lord