Chosen Ones not being quite as outstanding as one might expect...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by James Coote

It isn't about taking a genius and making them easier to relate with. The chosen one is always ordinary because they are a stand-in for the reader.

Very good point - and hereby lies my own big criticism - that in doing so, the trope character becomes nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy in a piece of escapism.

My memory of Tolkien with Frodo is that he did it well - what was extraordinary about him was his ordinariness - but then again, he wasn't fulfilling a prophecy, and it was his best friend's simplicity that saved everyone in the end.

What puts myself off especially is when that wish-fullment fantasy really becomes extreme - the character becomes all powerful, and especially has lots of sex with lots of supposedly beautiful women.

All a book like that says to me is that the author is very insecure, cannot relate to people, and therefore is writing for similar insecure socially inept males.

I don't want to read a book like that.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Nah, she has been saving his butt postmortem for his entire life, pretty much.

Fair enough. That would just make another point that would stretch my believability a bit as well, though. It still does not alter anything. You can't do something that no one else could because your mother loved you or something like that

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Going back to the point of the thread, though, there are many people in real life who have a rags to riches story. It's not uncommon for people who come from very humble beginnings to turn out much smarter or stronger or whatever than anyone thought possible.

Maybe, but from riches to actually unique in humanity is quite a gap. You said it yourself in the word "many", which per definition contradicts uniqueness.

Again, I am not saying either of these bother me extremely much. Harry Potter's primary target audience would be younger than myself, and I have always kept this in mind. The point of the thread is much more widespread than that, however.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Very good point - and hereby lies my own big criticism - that in doing so, the trope character becomes nothing more than a wish-fulfillment fantasy in a piece of escapism.

Aye, that too. Personally, I do not think relateability should hinge too much on the character being too similar to the supposed target audience. That feel like just an easy and rather cheap way to do it. I think a well-written story can actually make us root for a character who is different than ourselves.
I do not generally read fiction to see the protagonist as a stand-in for myself, at least not beyond the point that he or she becomes my eyes in the fictional world,

Originally Posted by I, Brian

My memory of Tolkien with Frodo is that he did it well - what was extraordinary about him was his ordinariness - but then again, he wasn't fulfilling a prophecy, and it was his best friend's simplicity that saved everyone in the end.

Yes, Tolkien did this much better than most authors, in this as well as many other things. The story of the ringbearer was about resisting he evil power of the ring, and to do that, being ordinary and unable to truly wield its power to any significant extent was a major asset, if not requirement.
The great thing about this is that it was flawlessly turned into this asset.
When it comes to a character whose purpose is to perform something extraordinary in terms of skill or power that no one else could do, rather than just resist evil power like Frodo, it just makes little sense to me that they would be no greater than their peers.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

What puts myself off especially is when that wish-fullment fantasy really becomes extreme - the character becomes all powerful, and especially has lots of sex with lots of supposedly beautiful women.

All a book like that says to me is that the author is very insecure, cannot relate to people, and therefore is writing for similar insecure socially inept males.

I don't want to read a book like that.

Lol, yes, there is a fair share of those books in the Fantasy genre

[Stephen Palmer]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

Yes, Tolkien did this much better than most authors, in this as well as many other things.

A good point, and very true.

[Darth Angelus]

Again, I would like to point out that this thread is not about me wanting protagonists to be more Mary Sueish. It is just that if the author wants to tell the audience how special a certain character is, I like it shown, as well. For the main character to be told over and over how special they are by other characters, only to never outshine their peers in much of anything, it does make for some discrepancy.
Now, the main character does not need to (and should not) have an easy time with everything. Challenges are needed to keep the story interesting. It is just that being so incredibly special should make the challenges different than those faced by their peers. These chosen one characters will tend to carry (often immense, if not world-sized) extra burdens that others will not.
I just feel it is weird to be told that this fictional character has this incredibly unique ability to become stronger and greater than anyone else, only for them to be regularly matched others of their experience level.

[Gordian Knot]

Turning to mythology for a comparison may be useful. As many of you probably know, the Hero's Journey is perhaps the greatest of all ancient myths. They come from all the world's cultures, all the ancient civilizations.

Famed mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote a book on the subject called, appropriately enough, The Hero's Journey. It details the entire process through which the hero progresses on his/her quest.

An excellent summary of the work can be found here:

http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/sm...f/summary.html

[TomS]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

These chosen one characters will tend to carry (often immense, if not world-sized) extra burdens that others will not.

This got me thinking, maybe it's not so much that these characters are the only ones who can but that they're the only ones who will.

[Fairytale Jane]

Readers need characters that they can relate to. Humans are far from perfect. Why should authors create those that are? One would quickly lose interest.

P.S. On a side note, albert einstein may have been an intellectual prodigy, but he was a social failure.

[Darth Angelus]

Sigh, Fairytale Jane. I think I might have noticed those arguments the first fivehundred times they were brought up. In fact, I even foresaw this objection before I started the topic, which is why I covered the relatability aspect in my original post.

"Humans are far from perfect."
Yes, and in my experience humans are also pretty far from being Chosen Ones destined to save the world. That hasn't stopped authors from using that plot device.
How is performance on a level of the role in question the same as being "perfect", anyway? I think that if author wants a character to struggle, that is fine, but then why hype them up to a level of total uniqueness? Did I not explain I wasn't asking for Mary Sues already. All this thread was about was the disparity between these characters's hyped up greatness and their actual performance.
Einstein's social failures are nearly totally irrelevant, as I was talking about these characters performing average in the fields of their actual claimed brilliance (i.e. analogous with Einstein's aptitude for physics).

Seriously, did you even read the topic before you posted? It does not seem like it, because the answers were there already. I don't mean to be rude, and I am sorry if it comes off that way, but in my book it is a bit rude not to even make a token effort to read through a topic and try to understand what the original poster was trying to say before you respond with a few lines that can only serve to push the discussion back to square one, thereby forcing the initial poster to repeat effort they made to explain all over again.

Well, I guess I should say welcome to the forum, however! Please just try to check the threads and think before you post in the future!

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by TomS

This got me thinking, maybe it's not so much that these characters are the only ones who can but that they're the only ones who will.

A fair point, and it could be from time to time, I suppose. However, it is often more or less explicitly stated that they are the only ones who can. That does not prevent the idea of them being the only ones who will from having merit, however (I think this may actually have been the case with Frodo as ringbearer, but then again LotR never stated no one else could). I just wish this plot device was that well-written more often.

[I, Brian]

No need to feel defensive, Darth Angelus - everyone contributes as they see fit.

Similar with stories, to be honest - different books satisfy difference reader interests, and provide difference challenges.

The hope is that the fantasy genre especially is evolving further at the moment to take account of realism more and therefore satisfy a wider range of readers - that's my personal hope anyway - but there's always going to be a place for Dragonlance.

As for characters - there are some novels I cannot read because it's explicit that the protagonist is some form of male wish-fulfillment - excellent swordsmen, brilliant magician, and beautiful virgins open their legs at every turn.

Luckily, there are other stories out there where emotional arcs for a character to develop are a key focus.

[Darth Angelus]

Fair enough. I did not mean to be hostile to the new member. Sorry if I seemed that way!

It is just that they seemed to ignore much of the previous thread, forcing me to explain my position all over again.

I certainly agree with you about not having pure wish fulfillment characters. To that end, I think it is worth considering how much a character should be hyped up as really special. I think the Chosen One is an overused trope, which is often not needed. If an author decides to use it, however, I think the character's abilities need reflect their specialness on some level. They need to perform somewhat better than their peers in some area in order to fully sell the idea to me. Relatability can still be upheld if they are challenged by greater than ordinary problems, anyway, in my opinion.

[Fairytale Jane]

I always read the given material before responding. Perhaps it is you who needs to reword the original message given that many people have gone off track according to you.

As for the hype of the character, it's obvious isn't it? He/she is the chosen one and they are supposed to succeed others in their chosen area. For Harry, for example, defeating Lord Voldemort was his area. Hermione couldn't do it even she outperformed him academically.

I suppose the hype failed to provide you with the satisfaction you were seeking. All of this is really subjective. The plot may be overused by now but what you do with it is the thing that counts.

[Darth Angelus]

You did read? It is pretty hard to see. Claiming that people who are supposed to perform some action that no one else can should indeed consistently outperform their peers in at least one area is not the same as asking for perfect characters or Mary Sues. Claiming it does would be a straw man argument.
Why should I reword the original message? It mentions relatability of characters and everything. There was no lack of care to spell out the message on my part, just a lack of care of a few readers to pick up the actual message rather than the straw man/Mary Sue version of it. I am not sure why that is, but I do have a theory. I know many people are so afraid of Mary Sues, and I think even that can go too far, so that people reflexively interpret any message that a hero is not as good as they should be to mean someone asks for Mary Sues might explain why it has been misinterpreted by so many.
Now, let me ask you a question. Why should someone who has never been shown to be capable of performing on a level above anyone else suddenly be able to do so in the final battle or main plot point of the story just because the plot asks for it? How is that continuity?

The thing about Hermione, if she is outperforming Harry as a magician, she should logically be capable of doing what he can. It just feels more neat, elegant, and sensible if the character who is best at performing the one task required to save the world is also best at performing in the skill they use. Even if it is a Fantasy story, it should follow some kind of sensible pattern, or the story is just gibberish.
As for the realism argument, again, then Chosen One, destiny and magic must all be thrown away along with the "perfect people". So the argument that one should not have "perfect people" (as if I was asking for it) because it is "unrealistic" makes no sense at all, in the context of Fantasy being discussed. Still, I assure you, people with four or five standard deviations above the human mean in some skill or talent (which is more in line with what I actually asked of these "unique" characters) are far more realistic than many things that actually occur in this genre.

If the hype had no backing in the actual capabilities of the characters, then the story has at least some continuity issues.

Unlike some people, I don't think people neccessarily need to be average joes to be relatable, because you can create world sized challenges that the truly great hero must face in order to keep things interesting, even if learning to cast a simple spell is easier than it would be for their peers. Still, if an author feels they can't make a relatable protagonists without making them average, then why is it too much to ask that they DO NOT make said average-performing protagonist hyped to be Chosen One in the first place? If an author is so desperate for one of his or her characters to be "nothing special", it makes more sense to avoid this trope altogether, does it not? After all, being the Chosen One is being special by definition.
What I am saying is that this trope is waaay overused, yes, but when an author does decide to use it, they should do so properly.

[I, Brian]

Let's keep the argument away from any poster and on topic, pleae, Darth Angelus.

It's entirely normal for threads to be misread, so if this is the case in this instance, best not to seek to redress that. Otheriwse no thread anywhere online would get very far.

As for the hero's journey trope - there's little more I can add other than some people will do it better than others. And that's the case with storytelling in general, regardless what themes, backgrounds, or devices they use.

[Darth Angelus]

Ok, fine. I guess I will just have to accept the situation, then. It just sounded as if some people asked for Mary Sues, in spite of multiple clarifications to the contrary.
I do not feel like I was flaming anybody, but you are right in that this topic is starting to come close to dangerous territory.

The Hero's Journey is fine as a trope, I think, at least most of the time. It is just when the hero's greatness is hyped to the skies with the Chosen One trope, without any performance on that hyped level on the hero's part, that comes off as a bit lacking in the continuity department. Since the author always had the option of not making the character the Chosen One, I cannot really buy the "average performance is more relatable than genius ditto" argument.