Should heroes be allowed to fail?

Recommended Videos

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Here?s an issue I addressed in a story of my own and I wonder what people would think. I?ll try to summarize the story:

Lord Maelstrom, a psycho criminal, clones the powers of young Jessica after kidnapping her. After she escapes, Jessica and her friend Kyle go on a mission to try to stop Lord Maelstrom from using these powers.
What is the resolution to this story? Kyle and Jessica, at ages 130 and 170, whom currently struggle to run a search a rescue for lost human kids, try to fight someone whom is well over five hundred years old that has been running and fighting full underground police forces that believe in full fledged vigilantism and lethal justice for all of his life. What do you think happens? They barely survive even the attempt. After the evil vampire breaks some fifteen or so bones in Jessica?s body with one hit (and Jessica?s species has no healing powers), both characters realize they?re out of their league. They back off themselves, let the authorities chasing Maelstrom know where he was last seen, and go back to what they were doing before, looking for a lost kid.

Yes, in reality there are no super powers etc, etc, but we all know these things are metaphors at best anyway. The point of the story is to learn that sometimes it?s okay to recognize that you can?t solve a problem and move on, even if you ARE in the right and you ARE rightfully involved. Yes, it?s a situation that requires thought, but it?s real enough. I rarely see a modern hero have to admit his own inadequacies like this. Is this bad not to show, doesn?t matter, or is it in fact bad to try to explore this so literally? Thoughts?
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
Torkuda said:
... If you ARE in the right and you ARE rightfully involved. Yes, it?s a situation that requires thought, but it?s real enough. I rarely see a modern hero have to admit his own inadequacies like this. Is this bad not to show, doesn?t matter, or is it in fact bad to try to explore this so literally? Thoughts?
Superheroes is mainly about worshiping the all-mighty individual. Shaking up the formula too much would be un-capitalist and scare away the core audience.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
This coming from a communist to a libertarian. Not sure what to do with that. I believe very much in the individual, but I also believe any individual who can't come to grips with his own limitations is going to get into trouble.
 
Jun 26, 2009
7,508
0
0
Of course they should be 'allowed' to fail. Though I think 'allowed' is a bad word for this. It should be more a question if it's a good thing for characters to fail

Yes, and no.

If you feel you can write a character's failure in a way that's entertaining then you should. Make the character learn from the failure rather then just shrug it off and be the same as they always were, because then it's pointless.

Furthermore, having a character just shrug and decide they should give up isn't satisfying. It?d be an abandoned thread in the story that some, or more, might liked to have been expanded upon.

In the example you presented? Where they just back off and let someone else handle it? I don't think that'd be fun, unless I'm understanding it wrong. The only way I can see that as been entertaining is if the characters deliberate over it, think about whether it's good for them to give up- And when they do have them feel really terrible for it. They could've stopped a bad person, but they failed. If they hear about him doing something terrible, make them feel guilt. Something akin to that.

Even then it'd feel unsatisfying to let that go unconcluded, with him still out there. Maybe it'd be an idea to have them confront him later on, having learned from their previous encounter with him and come back ready this time. Make their confrontation with him tough, make them have to be smart in how they deal with them. Let it show how they've learned from their mistakes and come back better.

After all, what's the point in admitting your inadequacies if you don't try and fix them in some way?

But I'm no writer, I've pretty much given up on trying to be one. That's just how I think it'd be more satisfying.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Actually the two are forced to back down with a seven foot sword to their throats. Jessica practically has blood lust by the end of the story, wanting desperately to stop some creep from using her power to hurt innocent people and Kyle has to choose right then an there, with her literally lying broken in front of him, whether he wants to keep fighting and get them both killed. He backs off for the same reason a security officer might back off when his son, visiting to check out his dad's work, is threatened by a bank robber. What's more, they don't immediately shrug it off, Jessica cries and they both feel like utter failures, but they find the missing kid and decide for the moment that's a good thing to have done. Course, maybe I should have opened with explaining that "Finders" is a family series, so I can't go into too much detail about what Maelstrom does afterwards. Kyle and Maelstrom meet again later on, but... you try to over come a four century advantage. When they meet again, Kyle is still rightfully terrified.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
Torkuda said:
This coming from a communist...
*gasp* You're a communist? One of those awful people who don't enjoy the wonderfully refreshing taste of Duff?

 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
So...X-Men? Really a lot of hero groups since they unite to do what alone they cannot...
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
Absolutely

Heroism is about striving to achieve some noble goal in the face of danger. It does not, and never should, guarantee success. In fact, the sense that the good guys will always eventually win rather undermines the whole premise

The problem with depicting this in media is that people rarely want to see generic mega-villain X beat the crap out of all opposition, blow up the earth, everyone dies, roll credits. Hero Y foiling the nefarious plot after one or two setbacks is an easy formula that works, and I can't really blame media makers for sticking with it more often than not.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Soviet Steve said:
Torkuda said:
... If you ARE in the right and you ARE rightfully involved. Yes, it?s a situation that requires thought, but it?s real enough. I rarely see a modern hero have to admit his own inadequacies like this. Is this bad not to show, doesn?t matter, or is it in fact bad to try to explore this so literally? Thoughts?
Superheroes is mainly about worshiping the all-mighty individual. Shaking up the formula too much would be un-capitalist and scare away the core audience.
I'll admit this post is hilarious considering Superman started out as a socialist sympathizer who busted the heads of corrupt government officials, and once demolished a whole slum to force the government to rebuild it to higher standards for the common man. Superheroes range widely in their disposition and vary on any political metaphors depending on who writes them. Some are rugged individualists, while others are about how people should still work to help the masses even if they have abilities or advantages greater than the common man.

The comic book industry actually got slammed pretty hard by the McCarthy era anti-communist witch hunts, at the time, the industry was full of a variety of political ideologies and writing. It wouldn't be until after the neutering of the Comic Book code and rules in the 1970's that many of those political diehards would start cropping up again (In fact, the comic code authority became completely defunct in 2011 with the withdrawal of its final two participants). From Libertarians, to Objectivists, Communists, and Socialists, Comic book writers can be an eccentric bunch.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
I'll just say here that yea, Maelstrom is put down later on, but by another villain actively possessed by the devil himself after fighting for a couple hours. He's not defeated by a couple B-list quasi super heroes running a underground search and rescue. The main way the kids cope with losing to him, "isn't is more important to save life than take it?".
 

Camaranth

New member
Feb 4, 2011
395
0
0
"Allowed" to fail? Absolutely! and not in a They lose the first fight but come back and kick ass in round two sort of way. The infallible hero/superhero is pretty damn boring. Ask me my favourite character from any series and it's a good chance my answer will be a villain. One issue is that a lot of the time people don't want a complex plots in their escapist time. they want to switch the brain to low gear and watch an unquestionably good guy kick the ridiculously evil guys ass because things are so rarely black and white in real life.

One thing I really liked about Watchmen (the film haven't read the comic) was that, if you strip out some of the grey, the "bad guy" actually wins.

The catch is making it interesting. I think by "allowed" what you mean is "will the audience accept it?" which depends entirely on how you write it (no pressure eh?).

It seems like you've really thought this through and I would love to give the whole thing a read (if you want an outsider opinion, I'm no writer or editor)
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Sorry, book five of Finders hasn't been written, but I can send you a link to book one if you want. Really I think the admins might frown on me hocking it much more than that though. The series often addresses the characters having very real limitations. A big one is their decision to pursue finding lost kids as their primary mission, and only fight bad guys if they get in the way. This essentially means the story is mostly a race against the clock to save a kid from being possibly killed after being sold by a human trafficking ring. The challenge is saving a life, not trying to take down a crime ring, which at the end of the day, isn't an unworthy endeavor either.

The theory behind the series was to elevate a heroic thing that the average person can see himself doing. Thwarting an international human trafficking ring single handily, maybe not, but helping out with a search and rescue, yea, that's totally doable. I added in Jacobson to raise the stakes and force the kids to face certain issues. However they are guaranteed to NOT be in every book. In fact in book five, Jacobson doesn't show up at all. Jackie will be lost in the woods with a broken ankle. At six, he's already been lost for two days without food or water and the clock is ticking. High enough stakes for anyone who's ever been a parent I'm sure.
 

Little Woodsman

New member
Nov 11, 2012
1,057
0
0
Well, to answer the thread title question-Yes. In fact, a hero is *required* to fail on occasion, if s/he doesn't there's nothing 'heroic' in her/his actions. By having failures, it is established to the audience that the hero/ine is actually *risking something* when s/he enters conflict.
One of the reasons I became so deeply hooked on the anime genre is that the very first anime I saw with the knowledge that it *was* an anime (or Japanimation as we called it back then) had the heroes at the end face their 'big bad', have a huge climactic battle with him...and lose. End of series. Because of that, whenever I watch an anime that has that sort of epic conflict in it, I'm always wondering if the protagonists will actually win...which allows me to enjoy many series *much more* than I would otherwise.

Now as to your specific story example...if these two characters knew the villain in question, and were roughly aware of his abilities...and there were authorities who were capable/competent and actually tasked with stopping him... why did they try to confront him themselves? Why not simply try to assist the ones who are tasked with and capable of neutralizing him in any/all ways that they could? Why doesn't the villain finish them off after soundly defeating them?
But yes, if there are acceptable answers to those questions, having them defeated by the much more powerful antagonist is completely appropriate.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
This is making me think of Mistborn.

Without giving too much away the hero fails and quite miserably too. It's not a bad thing, it's a story element that makes the series shine. It's all about how it's done and done well the hero can fail in spectacular ways.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Little Woodsman said:
Now as to your specific story example...if these two characters knew the villain in question, and were roughly aware of his abilities...and there were authorities who were capable/competent and actually tasked with stopping him... why did they try to confront him themselves? Why not simply try to assist the ones who are tasked with and capable of neutralizing him in any/all ways that they could? Why doesn't the villain finish them off after soundly defeating them?
But yes, if there are acceptable answers to those questions, having them defeated by the much more powerful antagonist is completely appropriate.
Like for many, pride and vengeance come before a fall, as well as misplaced concern. Neither character wanted to put their friends in the underground police force in danger. They are not cops themselves, but several of their closest friends are. They also over estimated their own abilities
.
As to, why did Lord Maelstrom, also known as Lord Chaos, not kill the kids right there? I'm sure this will be a shock, but the guy who calls himself the master of Chaos is a little kooky. He thought it would be "chaotic" to let them live. After all, it's not the logical thing for him to do, there for it is the chaotic thing for him to do. So that's what he did. After all, he copied Jessica's powers only to go right back underground.

I have to be careful with Maelstrom. In a different series of mine is one of the main bad guys. There he's introduced when he kidnaps a random kid, drains the child's blood and runs it through the pluming of his girl friend's house where he dumps the body in the bathtub. Twelve year old Chelsie is left scared for life and we have our main antagonist. BTW, no, Lord Maelstrom is not a Twilight style vampire, if you didn't get that yet.
 

Animyr

New member
Jan 11, 2011
385
0
0
You can do anything, as long as it fits the story. In this case, it depends on how you set up the protagonist's desire to confront the villain (is it a long term goal they've been pursuing for most of the story? A split second decision brought about by circumstances?) and how you handle the confrontation itself. Quick? Slow? Dramatic, or anticlimactically swift? Is the villain the protagonist's nemesis, or just a chapter antagonist?

Also what's the placing of this scene in the overall story? Finale? Episode finale? Secondary scene? You mentioned something about multiple books, but I'm not sure where you are in that. If it's just an chapter finale or something like that, I've seen stories pull what you're talking about all the time; the action splits, and the hero is sidelined for the big stuff, which happens at a distance or off camera (this is especially common in early parts of a series where the protagonist grows throughout, and is young or weak or not so deeply involved yet at the beginning stage).

Little Woodsman said:
the heroes at the end face their 'big bad', have a huge climactic battle with him...and lose. End of series.
Which one was that?
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Torkuda said:
Here?s an issue I addressed in a story of my own and I wonder what people would think. I?ll try to summarize the story:

Lord Maelstrom, a psycho criminal, clones the powers of young Jessica after kidnapping her. After she escapes, Jessica and her friend Kyle go on a mission to try to stop Lord Maelstrom from using these powers.
What is the resolution to this story? Kyle and Jessica, at ages 130 and 170, whom currently struggle to run a search a rescue for lost human kids, try to fight someone whom is well over five hundred years old that has been running and fighting full underground police forces that believe in full fledged vigilantism and lethal justice for all of his life. What do you think happens? They barely survive even the attempt. After the evil vampire breaks some fifteen or so bones in Jessica?s body with one hit (and Jessica?s species has no healing powers), both characters realize they?re out of their league. They back off themselves, let the authorities chasing Maelstrom know where he was last seen, and go back to what they were doing before, looking for a lost kid.

Yes, in reality there are no super powers etc, etc, but we all know these things are metaphors at best anyway. The point of the story is to learn that sometimes it?s okay to recognize that you can?t solve a problem and move on, even if you ARE in the right and you ARE rightfully involved. Yes, it?s a situation that requires thought, but it?s real enough. I rarely see a modern hero have to admit his own inadequacies like this. Is this bad not to show, doesn?t matter, or is it in fact bad to try to explore this so literally? Thoughts?

Err, well, actually it happens all the time in fiction. In western comics there have been plenty of cases where heroes have pretty much run into enemies they just couldn't handle and needed to get help, or pass things along to other heroes. In "Batman" tons of members of his "Family" have gotten themselves horrifically stomped by stepping out of
their league. The Jason Todd version of Robin even died trying to confront The Joker on his own. The Spoiler was apparently tortured to death by Black Mask trying to prove herself to Batman (though in an act of fairly bad writing
she was revealed later to not have died...). Going way back to the "Mutant Massacre" storyline for the X-men back in the 1990s, Archangel wound up getting captured by the bad guys due to his overconfidence, and was literally pinned up against a wall, being tortured to death by a bunch of guys that were way out of his league... he was however rescued by a passing Thor (who pretty much slapped the bad guys down like a bunch of 4 year olds, and then after rescueing Angel was told rather stupidly "we don't want your help, this is a matter for mutants to solve"). In the classic "Watchmen" there are a lot of subtexts not present in the movie, such as how the heroes step up to try and save a world that really isn't worthy of them. The overall resolution though which DID make it into the movie was that they were a day late, a dollar short, and totally outclassed as they had let themselves go for too long. The heroes greatest success was ironically failing to stop the villain, and the survivors are the ones who give up, the last one to hold onto the heroic ideal is slain.... (though his journal survives). In the anime "Speed Grapher" the hero and the villain meet for their final battle, the hero winds up losing, and in the process of doing so winds up burning out his eyes (his vision being the one thing that gave him pleasure, he was a photographer) the bad guy lets him live on in this broken state, and finishes his plan to bring financial ruin to the world and end capitalism before himself dying... only to have it mean nothing as the people (including those who worked for him) miss the point and you just see a worldwide disaster after which nothing changes.... in other words epic suckage for everyone, the entire battle wound up being pointless as nobody got what they wanted.

I could go on of course, but the point is that there are a number of stories where the bad guy effectively wins, or where the heroes fail and/or give up. In shared continuity universes the latter can be especially common, a villain might very well defeat a hero in one title, as a lead in to being defeated by another in a different title. Younger heroes stepping out of their league and needing to be rescued by their elders (as a sort of metaphor) is also fairly common. You've had various teams of Mutants in "X" titles wind up needing to be rescued or deal with the repercussions of starting something they couldn't win without the intervention of more powerful heroes. In DC this kind of thing has happened with teens like "The Teen Titans" and to a lesser extent "Young Justice".

That said it is more common for an underdog hero to come back with some gimmick and win in a rematch. The usual logic when dealing with superhumans in particular is that even if outmatched entirely, the superhuman hero still has more of a chance than a normal person does, and thus feels responsible.

In response to your story if I understand it correctly I'd say this guy represents a threat that most people couldn't handle, and Kyle and Jessica are a bit better than anyone else. I'd imagine that having gotten into that position to begin with, they would figure they can't just let the guy rampage, and there isn't anyone else who would be effective to turn it over to. Typically in such scenarios your super hero sets a trap for the villain. I'd also point out that half the point of a lot of heroes is exactly how far they step out of their league and manage to win reliably. Take for example "The Punisher" who despite several huge changes over the years has generally defaulted to a military veteran with police experience who shoots regular criminals, but periodically winds up being forced to confront guys with
powers who could literally kill him as easily as breathing under most circumstances. Typically he wins by being able to contrive something to exploit the enemy (and having the writer on his side) or simply approaching the situation from well outside of the box. While not directly from the comics, his type of solution might involve dealing with someone who is 10x stronger, faster, and more durable than a normal person and who can shoot lasers out of his eyes. In a direct confrontation he'd lose. On the other hand if he knows where the guy will be, nothing is going to prevent him from just popping the guy's head with a modified anti-material rifle from close to a mile away (a nearly impossible shot IRL but the kind of thing that passes for this guy's "power"). Sniping some dude from super-long range just isn't the kind of thing that comes up in comics because it isn't dramatic... but it makes sense. From the way you describe things something along those lines might be a great way to take out Lord Maelstorm.... most people don't bother to consider
how vulnerable they are to snipers, and in the context of heroic fantasy unless some dude has the power to literally bounce say an armor piercing .50 round off their forehead, it's going to solve a lot of problems. Of course if this was followed through logically most comic books would wind up with a lot of corpses in spandex and the authorities probably wouldn't need to even consider robots the size of buildings. I mean realistically even Magneto needs to concentrate to an extent, if some dude is that far away and he doesn't see them..... god forbid the bullet isn't made of metal too. Soon the only heroes and villains left would probably be the "bricks". :)
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Most definitely yes.

I hate those stories where the heroes win by virtue of being heroes, where they succeed based on good intentions while better people who work harder fail for no reason.

Victory has to be earnt, a 5 minute montage is not enough.