Favorite Heroes--And Why discussion

Do the heroes who fascinated you as a child seem more or less heroic when you re-evaluate them from an adult perspective? Do characters that you couldn't view as heroic when you were younger rise in your estimation now that you're a bit more world-weary yourself?

I'll kick this off--I have to say that when I was a teen (before today's angst-ridden YA books), I wanted heroes who were good to the point of flawless. As time passed, and I've learned the meaning of Indy's comment "it's not the years, it's the mileage", I like the idea of flawed characters who get a second chance to get it right.

There's a little of both in my Chronicles/Fallen Kings Cycle. Tris hasn't had the time to make too many mistakes, so he's more of a "pure" hero. Jonmarc gets another chance, and in the process, finds a level of personal redemption (non-religious).

Oh yes, when I was younger, I was all for justice, but now I am more for mercy. Flawless heroes are in danger to become self-righteous and that is something I cannot stand any more.

I think my definition of "heroic" has broadened as I've aged. When I was younger, King Author or Joan of Arc types seemed the most heroic to me. Now, I'm just as impressed (and sometimes even more impressed) by the quiet heroes who live their day to day lives bravely and with integrity.

Vonnie has touched on the classic fantasy question--do you have a main character who is a king, knight, etc. or do you have an Average Joe who ends up saving the world? Some readers (and editors) have very pronounced preferences. What are yours?

Gail wrote: "Vonnie has touched on the classic fantasy question--do you have a main character who is a king, knight, etc. or do you have an Average Joe who ends up saving the world? Some readers (and editors) ..."

I can disclose that in my current novel i am writing, i do have both of these as heroes. One is an unassuming young being (born of magic) who together with a powerful, great ruler end up "saving the day"...to the point of a cliffhanger, anyway.

I just watched Fellowship of the Ring the other day, and started Two Towers. After that, I must say that I'm impressed with Sam most of all. His indomitable spirit and amazing optimism are supporting Frodo through incredible hardships. He is nobody special - in fact, he's a common gardener. His true heroism isn't superpowers, or swordsmanship. Rather, it is integrity and strength of spirit. His loyalty to Frodo and to his morals drive his actions.

I think I see this more, as Vonnie said, now that I've aged. It does make a big difference!

IIRC, Sam was based in part on the ordinary enlisted soldiers whose courage Tolkien admired in WWI (in contrast to some of the officers...).

As for me, I can enjoy both the everyman hero & the hero-leader. They have different challenges. For the hero who starts in a high position (as king, queen, Most Powerful Knight, superhero, deity, etc.), it's not so much of a challenge to win; sometimes the challenge is to learn to surrender, to let someone else win, to refrain from exercising one's full power.

I love the everyday man who becomes the hero. I'm not sure if this has ever changed for me, I think I've always liked that. But my Herod are not so perfect as they used to be. I like them a bit more worn and flawed, knowing that the decision to do right really was something they decided. Not something that was expected, or something they just knew had to be done. Dudley Do Right is not so much a hero type persona but someone like William Turner, he chose to take a stand. Not all of his decisions are the good and proper thing, but his goals motives and loyalty are honorable and true. I love second chances, and people learning to get it right. Life is not so simple and Prince Charming on the white horse, is dashing in the children's stories but he's very boring otherwise. Except Charming as portrayed in Once Upon A Time, James is much more of a hero. Flaws and all.