Flawed Heroes

Used to be that heroes were either really good…
or they were broken but fixable.
Or if they were too broken to be fixed,
they were made examples of.

 

Think of the grand exploits of him…

Or the morals from this story…

Or the upright choices of this man…

captainamerica

Heroes were heroes.
They knew right and wrong,
and the reader was given a very clear message:
THIS is how you should act,
not THAT way.

Some Christian novels are still written this way.

However,
the tides are turning.
Most likely as people step away from God,
and towards moral ambiguity,
the worlds view of “heroes” have changed.

There is the extreme like the TV show Dexter,
which showcases a serial killer,
who kills only bad criminals.
So many shows that glorify the horrific,
or the amoral person just trying to make it through life.

But there are others that intrigue me.
Ones that aren’t depraved.
Ones that are flawed,
but the author does not want to fix them.

Think of this man:

sherlock

Sherlock.
Witty, charming, and extremely intelligent.
But emotionally scarred,
socially awkward,
and…well…sometimes downright rude.

But people love it.
I love it. 🙂
Flawed characters that you root for,
but part of their charm is their flaw…

Perhaps a piece of us likes to see others with imperfections,
and know that we aren’t the only ones who aren’t perfect.

Currently I’m writing about a “bad boy” in the Bible.
Fascinating to see how God still used him for His plan,
inspite of his imperfections.
If he can use that Bad Boy then I know…
He can use me. 🙂

Can you think of a flawed character in a story that you really enj0y watching? What intrigues you about them? Love to hear from you. 🙂

Karen deBlieck

Karen deBlieck

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Flawed Heroes

  1. I am a hero girl and I like flawed heroes. Not amoral or evil ones but guys who are real. Every person has flaws. Even heroes. And Sherlock is one of my favorite shows. Good choice. He’s a hero from way back and flawed, so this isn’t a totally new concept.

    Like

    • Actually, you are both correct and incorrect, Gretchen. Yes, Sherlock is a character from awhile back but…the way that he is portrayed is unique in the BBC show (and the movie). In the original books by Doyle the story is told by Watson, most likely to give distance from the character of Sherlock. In the books Sherlock is dismissive to others and far too intelligent but the author lets the reader see it through a “good man’s” eyes instead of the socially inept Sherlock. Both stories have merit. I am suffering from serious Sherlock withdrawel right now…LOL!

      Like

      • If you’re talking about the original Holmes that appeared as a serial in magazines, Doyle hated writing these stories. He made Sherlock an opium addict and finally killed him off in “Riechenbacc Falls” when he felt he didn’t need the income anymore. Watson is a “white sheet” character that is used to make Holmes look smarter (like a straight man for a comic).than he normally would be. Interesting enough, the publishers begged Doyle to resurrect Holmes and paid him a lot of money to do so. If you get the chance read THE LAST VAMPYRE which is one of few Holmes novels.

        Like

  2. I love a flawed hero. Love them. They give me hope.

    Like

  3. You didn’t mention the anti-hero also called the Machiavel in literature. The Jew of Mala is the first one in English literature. More notable to current culture is Clint Eastwood’s Man with no Name. These are characters that have a code and follow it, and are usually amoral.

    Like

  4. You left out Monk. It was one of my favorite shows and I loved how it was written.

    Like

    • Machiavel in literature is classified more as a villian not an amoral character. Man with no Name is a good example of one though. I didn’t leave out Monk…I left many out because I wanted others to chime in. 😉 Love Monk.

      Like

  5. Yes – Monk! I loved that show. 🙂
    Though it really depends on the flaw and how they struggle with it…

    Like

  6. I just asked my husband his opinion and he says Han Solo in Star Wars. Because he’s a realistic character that’s relatable.

    Like

    • Yeah, Hans Solo is a good one. Although, in the eyes of the viewer, he redeems himself by falling for a woman (and being loyal to Luke). His appeal is in his “weakness”…lol. Although, Sherlock’s trait that makes him more appealing would be his loyalty. Although, his idea of loyalty is a little…skewed…lol.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s