I'm not the Crowvus writer who publishes horror. I've appreciated the brilliant books by Judith Crow, but I know it's not something I can write. The supernatural is different. People will - quite rightly - tell you that horror can encompass the supernatural, but the supernatural is not only confined to that genre. The supernatural, by definition, have their roots in the natural. In the case of ghosts, they were once alive, now having transcended from the natural (i.e. worldly) existence, into the supernatural on an unknown plain. The best ghost stories (my opinion only!) are the ones which unite the natural and the supernatural, looking at the shadows and imprints left on the natural world by those now occupying the supernatural one. In essence, when I read through the submissions for the Crowvus Christmas Ghost Story Competition , I'm looking for the human aspect of the story. I love the idea of ghosts trapped in time, I love the idea of ghosts trying to commune with ...
With global events reaching a boiling point, I've been thinking quite a lot about what makes a hero or heroine. Because it's an historical fiction blog, that's what I'm focussing on, but I'm pretty sure these thoughts can pass over onto other genres too.
The first thing is that the hero/ine does not have to be the main character. Tolkien said that Samwise Gamgee was the real hero of The Lord of the Rings (which can hardly come as a shock to anyone who has read it) but he was not the main - or even the second - character. If you are writing with an ensemble cast, this is a more obvious distinction. Chances are, if you have only one major character, they are also going to be the hero/ine.
Next, consider that a hero/ine does not have to be right the whole time. The important thing about their decisions is twofold:
- They always do what they believe to be best for other people
- They always work (and hopefully achieve!) to put right any harm their choices have made
These two factors must go hand-in-hand. Without the second one you could potentially have (at best) an antihero or (at worse) a psychotic lunatic. Without the first you just end up with a character who is constantly a little bit preachy as they go around mopping up other people's mess.
Throughout history there have been some fantastic examples of hero/ines. But a word of warning! If you choose to write about one of them, remember they are probably someone else's hero/ine and they might have very different ideas about how that person would have responded to whatever situation you put them in. This can cause a reader who might have really enjoyed every other aspect of your book to grow unsatisfied with it. I'm not saying you should never write about real heroes or heroines, but that you should be prepared for the readers' response!!!
But, I suppose the most important thing of all, is that a hero/ine - a true hero/ine - puts themselves after the wellbeing of others. It would be untrue to say that they never think of themselves, but they have to prioritise others. There will be slip-ups, there can be massive flaws, and they should never be perfect. But they have to be the next best thing!
Finally, remember that those people who you find heroic are not necessarily the same as other people's. They might not agree with you, but that is the reader's right. I don't hold with "the author is dead", but just bear in mind that - in order to produce your best work - you will be writing for yourself as much as anyone else.
Comments
Post a Comment