#55961 Desirable Literary Characters

[C is for]

I'll think about who is most desirable for me (and I'd love to hear all your ideas) but right now I have to say:

@Rating Pending's wife: No he doesn't!

Sorry to burst your bubble, though, ma'am. Fred Weasley was a great character.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I've always been a fan of the titular character in Mairelon the Magician. And Howl from Howl's Moving Castle. I don't know that Howl is really desirable, though; he's whiny, a coward, and far too concerned with his appearance. Hmm... James from The Enchanted Chocolate Pot?

[Tao]

Hmm. Somewhat surprisingly to me, despite my literary background I don't believe I've ever found a character desirable... hmmmmm.... nope. Nothing coming to mind. I can't even think of many female characters written well enough for me to associate a personality to. Echo Sackett, perhaps. The Pevensies, maybe? Leslie Burke? Podkayne and to some extent Peewee from Heinlein's works. Ummmm.... Animorphs had heroines of comparable age... Electra from the Xanth series... Rhapsody? Khalan from the first two books, ignoring the rest? hmmm... Either the books I read were lean on heroines (written by male authors + write what you know = hard to write women) or I missed out on something here.

Or I'm completely oblivious. That's always a good possibility.

I do remember having a crush on Gadget from Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers.

That there was an attractive mouse.

[C is for]

That's a pity, Tao. Though I suppose understandable, since many books ARE, as you say, heroine-lean.

I find many literary characters desirable. >.> Lo, the list:

Casey Acosta (from the Sammy Keyes series; pretty much I really like him, even though he's in 8th grade)
Gilbert Blythe (from Anne of Green Gables series; handsome, devoted, smart, and nice -- yes please)
Prince Charmont (from Ella Enchanted; he's royal, handsome, sweet, and a good correspondent)

Those are the Big 3, I think. There are others that have moments of ... attractiveness -- Marquis of Shevraeth, Dawsey Adams (talk about your opposites...), various Shannon Hale characters, characters in books I don't really like but happen to have romantic heroes (because most books do, for some reason)...

Yeah.

Listing all of these is all the Valentine I need! <3

[Imogen]

mr. darcy from now until forever. i thought he was hot the first time i read pride and prejudice. then i watched colin firth, and i was sold.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Ah yes Shannon Hale characters. Can't forget those. : D

Honestly, I could add some to my list, but I'm afraid about how that will reflect on my character. All I need is for people to think, "So, I thought bob was cool, and then I found out she read such-and-such..." Yeah. Not good.

[Damasta]

I think the only "literary crush" I've ever had was Aviendha from The Wheel of Time series. But I was in high school (and a nerd). I've long since seen the error of my ways.

Slightly unrelated: I'm a little disappointed in Sky Bones for being so enthralled with The Sword of Truth and choosing Richard Rahl. (I'll forebear ranting about the weaknesses of the series, since that would be off-topic). He's such a lame, idealized, preachy, non-complex, un-growing character! A few months ago, after reading Phantom, I took some Mary Sue litmus tests for him as a character. He failed them all. Miserably. He's a Mary Sue. And just as a disclaimer, I only checked off things that I could say with confidence. Others, like "Do you find your character attractive enough to date him/her?" or "Does your character's personal choice of clothing frequently include clothing chosen because you really wished you owned it or could get away with wearing it in public?" I suspect are true, but I can't be sure since I don't know Mr. Goodkind. So, if anything, the score is artificially modest. And he still miserably failed the Mary Sue tests. I repeat, what a lame character.

I'll grant, though, that I like him a bit better in the TV series, Legend of the Seeker. But only a bit.

[Tao]

Richard Rahl...'s such a lame, idealized, preachy, non-complex, un-growing character!

True in many respects. Though once I learned that Goodkind was using the Sword of Truth novels to further promote Objectivism and the philosophies of Ayn Rand{Atlas Shrugged et al.}, I can see how that would be a trap nigh-impossible to avoid. When one character is supposed to represent a 'perfect' philosophy, the flaws currently expected of a hero are harder to work in; especially as the series continues.

I'll grant, though, that I like him a bit better in the TV series, Legend of the Seeker. But only a bit.

Interesting, as I was on the other end of the stick when I realized what I was watching was derivative of the series. I enjoyed many of the characters early in the series, only to see their personalities shift dramatically to fit a later crisis. I cannot explain why exactly what I saw on TV rubbed me wrong, I am admittedly biased against the medium due to inexperience. Just bugged me to the point of shutting it down and going to bed early.

[Sky Bones]

I like Richard because he's noble and he has a deep capacity to care for others. He wants to do what's right and fights for the greater good, putting his own desires aside. Personally, I think he's far better than some creepy, stalker vampire or some angst-ridden, teenage wizard. It makes sense to me that someone strong like Richard would actually be capable of saving his world. He uses his mind, utilizes his resources, and doesn't just get super lucky all the time.

Of course, as the question stated, I'm referring to the Richard Rahl in the books, not the one represented in Legend of the Seeker. I had a difficult time with that show at first since they drastically changed so many things, but I've grown to like it. Of all the the representations of the main characters, I was the most disappointed in how they portrayed Richard. He is growing into the character though and I think he's doing much better than he was, but still not nearly as good as their portrayal of, say, Kahlan for example.

[Damasta]

True in many respects. Though once I learned that Goodkind was using the Sword of Truth novels to further promote Objectivism and the philosophies of Ayn Rand {Atlas Shrugged et al.}, I can see how that would be a trap nigh-impossible to avoid. When one character is supposed to represent a 'perfect' philosophy, the flaws currently expected of a hero are harder to work in; especially as the series continues.

Yes. That is true. The Sword of Truth is another proselyting tract for Objectivism. What gets my goat is that he usually incorporates it so poorly. Instead of making the principles inseparable from the plot, Goodkind usually just has Richard rant/monologue or interminably argue with someone else (but then Richard always has the upper hand in the argument). It's almost like Goodkind is writing along and then he picks up a new pamphlet for Objectivism which he promptly incorporates, almost verbatim, into the text.

When I first started reading the series I was mildly annoyed that he'd ripped so many concepts off of The Wheel of Time series and grossed out by his fascination with S&M (i.e. Mord Sith, which shares the same initials). Then later I was frustrated that each book revealed some new catastrophe that Richard's actions at the end of the last book had precipitated—but it was always out of the blue. There was never any information leading up to that point that would indicate that anything was going to happen. It always felt like an afterthought; sort of a deus ex machina, except making things worse instead of fixing them (but still weak as a plot technique). After that he started getting blatantly preachy (see above; this happened to Orson Scott Card, too). Still later Goodkind got peeved that his readership consisted primarily of introverted teenagers and unmarried thirty-somethings that lived in their parents' basements. He'd go to book signings and yell at them and insult them for asking him about the way magic worked in his world instead of asking about Objectivism (or why Richard didn't get women pregnant just by looking at them, because he really is that awesome, isn't he?). It reached the point where Goodkind was so desperate to reach an audience other than fantasy nerds that he tried to claim that his writing wasn't fantasy at all—it was 'literary fiction' that just happened to utilize a few fantasy elements. Well, unfortunately his prose sucked too much to be literary and his plot didn't suck enough. I've got Phantom on my bookshelf, but I'm waiting for my stomach to settle before I read any more Goodkind (but I will read it, eventually, if only for closure).

I like Richard because he's noble and he has a deep capacity to care for others. He wants to do what's right and fights for the greater good, putting his own desires aside.

1. It is possible to have a character (even a heroic character) that embodies all of those characteristics without being a hyper-idealized, 'flawless', one-dimensional caricature.

2. Ironically, Richard, as idealized as he is, is a horrible example of Objectivism. He "cares for others", "fights for the greater good", and "puts his own desires aside" even though a major point of Objectivism is the flat-out rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism. Furthermore, he's always telling people what to do (while at the same time getting really whiny whenever anyone else tells him what to do), even though individualism and self-determination are among the greatest values. In Objectivism, there is no need for a savior; if any man is vastly superior to other men and those other men are dependent upon him for freedom and existence, then Objectivism fails as a philosophy.

3. Does he really need a 'powerful gaze'? I mean, really? Doesn't Goodkind ever feel his 'cheesy bone' tingle when he writes about Richard's keen and penetrating gaze? Ditto for every single woman Richard meets following him around like a devoted puppy.

The reason I like the TV series slightly better is because the writers actually know how to create some dramatic tension and because Richard has actually been growing as a character instead of strutting all the time. Incidentally, my favorite character is Zedd. At first I found him to be cheesy and melodramatic. Actually, I still do, but now I like him for it. I think the turning point was Puppeteer.

[Sky Bones]

I simply enjoy the story and I'm not looking for any sort of philosophical meaning in it. All I'm saying is if Richard Rahl were real (which, by the way, he isn't, and neither is the Midlands, D'Hara, etc.) I'd most likely find him attractive. And at least I've met a few people who actually have a powerful gaze.

Thank goodness I've never met anyone that glitters gold though!