Do they have to be the best?

[takyris]

So, I read Elizabeth Hayden's first fantasy novel, the first book in a big honkin' series. I was really impressed by a lot of the ideas, and I found some elements of it amazingly creative. However, I ended up feeling rather negatively about the book, and I've been trying to figure out why.

Here's what I think.

I have reached a point in my life where I am no longer interested in novels where every main character is "the best" at something. I'm great with "good at", I'm great with "great at" -- but I'm really tired of "is the best in the whole world at", particularly when it's more than one thing per character.

For example, in "Rhapsody" (Hayden's novel), the protagonists include the following:

Something like a D&D Bard (Rhapsody)
Something like a D&D Fighter/Rogue or Ranger (Achmed)
Something like a D&D Fighter/Barbarian (Um, Grunthor, maybe?)

The Bard is the most powerful magic-user in the world. She is ALSO the most beautiful woman in the world, although she doesn't realize it because when men start acting stupidly around her, she thinks it's because she's so ugly. For THE WHOLE BOOK, people are acting stupid around her, and she thinks it's because she's ugly, despite everybody offering to buy her things. (To be fair, she's now so beautiful as a result of a magical doodad, but still, after a couple of times, you'd think she'd click. But that wouldn't be fiction.)

(This is a side peeve of mine: the Cinderella syndrome writ large, where everyone is so mean to the scullery maid and thinks she's ugly until some guy from another culture says, "Hey, you're not ugly, you're Ephebian, and in fact, you're REALLY HOT for an Ephebian," and then he discovers that she sings to unicorns, and she's given a whole lot of new clothes and a love interest.)

The Ranger is the most sneakiest guy in the whole world. He is a moving shadow. He is poetry in motion. He invented a fantasy-world version of an assault rifle, which he uses most of the time -- because nothing makes my S&S fantasy work like a fantasy version of an assault rifle. He's the world's best shot. And when it comes to combat, he's the world's best warrior. Nobody can get anywhere near him. His standard routine is to let people try to stab him, and then he takes their sword away and stabs them instead. Because he's THE BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD, when he's not the best sneaky-guy in the world, the best shot in the world, and so on.

The Barbarian guy is ALSO the best fighter in the world, leading one to speculate as to what would happen were he and the Ranger to get into a fight. They're friends, so they never would, but still. The Barbarian guy is the STRONGEST fighter in the whole world, though, while the Ranger is the FASTEST guy in the whole world, so even though they're both utterly unbeatable, they're at least not stepping on each other's toes.

This is DEFINITELY something that bothers me now. I'm not sure if it always bothered me or not. I'm trying to think of other stories where the hero was THE BEST -- Belgarion was the most powerful sorcerer AND the most powerful warrior, but he never seemed smug about it -- plus, I was twelve when I read The Belgariad. Arutha was a GOOD swordsman, but I never thought that he was the best -- it was never such a hands-down idiotically obvious bestness that I got annoyed about it. In some series, there are heroes who are the best at something, but they have obviously sacrificed everything to get there -- so the world's best swordsman is a grim silent man who's no good at cards, dice, or poetry.

Thoughts? Am I all alone in this? Is this a stage that people go through, where for awhile you want to read about heroes who are THE BEST at everything, and then you want heroes who are more human and balanced?

 

[Ristamar]

...I'm really tired of "is the best in the whole world at", particularly when it's more than one thing per character.

I understand where you're coming from, though I usually don't mind the "best" syndrome if the character has an equally notable handicap in another area (for example, Raistlin's poor health).

 

[Pants]

The Barbarian guy is ALSO the best fighter in the world, leading one to speculate as to what would happen were he and the Ranger to get into a fight.

Paradox, the universe implodes.

 

[CCamfield]

Yes, I agree, although those particular examples just sound like bad writing.

For instance, I didn't have a problem with the characters in the Malazan Empire series being powerful. (To me a very well-written series) One of them turns out to be an ex-high priest who somehow betrayed his god, and is a very powerful mage. Another is an uberassassin who in one particular scene does some things one would never have imagined (change your temperature to foil heatvision)! But it comes off well, and to be fair, the books are often quite high-powered, with really nasty opposition as well.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I was always a fan of the WORST in the world. Like Rincewind.

 

[Pants]

I was always a fan of the WORST in the world. Like Rincewind.

He even spelled Wizard wrong.
Rincewind is the best! Or the worst, whichever way you look at it.
I have to admire a man who took Weapon Focus: Sock with a brick in it.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

He even spelled Wizard wrong.
Rincewind is the best! Or the worst, whichever way you look at it.
I have to admire a man who took Weapon Focus: Sock with a brick in it.

Hehehe. Oh c'mon, he's the WORST(read: Best) Wizard there is...and I agree, that is a serious gamble for a Feat, and he did well with it.


...why do I have the sudden urge to make a Fighter based around Sock With a Brick in it?

 

[takyris]

Well, I should note that in all fairness, I did enjoy many parts of the book a great deal. I just got tired of that particular aspect of it. Parts of the book were VERY well written, and I was REALLY in love with the idea that the book initially presented -- what if you told a typical "Powerful Ancient People Saving the World" story, except that you told it from the point of view of the Powerful Ancient People and not the humanlike sidekick who comes along with them (ie, telling it from Gandalf's viewpoint and not Frodo's) -- and then, to make it work, you show that the Powerful Ancient People really don't see themselves as powerful and ancient, because it's actually a gigantic magical trick that has resulted in them being in this new world. Like tenth-level characters hitting a teleportation trap and ending up in a world populated entirely by first-level characters. The tenth-level characters go from "We're powerful, but not godly" to forces of epic vastness in the blink of an eye -- but they know that it's not really true.

I LOVED that part of it. I disliked the stuff I mentioned above.

It might be worth a read, if you're curious -- Elizabeth Hayden (Haydon, maybe), "Rhapsody". I am open to people who liked the book telling me that I am full of it and that the stuff I reported is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[paulewaug]

I know what you mean takyris,

A book the more or less revolves around a character that is 'the best' can be borring because if they are 'the best' then their is not much challenge or threat for them. It is often almost a given that they will overcome because they are the best. And besides that there is seldom a "Best" in real life so it is hard to relate.
Looking to the 'old west' and the gun fighters, there were a few that were arguably the best and the problem is if you had a bad day and the other guy got lucky things would likely not go well for you because there is often a small margin between best and 2nd best.

Also it has become a cliché for the character(s) to be "special" and lots of times when I think about picking up a book and read how the character is "special" my eyes glaze over. A great writer Can do really good work with a unique, special, and or powerful character. But that is because they have developed certain areas of the character to make them interesting and more human rather than showing they have "kewl" powers.

I like some of Dennis McKiernan’s work (esp the "Hel's Crucible Duology") because he states that he is tired of super special characters and mostly writes about the normal guy. the Duology does focus on a pair of very "hobbity" characters (they are kind of like 'little elves') but they have no special powers or anything and often wonder what the heck they are doing, but they are trying to fulfill a promise and keep going.

I liked the earlier books of Terry Goodkind but grew tired of the main characters being the extra special people.

It's kind of like how Han Solo is SOOO much more interesting than Luke, even though Luke is the "spezshul one." And Drizzt is Sooo Badazz that he just mows through the bad guys that why even try anymore?!

I am a huge David Gemmell fan, mostly because If the characters are the best or special they have no idea of it or it weighs as a heavy burden for them.

That horrible movie with Steven (ugh) Segal where he is a "cook" on the ship that gets overrun by bad guys but of course he is a former super badazz special forces guy so no problemo is a good example. How much cooler would it be if he really was 'Just' the cook?!
Die hard rocks because John McLain was a normal joe in an era of super action stars. He got chewed up by the end of the movie where all the tougher guys walked around killing armies under heavy fire shooting massive guns and never getting hurt.
Borring!!!IMHO

So I would much rather having a good story with more relatable characters than a mediocre story with Super Great Really Special dudes!
All IMHO and YMMV of course!!

I have not read Rhapsody and can make no statement about the writng done in that book so am not trying to turn anybody off from reading it. I have thought of picking it up myself.
Maybe I will, but I do prefer characters that struggle because they are not "the best."

 

[s/LaSH]

I quite enjoyed Rhapsody (now all I need to do is find the rest of the series). To memory, it wasn't entirely about being the best as being hopelessly confused about where you are and what you're supposed to be doing and then trying to do the right thing. Or something, it's been a while. After all, even the best warrior in the world has to figure out who to fight and why, if you see my point.

It can be fun to read about the Best Of The Best. It can also be fun to read about incompetents struggling to get through, as well. Each has its own feel, and if it's done well it's good. Thus, I get to read more stuff and enjoy it.