Crying Uncle?

[belial.1980]

Hey all,

How would you feel about a character admitting that he reached his breaking point? Would it make you think less of him? Or would it make that character seem more human and thereby more easy to relate to?

Here's the gist of the character's situation, just for context:

So, the story is winding down and almost at the climax. But just before my protagonist gets into a pinch. He's assaulted mentally and spiritually and basically made to suffer incredibly by a host of spirits from his past. (It's been done before, plenty of times but I feel why reinvent the wheel when it rolls just fine?) Anyway...

I made it a point to note that the character suffers so much from this experience that he admits to himself, if given the opportunity, he would quit his quest entirely to make this suffering end. The character is a very tough and brave person, especially considering that he's pretty much a "normal" guy that'll bleed just as easy as you or me. But I felt that reaching a breaking point or experiencing "ego death" as Joseph Campbell might put it, would be a good thing for the story and the character's development.

Or do you think readers would appreciate it more if he remains hellbent for leather and refuses to make this concession? After all even "normal" guys and gals are supposed to be more driven and motivated to solve their problems than the rest of us. That's why we write stories about them in the first place, right? Anyway, just trying to see what ya'll thought. 

Thanks in advance for your advice!

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

How would you feel about a character admitting that he reached his breaking point? Would it make you think less of him? Or would it make that character seem more human and thereby more easy to relate to?

Very much the latter; furthermore, any character having the former reaction would render themselves very unsympathetic to me.  (Unless there was solidly established previous reason in the text to think they were malingering.)


Here's the gist of the character's situation, just for context:

Or do you think readers would appreciate it more if he remains hellbent for leather and refuses to make this concession? After all even "normal" guys and gals are supposed to be more driven and motivated to solve their problems than the rest of us.

Refusing to admit when one has reached a limit is usually IME of RL a precursor to faiing badly in ways that cause harm, whether one admits it or no. Given the span of a novel, you might get away with ending the situation before any harmful consequences of it manifest, if that's what you wanted to do.  CJ Cherryh has a real mastery of picking points at which a story can end and look happy, and then doing other things in the same universe to directly or indirectly make clear that what happens afterwards turns out to be more complicated than that.

[trboturtle]

Heroes learn to push past their limits -- that is why they are heroes. It doesn't matter how many times they get knocked down, or are pushed past their limits, they ALWAYS get and continue doing what they are supposed to do. (If they didn't, the bad guys would win....)

Heroes are pushed past their limits all the time -- the fact that they reach down inside themselves and continue on is what makes them heroes. They may not be the same person they were before, (most are not) but the very fact they don't stay down is a sure sign of being a hero.

Craig

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Heroes learn to push past their limits -- that is why they are heroes. It doesn't matter how many times they get knocked down, or are pushed past their limits, they ALWAYS get and continue doing what they are supposed to do. (If they didn't, the bad guys would win....)

Yah, but being broken at that limit is part of that.

A hero who breaks, and keeps going anyway, or breaks and recovers, is admirable.  A hero who can't be broken is dull the same way a bad generic Superman story in which there's no way to believe Superman is ever in any danger is dull, as well as destroying suspension of disbelief if your hero's endurance becomes too ridiculously much more than your reader's.  And if you want me to believe breaking your hero is a possibility, you have to show me.

[OZ]

To me what makes him a hero is not whether he breaks or endures but rather the aftermath of breaking down. Obviously if he just breaks down and never recovers there's really no story left. ( I realize that someone can probably find an exception to this but I am talking generally.) At the risk of spouting cliches, the greatest success stories are usually not those that never fall down but are those that after falling keep getting back up. If you have a hero that suffers a major breakdown but later manages to get things together enough to do what needs to be done then I would say that he is a hero indeed. Personally I prefer stories that don't leave them writhing in the pit of despair too long but that's just a personal preference. ( I couldn't stand the Thomas Covenant stories for just this reason but obviously my lack of appreciation didn't keep the books from being successful.)

[meg_evonne]

I follow JB's pattern and the huge 3000 year plus history of storytelling. Jim calls it the slap down. And, if you recall, Jim's smack downs are gigantic. I'm with Neuro on this 100%. It's the humanness of our characters that hold a reader's attention. I personally prefer when the MC stands up and jumps back on the hero track despite being weak or hurt or abused etc., but there is nothing more heart wrenching than a hero down for the final count. That's why I keep kleenex next to the nightstand.

The alternative is the god syndrome, and there is no character that I want to personally torture or abuse than one of them guys. Yes, I used 'them guys'. :0