Jan 10, 2008

Scoundrels, scallawags and mountebanks

Why is it that , rather than a young, brawny, honest and goodhearted hero, I prefer my protagonists to be tricky bastards?

I prefer John Constantine to Superman. I prefer Scott Lynch's Locke Lamora to David Eddings Belgarion. Heck, I prefer Raven to Wolf in my native American mythology. I like my heroes smart, but flawed, and more interested in thinking their way out of a fight than bettering the God-Emperor of the Doom Kingdom with a flaming sword, or magic, or whatever.

Which isn't to say that I don't love a good fight scene, but really, I'd rather read a nocel that's all cons and out thinking than a novel that's all fights and no thinking.

Right now, I'm reading Scott Lynch's newest Locke Lamora book, Red Seas Under Red Skies. Locke, the protagonist, is a thief, and a wold class asshole, but true to his friends. And that's the myth of the scoundrel hero. Someone who'll turn those terrifying powers of out thinking people against only his enemies. And make no mistake, deep down, really smart, charismatic people with the ability to manipulate others are the one's we're really envious of. Vast athletic prowess and martial skill is good. But the ability to talk people into doing what you want them to, or to get around them by talking the people who control them to make them do what you want is what really runs the world.

I think, as a whole, people envy that ability to the extent that they don't have it, and want to see heroes who have that talent righting wrongs, and bringing down real villains. At the same time, we want there to be consequences for being that manipulative, because we think it should cause some problems in your life. And also a hero with no problems is boring.

So John Constantine, Han Solo, Locke Lamora, etc... all get into serious trouble with the cons they run. And that makes the books all the more enjoyable.

No comments: