I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about whether the goal of getting published is something people want in and of itself or in order to validate themselves.

To validate oneself is to declare or make something legally valid.

To many people, getting published makes one’s writing valid. It is a marker of accomplishment and talent.

Unfortunately, one of the harder lessons writers learn is that while you often need talent to become published, having talent doesn’t insure publication.

As a result, writers who are indeed talented will spend their careers being miserable because they are focused on trying to validate something that already exists.

In the end, validation can only come from a secure self-knowledge in your own worth, regardless of what others think of you.

Or am I wrong?

After all, even the “hero” label is a public validation of a man’s worth and accomplishment in society. I think the true hero is someone who acts heroic, even when he doesn’t think of himself as a hero and no one else does either.

He acts despite lack of validation by others or even himself.

No one said being a hero is easy, and in fact many people view being heroic as something that comes with a heavy price tag.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: People can swallow the idea of a tortured hero because the hero’s actions will ultimately result in some greater good to society. Is being an artist/writer and constantly doubting oneself unavoidable? Do you believe that true writers are people who would write whether anyone read their work or not?

  After two days at Disneyland, a place I’d only been to once before I had kids but now visit at least twice a year, I’m thinking about heroes and flaws.

Flaws, flaws, flaws.

It seems like most of my posts revolve around the flawed or tortured hero who must overcome his darker nature to be worthy of the heroine’s love.

Now what’s up with that?  

If you look at how even Disney heroes have changed, I think we can all agree that they’ve gone from stock, two-dimensional characters to so much more as they (and their heroines) have been infused with more life, more personality, and yes, more flaws.  They’ve always been brave. But now they are more three-dimensional, more realistic, and yes, more interesting. We have more to learn from their journeys and the happy ending always seems more satisfying as a result.

Compare Prince Charming (pretty much any of the princes in Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella) to Li Shang (Mulan’s male counterpart in Mulan, a story about a girl who disguises herself as a man in the army in order to save her father from being hurt). Li Sang is honorable, yes, but he’s also judgmental and arrogant. Then there’s the classic Beast from Beauty & The Beast, a man who needs to reconnect with his inner beauty before he can be worthy of love. Hercules is a strong but clumsy boy who must complete his hero’s journey to reclaim his real parents, and Aladdin is a street urchin who breaks a promise to free Genie for his own self-interest. Finally, what about Captain Jack Sparrow? So flawed, yet so compelling and likable anyway!

It’s a fine touch, one I’m still trying to get down, but it’s worth the effort.  Just as Disney’s heroines are evolving so that little girls can aspire to be complemented by a man rather than saved by one, Disney’s heroes are evolving into men a modern woman can root for and enjoy!

QUESTION OF THE DAY: 

Who is your favorite Disney hero and why?  

(VIRNA is posting today.  MISA will be posting on WED.)  

 I just got back from a writing retreat in Seattle called Break Into Fiction.  I met a lot of great women and at the same time got to delve deeper into what motivates my heroes, as well as why readers may or may not respond to them.  Interestingly enough, the biggest thing I came away with was the reminder that if I’m going to write romance, a form of escapist literature, I have to be willing to give my readers their escape.

My newest story deals with a hero who is flawed and struggling to overcome tragedies in his past.  I learned that by depicting my hero as flawed and tortured on page one, I was putting off readers.  People kept telling me to show his likeable side first, so that readers could relate to him, even if that likeable side was a bit of a disguise.  I found myself resisting the idea that flawed equaled unlikeable.

Then someone gave me the example of Mel Gibson’s character in Lethal Weapon, and how even though he was flawed and grieving and extremely dark (remember the scene where he put the gun in his mouth but ultimately couldn’t pull the trigger?), that wasn’t the first experience we had with him.  We learned that later, but only after we saw his funny (if crazy) side interacting with the bad guys. 

QUESTION OF THE DAY:  Besides Mel, can you think of a flawed hero who you found likeable right away, and why?  

I’m not a huge Idol fan but even I find myself getting caught up in the whole David C. versus David A. buzz.  David A. has always been adorable, but I have to say David Cook has been growing more and more on me.  Especially when I learned that he had only shown up at the Idol auditions to support his brother, who didn’t end up making the cut.  It got me thinking about sibling rivalry (and rivalry in general) and how heroic men respond to it.  David C.’s brother seemed to be thrilled (if a little self-conscious) when he got called up on stage with his brother (sheesh, Ryan could have let him say something after that!), but I couldn’t help feeling bad for him.  Talk about having to live in someone’s shadow, at least for a little while.  But he seemed so likable and mature for the way he handled it.  And so did David C. 

The best books for me are those that show the hero with a close buddy, someone that he might have conflict with but who always has his back.  There’s something about a man who’s able to care deeply for another man and show it that is really alluring.  At the bookstore yesterday, I picked up a book that looked interesting and to my shock saw it was about twin brothers who share lovers, including the heroine—who has always loved one (liked the other) and must “settle” for both if she wants to have one.  The sex was hot (I flipped through it, sure), but I didn’t buy it.  That kind of closeness isn’t exactly what I’m talking about.  But even so, it was an extreme example of a “healthy” relationship between males that could be both competitive yet ultimately unbreakable. 

So, with that image in mind…. J

QUESTION OF THE DAY:  Do you know a man who allows himself to get close to other men and doesn’t care who knows it?