forum Should Your Character Be "The Leader"? (Character Critique)
Started by @Snowmirror
tune

people_alt 8 followers

@Snowmirror

I was reading over some of the old critiques I hosted this summer here, and I was reminded of how misused leader characters are. These tends to be your kings, your revolutionaries, your generals. Mostly, your main protagonist. They'll get together a ragtag band and take charge. Everyone looks up to them and fears them! But what sort of qualities does someone have to have in order to be a leader? Well, I've got many choice words on that, so I thought I would do a critique! Basically, send me your 'leaders' and I'll critique them, and give the added bonus of a paragraph about whether or not they should be leader at all. It's Halloween, the day before NaNoWriMo, so I can't promise a hasty response, but fuck it! We love suffering :)))

  • Only send leader characters
  • Only send one character at a time
  • Make sure its public!!

@Snowmirror

@@JynnieStardust
I sure hope the general is important! lol

Oliver Warren

  • 23 is pretty young for a general, I'm gonna be honest. Usually, age can slide in things like YA because you have to stay in the genre, but once you start getting into adults you shouldn't be afraid to make them old. His age will be a huge disadvantage because he'll automatically lack the experiences that others have. For a more trustworthy, believable general, give him a few more years!
  • Determination! It's a good thing he has a trait like that. Leaders have to be unyielding, give no quarter, and put their values above the rest. Now, the whole willing to sacrifice himself thing can be a major problem. Firstly, his goal is protecting Jon because Emily asked him to, but how on earth would he live out that promise if he died? If promises mean so much to him, wouldn't he do everything in his power to make sure he stayed alive to protect Jon? And his lack of trust means he could never hold someone else to this promise, yes? Self-sacrificing is a really common trait in hero characters, but you don't have to have it to make someone seem noble.
  • Furthermore, as general, you do not want to be sacrificial. You are the leader; you're vital to the plans being made and enemies want you destroyed. Thing is, if they succeed, and especially because if you treat yourself like a common soldier, then they win. It doesn't matter if the general is the only casualty - cut the head off the wolf and the limbs won't work.
  • Overall as a character, he fits almost too perfectly into his position as general. There isn't much to him that humanizes him, which might make it difficult for people to follow him. Even if they're ideals match up, no one likes to follow a hardass. The fact that he doesn't consider anyone's opinion but his own and sometimes Jon's is really, really bad for developing a strong, loyal following. He's part of a rebellion? Then he has to connect with the people there. Rebellions are not government run, as we know. They can't gift out money, food, shelter, or an absolute win. They can only gift out a reprieve of some sort. So when disagreements happen, what's going to stop the rebels from finding a new general? If Oliver is being difficult, why don't they just hire the next best guy?
    Should He Be Leader?
    Yes, he will probably make a smart general in your story, but he needs to be able to hold his audience (both the rebels and the reader) with some more humanity. He shouldn't seem like he was born to only be this, especially when a rebellion is sort of an impromptu thing. Good luck and thanks for sending!

@Snowmirror

@YeetedNotYote Only if your protagonist is the leader of a group. If everyone refers to them for answers and instructions, then yes!

@Hac_KinG

i do believe i had you critique both Ramule and Samule. but i was just wondering, what is your take on having TWO leaders for one "kingdom"? I've got two leaders because they both balance out…or so id like to think. one is super booksmart, knows economy stuff and how people work. the other is more or less the "face", charismatic, knowledgeable on war and is overall the kind one. knows how to INTERACT with people.

@Wry_Wyvern

i do believe i had you critique both Ramule and Samule. but i was just wondering, what is your take on having TWO leaders for one "kingdom"? I've got two leaders because they both balance out…or so id like to think. one is super booksmart, knows economy stuff and how people work. the other is more or less the "face", charismatic, knowledgeable on war and is overall the kind one. knows how to INTERACT with people.

Similarly to this, you critiqued my group leader as the "king" of the "king and tactician" trope. I'd like to send you my tactician, but Idk if she would be considered a "leader." She's the strategist, but not the one who actually takes charge of the group…

@Snowmirror

@"Graveyard_Smash(becfromthedead)"
Niko Asphodel

  • Another young one at 22! Leading a resistance is a hard thing, especially with little life experience so always be sure to ask yourself: why this age? What does it give his character? What does it take away?
  • His character is actually really well put together, so I'm not going to go on a long nit-picky tirade like I do with normal character critiques. Though I do have a question; he's listed as demisexual, but what genders is he attracted to? Just curious is all.
    Should he be leader?
    Yes, I can say that wholeheartedly. His high intelligence puts him on the path for a strategist, so no flaws there, but he's also charismatic and proud where a strategist might have fallen into the quiet bookworm stereotype. He's driven, values himself and is emotionally strong. His high competence and independence allow him to act on his own, so adding him to a group is perfect. I would say kind and insensitive are kind of combative traits, however, and contradict each other. Still, he would be interesting to see play out as a leader, especially if his flaws are really brought to the forefront. That way, he won't seem like the perfect mold for being a leader, even if he's got all the perfect ingredients!

@Snowmirror

@Hac_KinG I think two leaders is a great idea! Often, we see leaders as these lonely figures at the top of the mountain, orchestrating everything from a distant eye. They may have a confidant or two, but that's it. We often see how a single leader plays out, especially in fantasy with kings and queens. Lone leaders are interesting, but two leaders is room for twice the fun! Even if they balance each other out, the conflict they can get into with each other is unique to their circumstance, and their personal battles could play out on the kingdom they lead. Hell, it could be three, four, five leaders, and it will still be interesting. But with that, you get more into political play, so two is probably a perfect number. Feel free to send your tactician! I know they aren't technically leaders, but I'm just so damn fond of that trope that I would love to see her!

@faltering_through pets

Heya, I know this is kinda getting crowded but uh could you critique my character? He's supposed to take over the mafia after the death of Jovian (the current leader) If you have any questions just ask because I think it might get a bit confusing