# Must the hero have a goal?



## SeasideAnna (Aug 3, 2014)

Hi,

I am newto this forum and fictional writing as well. I write a lot in my work, but that is more of tutorial material.

Anyhow, I have seriously started to write a novel now and I am trying to read as much as I can to get valuable tips. However, I find most sites, being very predictable when it comes to the plot and suspense. Almost everyone says: "The hero must have a clear goal and then reach it in the end." Well, I can understand the point, but must it always be like that? Can the villain instead be the one with a goal? The hero just happens to come in between the villains purpose and his actions.
Will my story be incomprehensable or thin without a hero goal?

Many thanks for all input.


----------



## popsprocket (Aug 3, 2014)

Character goals are two things: story direction and a promise to the reader.

Frodo had a goal. Get the ring to Mordor. If Frodo didn't have that goal he'd have just spent 3 books hiking randomly. There'd be no stakes, no emotion, nothing significant in what he was doing. That goal is story direction. Readers knew something of what to expect and were able to decide whether or not they kept reading based on that.

So there's that. Get the ring to Mordor. Save the girl. Defeat the school bully in a salsa dancing competition. Take over the world with good intentions. Give cancer-patient-best-friend the best days of his life as his death draws near.

All of those things are a direction. We set the pace and tone of the novel and then we make a promise to the reader. You promise that the novel is going to deal with this or that issue. Now, those issues may not be an overall bearing for the work, but they are things that might keep a reader reading.

Setting no direction and making no promises is akin to giving a 1000 page door stopper fantasy to a person, and when they ask what it's about you say "You have to read the whole thing and you still might not find out. Start reading."

If your main characters don't have a goal then you certainly do run the risk of writing a thin story. I think it may be better to turn the question around and consider what purpose it would serve to write about characters with no discernable goal. Does it add something to the story? Yes/no? If it doesn't add anything then _don't do it_.


----------



## SeasideAnna (Aug 3, 2014)

Thanks for your quick reply. There is a goal, but it is not from the nice and aimable heroine. The story starts 30 years ago with something that looks like a love sceen. We see it from the man's persepective. 30 years later the woman reveals her side of it. How she actually perceived it as a rape. She has now finally got the chance to get revenge and the heroine has a central part here. So the villain is not a typical villain, but a woman that has been treated in an awful way and because of that, does evil things.


----------



## j.w.olson (Aug 3, 2014)

You can be the hero and be a bad guy at the same time. 

Also, every character should have some motivation for what they do, some goal they are trying to achieve. Not all will be successful, of course, and the reader will not always know the character's motivation, but all characters should have one.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 3, 2014)

Everyone has a goal; we live off aims, dreams and our pursuit of them. So if you write someone without a goal, you're not writing someone. They aren't human unless they have a goal they're following.

Any character who 'just happens to come in' can't be considered a hero, either. Avoid having a character do something just because the plot dictates that they do it; support their actions with motivation. Bob doesn't walk through the door because he needs to be there in order to get shot by his murderous wife; he opens the door because he wants a cup of tea.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 3, 2014)

Like Cadence said, everyone has things they want or choose. So you can have a heroine who gets kidnapped, tries to escape, learns of a terrorist plot, tries to do what she can to stop it. And so on. But you can see her forming goals as the story goes along. I think you already have that.

One website said the your basic good story starts with a goal, then the main character discovers it's not the real goal. Yep, I can't easily think of books that start with a clear goal and finishes with the same goal. I can, it just doesn't seem that common.

There does have to be something to engage the reader at the start, which should be relevant to the story. It sounds like you have that. There should be some satisfying resolution at the end. I am guessing you already planned that.


----------



## SeasideAnna (Aug 3, 2014)

Thank you all so much for your answers. It is really appreciated!


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 3, 2014)

SeasideAnna said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am newto this forum and fictional writing as well. I write a lot in my work, but that is more of tutorial material.
> 
> ...



This touches on the "Heroic Journey" sort of theme. The hero has a goal and there are obstacles along the way that they must overcome. They may deny this quest, at first. But, they're usually convinced or forced to undertake it, lest there be no story... Along the way, they meet allies, mentors, a few likeable rogues and such. As they encounter and overcome external goals, they themselves change. In the end, they return and bring back the knowledge that they have gained.

Must your hero have a goal? No, not really. Your story could be just a "day in the life" sort of story. There may be small goals, like making breakfast or tying shoes, but they're not connected to any particular "plot." Instead, you just examine the life of a character and look to make some sort of interesting or entertaining commentary on it.

But, if you've got a "hero" then the reason that they're a "hero" is that they are struggling for something. Heroes don't just sit on the couch, watch television, and then have "something awesome" plop down in their lap that let's them "win", since they weren't competing to win anything, anyway, except the battle for the next belt-notch.

Think of it this way: You can not have a "struggle" without a goal and opposing forces, barriers or obstacles.

In the slight synopsis you laid out, the goal of your hero is to oppose the villain. To oppose the villain, they must prevent them from reaching their goal. That's a worthy goal for a hero. But, the villain's goal has to be one worth opposing. It wouldn't be very credible if your hero opposed the villain's goal of giving everyone in the world free punch and pie, would it?

But, along the way, your hero may develop personal goals or may find their way towards seeing the value in reaching a goal that the villain doesn't know about. So, the hero may find a worthy goal in not only opposing the villain, but in doing so, actually unmaking the villain and rendering them powerless to commit more mischief. Turning the tables is fun!

In general, you do not have to have a "goal" for a character in a story. It makes things easier and is a natural part of most stories, but it is not a "must do" thing in writing fiction. In a "heroic journey" sort of piece, you're going to need some sort of goal to keep the hero moving through the story. It could be several unconnected goals, in the case of a plot-driven story where the hero is at the mercy of outside events, or just one that the hero doggedly pursues and works towards, in the case of a character driven story where the hero calls the shots instead of just reacting to the situation. Or, it could be a combination of the two - Your call.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2014)

Don't think in terms of 'hero' and 'villain'. A book does not have to have either. Think, instead, in terms of your protagonist and antagonist, the character whose story your book tells (protagonist) and the character who presents the greatest obstacle within the story (antagonist). Yes, your protagonist must have a goal--if not you don't have a story--but your protagonist doesn't have to be a good-guy (hero). Think of Michael Corleone in _The Godfather_. Michael was a villain in every sense of the word, but it were his goals the movies revolved around. Protagonist, not hero.

A more contemporary example might be Walter White in _Breaking Bad_. Walt devolves very quickly into a bad person, but the whole story is the story of his quest.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2014)

As been said before, but also...

Every character in a book should have some form of "goal" even if it's the most minute goal there is. "Goals" are motivation, and motivation is what drives people, be it world domination or just really needing to pee in that moment. There's always a need/want/aspiration that is to be fulfilled. Even your side characters should have goals, though you don't necessarily need to go into them (and often shouldn't). Really though... characters are people. People all have their own wants and personalities. So should your characters.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 4, 2014)

I personally don't believe the hero/main character doesn't have to have anything. Though it's hard to write a compelling story without a goal. If your MC gets dragged out on to some journey they never intended to take, you could say their goal is to just get home, or they inevitably find a goal. So really, unless you're writing about tea time, you're going to end up with a goal.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 4, 2014)

I personally don't get the whole must have a goal malarkey, I hate it when writing gets mechanical. All I think about is 'is it entertaining?' because that is literally all that matters. Writing can a lot of time get up its own arse and people seem to forget its nothing but a simple bit of entertainment. You could write a novel about a man sat on the toilet during/after having a shit for 378 pages and I wouldn't give a damn about his goals or anything like that if it entertained me. So I would say no to your question, but I chat a lot of shit I've been told


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 4, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> I personally don't get the whole must have a goal malarkey, I hate it when writing gets mechanical. All I think about is 'is it entertaining?' because that is literally all that matters. Writing can a lot of time get up its own arse and people seem to forget its nothing but a simple bit of entertainment. You could write a novel about a man sat on the toilet during/after having a shit for 378 pages and I wouldn't give a damn about his goals or anything like that if it entertained me. So I would say no to your question, but I chat a lot of shit I've been told



378 pages?! That man's goal is to get off the toilet alive!


----------



## Ixarku (Aug 5, 2014)

Conflict is the essence of drama.  Without drama, you risk boring the reader, and the easiest way to create drama is to give the main character a goal of some sort and keep him from reaching it.  There are times within a story that you can get away without having any conflict -- a scene lacking conflict can, in fact, still be entertaining -- but an entire story devoid of any sort of conflict will probably be a dull read.  At worst, you run the risk of being unable to explain to someone what the story is even about.

The other risk you run into by not giving the main character a goal is that such a character might end up being too passive.  If he just sort of drifts from event to event without any direction or purpose, it's going to much more difficult to hold the reader's interest.  Readers enjoy putting themselves in the p.o.v. character's seat, and how many of us really aspire to be directionless and passive?  I'd wager that in the majority of popular fiction, it's possible to read the story and identify what the conflict is, and what the main character's goal or goals are.  The goal could be virtually anything.  I think it was Orson Scott Card who said (paraphrasing here), when you write, create a situation and ask the question, "Who suffers the most?"  If your character's sole purpose is to get out of a bad situation, or to see the world, or just to go to the store to buy a gallon of milk, then he's got a goal -- it just becomes a matter of throwing some obstacles in his path and keeping from his target. (Edit - I will add that for maximum effect, you've got to give the reader a reason to care about the goal.)   How the character reacts to the situation drives the story forward.  His goal could even be just to sit on the couch and watch TV, but if it is, then international art thieves ought to be breaking down his front door to steal his precious family heirloom.  His goal then becomes to recover the stolen widget so he can return to his life of sloth.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 5, 2014)

> I personally don't get the whole must have a goal malarkey, I hate it when writing gets mechanical.



How is having a goal 'mechanical'? It's a completely natural part of the human mind. While I understand how some writers don't prefer to focus on goals, and some readers won't care about them either, they will exist whether the reader/writer wants them to or not. Else, a character can only achieve anything mindlessly through chance or coincidence. No human does that.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> I personally don't get the whole must have a goal malarkey, I hate it when writing gets mechanical.



Everything you as a human do is delegated by a goal. Even that guy on the toilet? His goal is to void his bowels. Everything from world domination to scratching an itch on your leg is a goal-oriented action. Literally, the only goal-less character is one sitting in a blank room, drooling. Even then, their goal might be to continue breathing.

The idea for the writer is that we need to have characters whose goals are interesting/entertaining, as you said.


----------



## SeasideAnna (Aug 5, 2014)

Thanks, a very interesting discussion. I guess I just haven't viewed ordinary things, like eating breakfast or go to work as a specific goal. To work for a promotion at work would be  goal, but not go there 5 days a week. 

If I return to my story, my hero, or I guess protagonist is a better choice of word, moves to a new country to leave a hectic work life behind her and instead she wants to survive as an artist. So yes, she does have a goal, but the story is not about her painting, it will rather be about the antagonist that will make her life problematic.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2014)

SeasideAnna said:


> To work for a promotion at work would be  goal, but not go there 5 days a week.



Yes and no. "Going 5 days a week" isn't a goal necessarily, but it builds into the promotion. Or maybe the goal is just getting money to survive. Or maybe the goal is getting to work on time despite the rows and rows of traffic ahead.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 5, 2014)

> To work for a promotion at work would be goal, but not go there 5 days a week.



As Bishop pointed out, you can look at this multiple ways. We could call the promotion a 'one-time goal' (person needs to get one thing to achieve their goal) and the 9-5 shift a 'constant goal' (person regularly does something in order to maintain achievement of their goal). Putting food on the table is a goal of most families, and going to work is therefore an essential part of their 'goal' to support their family. The 9-5 is therefore an essential part of their character, even though it's incredibly mundane.

You can do a lot with your characters, and especially your focalizer (the guy the story centers around), if you treat everything they view as important as important.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 5, 2014)

SeasideAnna said:


> Thanks, a very interesting discussion. I guess I just haven't viewed ordinary things, like eating breakfast or go to work as a specific goal. To work for a promotion at work would be  goal, but not go there 5 days a week.
> 
> If I return to my story, my hero, or I guess protagonist is a better choice of word, moves to a new country to leave a hectic work life behind her and instead she wants to survive as an artist. So yes, she does have a goal, but the story is not about her painting, it will rather be about the antagonist that will make her life problematic.



Her goal is why she wants to leave her hectic work life behind and survive as an artist. How will that affect her life? Is she looking for happiness? Is she running from something; a bad relationship, a terrible childhood, or the police? The story must be about her, about her journey, if she is to be your protagonist. The antagonist will provide the resistance to her success. If you plan on focusing on what you are currently calling the antagonist, if you plan to make the story about him/her, then _that_ character is your protagonist and his/her goal is what is important.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 5, 2014)

I was more thinking along the lines of writing every scene with the character's relative goal in mind. That's making writing mechanical in my eyes. If you want to write with goals then go ahead, I just find it tedious and don't think about it is all. You could have a book about a man wandering aimlessly for no reason whatsoever and just giving his thoughts and it could still be interesting and entertaining. I really don't care about goals when I'm reading, I just care about whether I'm enjoying it or not, whether it be about a hobbit throwing a ring in to a volcano or a man taking a shit.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 5, 2014)

Without compelling goals and motivations for your characters, it's hard to hook the reader.

When a character struggles for something that's important to them, a question forms in the reader's mind: "Will they succeed?"

This question keeps the pages turning. It also fuels the conflict. It's the foundation of compelling dramatic fiction.

When a character lacks clear goals and motivations, the reader doesn't have an anchor to hold their interest in place. The question of "Will they succeed?" fails to keep them interested, because there's nothing for the character to succeed at.

If it goes on long enough, the writer risks losing the reader. 

Don't let that happen to you!

Give your characters compelling goals and motivations. Your reader will thank you for it. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 5, 2014)

If there is a goal, but no problem, you don't have a story. Right? What if there is a problem but no goal? Then you can have a story. So the problem is more important than the goal.

When I write, I think of it as Problem --> Reaction. The protagonist has a problem. She may form a clear goal in reaction to that problem, but that doesn't happen very often. If you needed to find a goal for your homework assignment, it would be vague, or hopelessly general, or sometimes just not there. Like, one character is teased a lot. Problem? Yes. Goal? Not really.

And that could lead to a character some readers don't like, because she doesn't have a lot of "agency". Really, my last book the protagonist started the book with several problems, but only one short-term goal. She says she wants to be pushed around by fate, not be the captain of her own ship. Which is a goal, I guess, but not a useful one.

So, I think if you wanted a strong character with a lot of agency, you would probably think of your book as Goal --> Problem. That works, because it still has the problems.


----------



## Folcro (Aug 5, 2014)

Having a goal is one of the great "rules" of a good character. But good writers will sometimes find creative ways to break rules.

Until you find that way, I would stop thinking so much about the word "goal." The word can be deceiving as it often implies a plan. That is something no character HAS to have.

Instead, think of it like this: what does your character _want_?


----------



## Ixarku (Aug 5, 2014)

Folcro said:


> Having a goal is one of the great rules of a good character. But good writers will sometimes find creative ways to break rules.
> 
> Until you find that way, I would stop thinking so much about the word "goal." The word can be deceiving as it often implies a plan. That is something no character HAS to have.
> 
> Instead, think of it like this: what does your character _want_?





I agree with you.  This is essentially another way of saying the same thing.  This isn't directed at you, just more of a general statement, but one of the things that amuses me on WF is how often people get hung up on a particular use of a word or statement instead of looking deeper at the underlying concept.  Whether it's called a "goal" or "wants and needs", the point is still the same:  if your character is presented with a situation that frustrates him, which keeps him from getting what he wants, then you've got the essential seeds of drama.  In line with what Kyle said, the conflict, the possibility of success or failure, is what makes a story's appeal universal.  A story about a lone person trekking across the wilderness is likely to be dull if the character isn't confronted with obstacles that make the reader wonder if he will succeed or fail in his journey.  Those obstacles might not even be other people -- they could include a fierce storm, a rockslide, or an angry mountain lion.  But without conflict, you don't have much of a story.  Giving a character goals or wants or needs, and then keeping him from those things is one of the best ways to make a character proactive while creating drama at the same time.

I hesitate to use the R-word (rule) since so many people take issue with the idea that there are universal rules in writing, but I would describe this approach as a "best practice" worth heeding for the vast majority of us.


----------



## Sam (Aug 6, 2014)

A character without a goal is like a cow without a teat. 

Pointless.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 6, 2014)

There are the sorts of goals which real people have, short term, long term, important, trivial, ----- often contradictory, in my case, ------- which characters will need to have as well, and then there are sometimes in stories more overarching, literary goals: a murder to solve, a princess to rescue, magical knowledge for the hero to bring home, yet another coming of age to survive. Many stories incorporate this sort of goal smoothly and seamlessly, in others, like maybe detective stories sometimes, the presentation may be a bit mechanical, but still effective, in the genre. But I don't think this kind of goal is a requirement for success, for every protagonist. Their arc in the story can be a sum of varied impetus, it need not be overall.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 6, 2014)

> I was more thinking along the lines of writing every scene with the character's relative goal in mind. That's making writing mechanical in my eyes.



Writing without their goal/want in mind, IMO, is far more mechanical. Machines don't have empathy (or at least, the one's I have don't). Knowing what you're characters want is one of the most simple empathetic acts a writer can make towards them. So if you want to be less mechanical, you should be more human. If you want to be more human, you should view your characters as human. If you want to view your characters as human, you should empathise with them, and care about them. And to do that, you need to know what they want.

Is it mechanical to think about what your children want every day? It may be systematic, but systems can be natural or mechanical. Just as my body naturally cycles oxygen to my muscles, I naturally care about what my characters want. If I don't, I'm likely to care more about what I want, and then I'll lose the humility that allows me to connect with and understand my characters at all. 

I don't see anything mechanical about it.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 7, 2014)

Right, well, I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me these things like a wise old monk. I know everyone has goals in real life and in fiction, what I'm saying is that when I read or write I don't think the goal is the most interesting or important part of it, hence why I don't rate it all that much. I'm pretty sure you've latched on to a throw-away word is all. If you like goals and think writing differently is mechanical then knock yourself out, I will just continue being the robotic man, aye. Different folks


----------



## tabasco5 (Aug 7, 2014)

Your characters will have goals even if they are not explicitly expressed.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 7, 2014)

> what I'm saying is that when I read or write I don't think the goal is the most interesting or important part of it, hence why I don't rate it all that much.



I understand what you're saying, Apple. I'm only concerned when people call methods 'mechanical' because I always take a stance against that approach. If someone says what I'm doing is mechanical, I have to make sure that it isn't, because that's not the approach I want to take when writing. That or I change what I'm doing.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 7, 2014)

Pretty much everyone wants to be happy and safe and have people like them. Are those goals?

If they are, then of course everyone has a goal.

But if we are talking about ideas that can drive a story, then the goals have to be more interesting. And a book doesn't need them.

I think I am saying the same thing as ppsage.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Aug 7, 2014)

If this has already been said feel free to give me verbal lashing but I don't the attention span for some these responses.

I think there's a key word being left out here. No, you're character doesn't necessarily need a goal, but the story has to have stakes. Nobody wants to read some nonsense about the daily grind. We're all in that trench already. We're trying to escape that. Even if you're not writing some grandiose tale, what personal stakes are in it for the character, Even if he has no goal, maybe something bwhind is going on and creating really high stakes, Like, your character is just doing the daily grind. He's going to work everyday ans going home at night. But your characters boss is a drug kingpin and if the character stumbles in on it there could be big trouble, so right there you are setting higher stakes without creating a goal. Idk, where you would take that story but you could go somewhere with it, in theory.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 8, 2014)

A lot of people are saying that stories don't need goals, but I can't find any examples of stories where there are no goals. Perhaps one can be found where the goal isn't 'important' (at least to some readers), but it'll always be there.

'The daily grind' involves a goal; to stay alive. Else, the character would commit suicide - but then his goal would be to kill him/herself. Therefore, it's indisputable that the only character without a goal is a completely mindless character, and those are just corpses.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 8, 2014)

Cadence said:


> A lot of people are saying that stories don't need goals, but I can't find any examples of stories where there are no goals. Perhaps one can be found where the goal isn't 'important' (at least to some readers), but it'll always be there.



True.

Most characters will automatically have a goal. That doesn't mean that their goals will be compelling enough for a reader, though. Like Pidgeon pointed out: stakes, or consequences, are what distinguishes mundane goals from compelling ones.

If failing at a goal is tolerable or even acceptable to the character, it's not a compelling goal (in my opinion).

I like to use the rule of thumb that a story goal should have the consequence of _death_ upon failure, be it a physical death, a professional death, or an emotional one. This way failure isn't an option (at least, it's an option the character will do all they can to avoid).

If the goal is, "Pour cereal into a bowl," and the character accidentally spills the cereal on the floor, they can just go, "Aw, nuts. Oh well. I'll clean it up later."

But if the goal is, "Don't be late for the big interview with the CEO," the character can't just shrug it off—because the path to her dream job depends on it, a job she's been fantasizing about since she was in grade school. A position at _Cosmopolitan_ Magazine! Every decision she's ever made has been with this magazine in mind. She even made her relationship choices based on the advice from _Cosmo_ columnists.

Now she's got the chance to be one of them!

But the traffic is heavy, and she's twenty minutes behind schedule, and she just spilled coffee all over her white blouse. She lost a contact lens and is stumbling around due to poor depth perception. She tries to hail a cab but breaks her heel off in a manhole cover.

Damn it!

If she fails to make a good impression—hell, if she fails to even _get there—_she'll suffer a professional death (and likely an emotional one, too).

That makes for a compelling goal. Much more compelling than pouring cereal into a bowl, at least! :encouragement:


----------



## Ixarku (Aug 8, 2014)

Cadence said:


> A lot of people are saying that stories don't need goals, but I can't find any examples of stories where there are no goals. Perhaps one can be found where the goal isn't 'important' (at least to some readers), but it'll always be there.




I agree with this 100%.  I won't dispute that some readers don't find particular interest in a story's goals or stakes -- perhaps they enjoy reading the story's exposition, or they just enjoy seeing a character interact with his fellows, or maybe they're captivated by the world portrayed by the story -- but I can't think of any story I've ever read where there wasn't some kind of forward motion owing to a protagonist's thoughts, feelings, and desires.  "Start on the day that's different" is good advice for the beginning of a story for several reasons.  One, for the proactive protagonist, you're showing a scene that most likely to interest the reader.  Two, for a more passive protagonist, you're giving him a kick in the butt, you're disrupting his daily life and giving him a reason to act.

"Goals" and "stakes" are another way to describe motivation.  Why does a character act the way he does?  What does he want and how is he going to get it?  We all want something; we're not blank slates simply waiting to receive information.  Most of us probably don't sit around waiting for the world to act upon us, and if we do, we're probably pretty boring people.  All of existence is driven by wants and needs, whether they're consciously acknowledged or not.  Even if you have a character who is simply responding to the events that happen to him, he is still driven by internal motivations.  He wants to be left alone, but the world keeps intruding.  His goal becomes to deal with these external challenges so that he can get back to what he was doing before.

The point of the story is to disrupt the status quo and show how the characters deal with the situation.  I'd argue that, lacking goals, motivations, or stakes for your protagonist(s), at best, you're going to have a boring story.  At worst, you don't have a story at all.

I am very interested to see if anyone can think of any examples of a story where the main character(s) lack goals or motivation.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 8, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I like to use the rule of thumb that a story goal should have the consequence of _death_ upon failure, be it a physical death, a professional death, or an emotional one. This way failure isn't an option (at least, it's an option the character will do all they can to avoid).



I can start a book or scene with just a problem, an interesting situation, or a goal. The requirement for that goal isn't too high. One of Sophia Kinsella's books starts out with the MC having a goal. The MC thinks this goal is so important, but the reader can see it isn't. Later, we learn in a lot of ways it was a silly goal. But it drives the plot until more important things can take over.

When the goal is worthwhile, I agree with everything you are saying and have used your advice to improve scenes.


----------



## Seedy M. (Aug 11, 2014)

My answer to you would be "No!" Several of my books had a hero who was thrust into a situation. His/her/its "goal" was instinctive, not a conscious goal. How about "Survive!" as a goal? That is what I would call a situational goal. A reactive goal.
Perhaps the only problem is semantic? It seems there are several definitions of the word, "Goal." There are three very distinct differences in this thread, alone. Aim, purpose, reaction.
I would suggest a hero would have to fit one of those categories.


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2014)

Survival _is _a goal. 

I, too, have had characters thrust into situation beyond their control. Their goals were to (a) survive, (b) figure out how to solve the problem, and (c) figure out a plan B or an alternative if they couldn't. 

Characters without those sorts of goals meander from place to place without any discernible purpose. They don't do anything for the story.


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 11, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I understand what you're saying, Apple. I'm only concerned when people call methods 'mechanical' because I always take a stance against that approach. If someone says what I'm doing is mechanical, I have to make sure that it isn't, because that's not the approach I want to take when writing. That or I change what I'm doing.




Sorry I missed your response, Cadence. Yeah, that's fair enough, because we have different approaches to one another we will both think the other's isn't for us. Obviously what may seem mechanical to me may not be to you and vice versa. I wasn't trying to pass off that whole approach as fundamentally mechanical, just stated my preference perhaps too boldly


----------



## Apple Ice (Aug 11, 2014)

As a side note, k_eep the Aspidistra Flying _by George Orwell is an example of not having a particular goal. He tries to drop out of the rat race because he's sick of it and then spends the rest of the book wandering and moaning. If its good enough for Orwell it's good enough for me


----------



## Sam (Aug 11, 2014)

What you should remember is that Orwell came in on the cusp of modernism/post-modernism. There was lots of experimentation and breaking from norms. He'd also received critical acclaim for _A Clergyman's Daughter, _which he'd written a year before _Keep the Aspidistra Flying, _so was by no means a risk in publishers' eyes. Plus, Orwell himself, in an interview, once stated that he published both for the money and was ashamed of them. They were written simply as an exercise and should never have been published. 

Food for thought.


----------



## Seedy M. (Aug 12, 2014)

Which shows that we can't hope to say what is popular today will be popular tomorrow. That is what innovation is all about.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Aug 30, 2014)

I don't think a character needs to have absolutely clear goals. But, the character has to have _some _sort of motivation or at least something they desire. This can be a lot of things, be it to destroy a certain evil, to save a loved one, or just to make it through the day. Without motivation, there's no direction, no change for the character. If nothing truly happens to the character, what was the point of writing? What is the point of the story?


----------



## Sc0pe (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm sure someone may have covered this so this my just be an echo but, as long as the hero has something in mind that leads him though what ever he goes through be it big or small then it is a goal.

The hero dropped his spoon down an old empty well. Wanting to eat his double fudge ice cream before it melts he leaps down the well to fetch his spoon. Instead of meeting his spoon at the bottom he finds a demon army and there king there, the spoon in the demon kings hand as he clams that it will be the tool to take over the world.

Having left his ice-cream out to the mercy of the sun the hero in a hurry takes out the demon king and his subjects, takes his spoon and goes back to enjoy his desert. 

He unknowingly saved the world just so he could get back to his frozen treat.


And in terms of not having a goal or failing to reach the goal well if you feel it works then it's up to you. Just know in most cases it's good to have a hero with some kind of reason or goal that moves them though the story. it just dose not have to be the tried to death. "Save the world, get the girl." deal. There goal can be totally different but his way of reaching it winds up doing other things like save the world. be the reasons big or small most times is not important it's the journey there that is.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 24, 2014)

Yes, but when is the true goal different from the MC's goal? Then I realized, a horror story often starts that way.

The I realized that an action story can start with a problem that the MC does not know about. So, for purposes of hook, it is more important that the reader know the problem.

So I added an anti-goal to my WIP -- the MC states "I would not like to meet a wizard." I assume that makes it even more obvious that she will.


----------



## J Anfinson (Sep 24, 2014)

Sam said:


> A character without a goal is like a cow without a teat.
> 
> Pointless.



Not true. I can still eat the cow.


----------



## hvysmker (Sep 24, 2014)

Offhand,  SeasideAnna, I can envision a story where the main character, the one the story revolves with ... has no goal except to get, lets say, from home to work.

I'd write about he or she getting up, dressed, and eating breakfast.  Then locking the door and starting to walk to work.  Along the way, he or she experiences one set of actions -- scene -- after the other from different people.  For instance, she's almost knocked down by a purse thief stealing a little old lady's purse. Has to wait as an angry crowd catches and beats the thief.  Turning a corner, she sees a kitty hit by a car.  As she walks by, a passerby asks her to hold the dog's head while he calls for help on his cellphone.  

Throughout her walk, things happen but she's not involved to any real  extent.  Finally, she makes it to work a mundane job, muttering, "Nothing ever happens to me."

Maybe the same thing happens with a villain?  While walking to work, deep in thought and deaf, and ex-boyfriend is silently knifing every man she talks to, behind her, and she doesn't notice.  When he's finally grabbed and stopped, she still doesn't notice.

Just offhand.

I don't think a "goal" is necessary. I've read plenty of what I think of a "snapshot" stories. For instance, I could write about a technological dropout. He could be sitting in the shade of a palm tree on a tropical island, remeniscing about his life while drinking from a coconut.  No plot at all but it could still be interesting.

Charlie


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 28, 2014)

Maybe goal is the wrong word to ask about. How about: giving the the reader a desire to learn what happens. Basically, an unsolved problem, and will the MC triumph? For example, will the detective discover the killer? Will the action hero win the battle? Will the main character escape from danger?

If the character just wants to get home, the story lacks this until he views a murder and is in danger for his life.

In _The Color Purple_, the character and setting are so incredibly interesting that the book works. However, as reader, I quickly lost any interest in what was going to happen next. So fail, but no book does everything right.

In _The Fault in Our Stars_, there is no obvious goal or problem. But we want to see what happens to the main characters. More generally, books in my genre make me want to know if the MC learns to be happy.


----------



## Arianna (Nov 8, 2014)

I know I am a little late to this party. In a story I am now working on, the protagonist does have a goal but it is de-emphasized. She fails to achieve the goal, but it's ok. She discovers she no longer wants what she was after. "This isn't me" is her conclusion. My goal is not for her to achieve her goal but to show how she changes from its pursuit. 

Although not part of my plan, I can see a goal being even less central in a story. Suppose your character is wandering in the woods without a destination in mind. He sees a hawk catch a squirrel. This might make him think about vulnerability or the brevity of life. Perhaps your story will end with a goal (I need to mend my relationship with ________). Or he looks up and sees an interesting cloud formation. This is the first time he has appreciated beauty in nature.  He was not out to accomplish anything in particular, but he still grows a little. You might say these scenarios present a passive protagonist. Stories in which the MC does try to accomplish something present an active protagonist. My story has the active kind even though she doesn't get what she wants.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 9, 2014)

Arianna said:


> I know I am a little late to this party. In a story I am now working on, the protagonist does have a goal but it is de-emphasized. She fails to achieve the goal, but it's ok. She discovers she no longer wants what she was after. "This isn't me" is her conclusion. My goal is not for her to achieve her goal but to show how she changes from its pursuit.



Yeah. In my genre, a if the MC has a goal at the start, that usually signifies an underlying problem, and the book is about the underlying problem. The reader knows not to care about the goal. (In horror, the goal -- like to spend the night at the old motel because the weather is bad for driving -- is obviously just driving the plot, and the reader knows that too.)


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

j.w.olson said:


> You can be the hero and be a bad guy at the same time.



That is the trend today, it seems. I have to question that, myself. It used to be that the good guy wore a white hat, and the bad guy wore a black hat, and there was no confusion between good and evil. "Heroes" (or heroines) like Riddick, for example, are a good example where all we have in the story are villains, and what separates them is the goal itself.

Just from an educational perspective, I think it necessary that children be taught that there is a good guy, and there is a bad guy, and that being the good guy is the goal for all of us. That doesn't mean that the good guy cannot undergo transformation, such as we might see in Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, or that the good guy is painted as perfect and without flaw, but, just from my view a story loses something when an underlying "good versus evil" is left out. A good example would be Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars: he maintains a just position in the movies and it doesn't come across as "sickly-sweet" to the audience.

I would agree with what you say...



j.w.olson said:


> You can be the hero and be a bad guy at the same time.



...but I wonder if this trend doesn't take something away that I think most of us (who are avid readers) benefitted from as children. I think most of us grew up with the idea that in our own stories...we were the good guy, right?


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

SeasideAnna said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am newto this forum and fictional writing as well. I write a lot in my work, but that is more of tutorial material.
> 
> ...




Just as a suggestion there can still be a goal without having to make it an overt statement in the book. If I understand the concept then it seems that the goal could be overcoming the tragedy. In other words, rather than killing the true villain, the heroine finds within herself the power to remove how she has been manipulated by the event. In other words, the story expands to see two goals reached...when that was never intended. Because most audiences are going to be enraged when the truth comes out, and let's face it, there is that part of our humanity that sometimes can set a lawful mentality aside to see "justice" served. That's why movies like Dirty Harry are popular, because we see a failure on the part of the justice system sometimes. 

But reaching a goal where the heroine attains a victory in overcoming the tragedy, and making your audience understand that this is far better than the satisfaction of revenge, no matter how justified,  would bring a depth to the story that excels the typical satisfaction we get when the bad guy "gets it." 

You might even have your heroine plan out a beautiful plan and on the verge of execution when she realizes that her actions will in essence make her what she hates, which would be the true tragedy.


----------



## alanmt (Dec 9, 2014)

It's perfectly fine to have the villain's goal be the motivating factor in your novel and your hero be merely in the wrong place and time and get between the villain and his goal, in which case he hero's goal becomes staying alive, figuring out what's going on, protecting a loved one necessary to the plot, etc. This is a plot that is very popular in action/adventure and suspense films as well as novels.


----------



## garza (Dec 9, 2014)

In my simple world, story = goal + obstruction. The central character must be reaching for something barely within his reach but never stated as such in so many words, and the obstruction should not appear as such at first. The issue of whether the goal is achieved or not can be likened to the moment when a line drive hits the top rail of the centre field fence and lingers there before dropping. Without the batter trying for a home run and without the pitcher and centre fielder trying to stop him, there is no story.


----------



## The grappling minstrel (May 21, 2015)

I don't think the hero needs to have a goal, but he needs to have a purpose in the storyline. The reader needs to see how he influence (or potentially influence) the final outcome of the story being told. Most characters and person *do* have goals though, short termed but they're goals nonetheless.


----------

