/lit/, can you name me any novels with "good" main characters?
And I'm not talking about shitty fantasy protagonists that are just born wanting to do good for no reason, or the "ordinary man" of most modern lit that just tries to find his way in a crazy, crazy world that just doesn't make sense and terrifies him.
But rather, someone that's highly philosophical as well as emphatic, who isn't just trying to do the good thing, but to realize what good truly is -- without ever falling so low as to give up his mental aptitudes and embrace relativity and chaos.
Basically a paladin, but without the doctrine and absolutes.
And please, no biographies/autobiographies from saints and philosophers and the like. Picture is unrelated.
>>7535242
i-is jesus squirting blood out of his nipple onto that guy's lip?
>>7535242
Don Quixote bro
>>7535249
i'd argue that don quixote has doctrines and absolutes.
>>7535248
That has to be an accident.
The Apology of Socrates
>>7535242
it's odd that you bring this up, OP.. i don't really feel like there are many compelling heroes searching for good in literature. i wonder if that's just because people typically like a story where things arent so cut and dry? maybe heroes are just boring, not in a flawed protagonist sense, but a character searching for the truth in goodness and all that jazz
>>7535242
Thomas Covenant desu. He has his flaws but he does try to do what's right in his own mind.
literally just described the idiot
>>7535555
I was about to post it, though I hated the book. Probably the worst dosto.
Nice quads btw
>>7535584
i always felt like the point of the idiot was to hate the shit out of myshkin. all those fucking chances to be worth a shit, dashed because he was such an idiot. all those instances where he has some say in the matter, or can push forward and become a protagonist worth a shit, he shits the bed. i think we were supposed to be incredibly frustrated with him, and if you look at it from that perspective, the book was amazing.
>>7535594
Well, I understand your point but felt the exact opposite way. The ordinary good man would compromise himself, would get involved for the greater good (of the story, at least). Maybe it was the author's intention the create a frustrating (if not hateful) character, but I felt like he completely failed in depicting an idiotic but truly good person. In the end you despise him so much he isn't just an idiot but a petty fool.
He amazingly frustrated me.
>>7535650
no, i don't think he was good, that was someone else. yes. i think myshkin was incredibly frustrating. i first thought that he was referring to epilepsy, but it really was this sense of having a character that was a bumbling loser who disappointed everyone, in the story, and even the reader. i imagine dostoevsky poured what he felt was disappointing and weak in himself into this character, and the weaknesses he saw in others. but was myshkin good? no. he was weak and neutral. he never seemed to have a purpose and it's almost as if the reader is to question why the hell he's the main protagonist in the first place.
all in all, no. there arent any truth seeking heroes in literature. they're all fucking douchebags.
