Is the Everyman character really 'The Everyman'?

I had some read some blogs on the subject on the Everyman and while I am not agree with all of their points, there was one particular point that intrigued me. From what I had been reading about on this very wiki and even the other wiki, the Everyman character is usually a character who essentially an average person with average dream and aspirations. The archetype usually a person of ordinary character who doesn't really possess any remarkable abilities and is usually a normal person who the audience who can relate to. The Everyman is a fairly popular archetype but it is a every easy corrupt, I know it is isn't limited to anime or young adult fiction but it is fairly to make this character into a Gary Stu who seems 'normal' but is actually fairly overpowered, charismatic, popular, etc. Granted, it isn't as though that most of the Everyman character is like but is the Everyman really 'The Everyman'? In real life people have a variety of skills and abilities, work in a variety of jobs and even the whole normal is fairly relative but what makes Everyman, the 'Everyman'?

There are some rather astute observations in the articles, particularly regarding what is essentially the cool loser archetype. For anime in particular, however, I do believe there's a mislabeling of the everyman moniker being applied to what is actually a changeling fantasy. Despite looking normal, your average teen fantasy protagonist is secretly very special, in a very special way, for a very special purpose etc. They are not so much designed to relate to, so much as to project onto, feeding the fantasy of secret power. Problem is, it typically only lasts so long as the projection is maintained. As soon as a different perspective is assumed, the fantasy loses its appeal - nobody ever imagines being a random squib from Hufflepuff House.

To contrast, you'll actually find more everyman qualities in the likes of Conan the Barbarian, James Bond, even Indiana Jones and Lara Croft. Despite appearing larger than life in terms of style, all of them are fairly ordinary in the context of the world they inhabit. They're not prophesized chosen ones, they have no supernatural powers, and most importantly, they are driven by relatable motives - wanderlust, curiosity, even patriotic duty with a somewhat cynical aftertaste. They are everyman characters in the sense that they are far from unique or high-standing for their setting. Even Conan may have eventually crowned himself king, but by means fairly common for his day. In every other aspect, he's an ordinary mercenary, surviving only on strength and guile, and with no higher goals than adventure for its own sake.

There's something of an art, too, to making a character relatable while imparting some measure of specificity as well. Motives can play a big part in that, which I think is what makes characters like Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser and Conan relatable at all. Conan is abrasive, violent tempered, and can carve through hordes of enemies without stifling a yawn, so on that level he's exceptional, but he's not driven by deep motives or grand visions.

I suppose that makes for more than one type of everyman. There are motivational everymen, who want the same kinds of things the average person wants while otherwise being pretty exceptional, and, I dunno, constitutional everymen, who try to save or change the world but in and of themselves aren't particularly remarkable. There are probably more kinds than that, too.

Motivation is one thing, but the other aspect Conan & co. have going for them is the way they have acquired even their exceptional skills. Conan is a mostly self-taught fighter with a lifetime of experience; Bond is a trained agent; Jones is a very inquisitive scholar with a rather interesting life himself. In short, none of them have gained their status by luck or divine choosing. All are effectively self-made men, and this has a far more enduring appeal than the changeling fantasy, particularly in the modern age.

Notice how even among superheroes, which are the epitome of barely-relatable bastions of inherent supernatural power, the most popular guy is the one reliant on training and self-made weaponry. Or how the Force lost its appeal upon the inclusion of midichlorians, effectively turning a mystical martial art into a blood-borne superpower. Essentially, even when a character is special in some way, there's a world of difference between them just being so on a fortunate whim, and becoming so by virtue of effort and dedication. One makes for a nice projection up to a certain point, as I described above; the other however is inspiring for a lifetime.

edited 8th Jan '17 1:17:03 PM by indiana404

That is a fair point. Aren't those heroes fantastic in their own way? Batman is rich and a genius but he does work hard though.

I'd say Batman being a trust fund baby does disqualify him from the actual self-made crowd, but I do believe his popularity still rests mostly on his trained abilities. Steel and Mr. Terrific would be better examples if they ever get more publicity... at least the kind not featuring Shaq.

Another overlooked aspect is that, well, most writers are writers, which tends to present the kind of character they find relatable, as someone meant for more general audiences. The idea of the special hidden and underappreciated talent is all but ingrained in writing circles. Superhero films in particular seem like a heavenly match of characters and industries designed to glorify the elite few... and as both mainstream comics and film companies are hemorrhaging influence due to independent competitors and digital distributors, it's no surprise modern superhero films are all about losing relevance and fighting against villains with matching powersets and robotic armies.

Appropriately enough, the breakout character from last year was Deadpool - the one guy clearly unconcerned with protecting the world or enforcing justice or whatnot, merely looking for love and a good cosmetic service, and finding he doesn't even need the latter all that much. He broke the dam, so to speak, in that it's become clear people go to superhero films for the fights and quips, rather than the deep dramas of superpowered special snowflakes supposedly saving society. With Deadpool's creator signing for a cinematic universe of his own, you can expect more films where even superpowers don't elevate or separate the capes from ordinary people. Good for the mass market, I'd wager, but very bad for the elitist comic crowd that still bandwagons the idea that such heroes are universally awful compared to their preferred brands.

edited 8th Jan '17 11:41:58 PM by indiana404

That seems to be the direction that Logan is going to go in, if significantly darker in tone than Deadpool was. I don't know that Deadpool indicates any kind of shift in public tastes so much as simply a realization that some super-heroes (or costumed super powered characters, anyhow) can work in popcorn action movies. I wouldn't mind seeing, say, Plastic Man in a funny romp of a movie. Deadpool, I think, goes back to what I said earlier in that he's a motivational everyman; he doesn't really have much in the way of significant goals. His power-set really serves to make him a live-action Itchy and Scratchy cartoon, so he works beautifully for the material they design for him (though, actually, he'd probably be even funnier if he didn't have his mercenary skills, but had to rely solely on his healing factor). But it's a bit of a misnomer to call his film a super-hero film, because he's not a super-hero. He's great for what he is, but, like, say, Ambush Bug, a hero he ain't. He's mostly a walking parody of the super-hero genre.

In most cases, too, I don't think hard-won skills really make a character particularly relatable to most people. Sure it's more within the realm of actual possibility, but most people still see kung-fu or commando training or brilliant swordsmanship or being able to play the piano in roughly the same class as super powers; it reads more or less the same way to them (as in, something they can't do). It's why people still talk about "talent" when talent is usually composed of a whole lot of hard work. As far as Batman is concerned, again, I feel it's his motives (revenge for his murdered parents) that people find relatable (again, making him a motivational everyman)—and his dark, intense persona that makes him popular— rather than his skills and tools, which again might as well be super-powers as far as most people are concerned.

edited 9th Jan '17 8:16:21 AM by Robbery

I agree about talent being an overused term with not much relevance to actual skill acquisition. Being Brilliant, but Lazy or Unskilled, but Strong is a very frequent shortcut even for non-supernatural skills. Not only does it feed the aforementioned secret power fantasy, but it's also easy for writers to abuse for cookie-cutter stories about the protagonist learning To Be a Master at the skill in question. When was the last time you saw a shonen series about a Weak, but Skilled kid whose master focuses on strength training? I mean, if they ever make one, it'll probably be called Rock Lee: Shippuden, but until that glorious day, we're stuck with hot-blooded bruisers getting scolded for being too brash and unrestrained... because if they weren't, the designated wise teacher would have no purpose.

I also would agree that Deadpool is more of a parody than anything else. My point is that his popularity implies certain things about the appeal of the superhero genre as a whole. For that matter, Logan himself is rather popular, while remaining an everyman in terms of motivation. In a lot of aspects, he's a modern day Conan, a wandering warrior usually with no higher goals than the next beer. What makes him interesting however, is that he, like Conan, can still do the right thing with some convincing. He just can't be guilt-tripped into it.

As for Batman, I'd draw a comparison between him and the Punisher, in that Batman's tragic backstory serves mostly to drive his personal drama... and has been milked beyond belief ever since someone transplanted his TDKR persona into the present day, conflating dead sidekick with dead parents as an excuse to mope in perpetuity. For the Punisher, however, his motivation is a means to an end - the end being, well, the end for the vast majority of criminals crossing his path. It's this sort of brutally conclusive endgame that resonates with audiences watching straightforward vigilante flicks and series. Meanwhile, Batman attracts the jerkass woobie fandom, but personally, I got sick of his pathological aversion to actually get something done about Gotham's criminal problem. His motives are inconsequential - he doesn't want to end crime, he wants to die fighting it, and a melodramatic suicide isn't high on my reading list.

Well, I'd say that's an accurate assessment of Batman since The Dark Knight Returns. It gets a bit confusing when I try to discuss Batman with people, as they are (understandably) generally referring to current Batman while I'm talking about O'Neill/ Adams and Wein/ Englehardt/ Rogers Batman, a guy who was trying to improve Gotham in a practical sense through the Wayne Foundation, on the understanding that improved opportunity and living conditions would likely go a long way towards combatting crime (when was the last time anyone mentioned that side of the character in the comics? He is supposed to be a "billionaire philanthropist.").

I think you delve into more complex territory with Superman, who can be an everyman depending on how the writer choses to portray him. If, as has been the case through most of the character's history, you're of the opinion that the Clark Kent persona is a mask, then I'd say no, he isn't at all, he's a complete changeling fantasy. If, however, Clark Kent is a real aspect of his character, say "Superman at Rest" or some such, whose personal motives are no more than living his life as best he can unless his other side is needed, then I'd say he does have something of the everyman about him. It's a shame that Clark Kent generally gets such short shrift these days, as I think portrayals of Superman suffer from a lack of development for Clark Kent.

edited 9th Jan '17 9:32:15 AM by Robbery

I might just be speaking for myself here, but I find relatability far more in thought processes than skills. Take for example Dawn Of War: you could occasionally control Imperial Guard squads in the first campaign and they were promoted into a full army in the expansions. Despite having largely the same effectiveness in each, I found myself rooting and feeling protective for the ones in the first campaign more than the ones where you "officially" control them because of the different dialogue. I found the desperation of the former more compelling, and paradoxically more badass ("we'll make it through this, I know it."), than the unflappable attitude of the later.

Hell, another example, Frozen Depths, barely has a story; but I sympathized with the player character because he or she would be executed if they failed. Little things like that can make a difference.

I agree with the thought process a whole lot. I think that a lot of people confuse the external identifiers of what makes an individual relatable than with the internal identifiers. Like if you have a generic man who has no thoughts or feeling on anything, like the world being destroyed, aliens being real the whole time, or almost fricking dying, the audience will relate a lot less with him than the alien princess who actually gives a shit when something happens. "Oh no, my friend has died right in front of me! I feel so angry and sad and-" "When can I get back to work? This is obviously a waste of time." If you go overboard on the Angst?What Angst? and Nerves of Steel then we have a character who we might want to be, but is completely unrelatable. Arthur Dent is relatable specifically because he acts exactly how a human might when his home is destroyed- twice. Not everyone would lie in front of construction equipment, and some people may fully realize their planet being destroyed- Arthur doesn't spend the rest of the book in depression only because he can't conceptualize everything he has known being gone- but it's precisely the fact that he has reactions that he seems human. Other characters are weird for having weird reactions, but having no reactions is the strangest.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there has to be some sort of emotional base so if the main character isn't you, he's at least your best friend.