The consequence dilemma

[Urdont]

So here I was putting off going to sleep and reading a pretty mediocre novel, what it is matters not, what matters is that it was an action oriented fantasy type and the mc just got trapped into a fight with a big boss he had no chance against and once he realized he can't escape used a magic item that holds a lot of mana, he obviously didn't handle it and was either about to die by mana explosion or by baddie and then he heard a voice in his head "You fucked up, there will be consequences for it", I rolled my eyes really hard and went to prepare to sleep.

But then I kept thinking about and just had a random thought on the matter, I guess writers are kinda fucked either way in these types of works, after all if your novel is action oriented then if you want the upgrades to the mc and the fights to feel impactful you have to actually make them feel like the mc might lose or even have him lose sometimes or just be a VERY good writer (but we all know how rare THAT is) and here we come to the crux of my point:
If you want to have the mc in a losing scenario you either have to pull something out of your ass to save him or have real consequences for his loss or near loss, why pulling something out of your ass is an issue is obvious and anyone interested can read about "deus ex machina" , that's very much not my topic of choice here, so, why then so many authors resort to deus exes?

That's the thought I had, because otherwise, you have to actually have meaningful impact on the mc, in some kind of weakening or loss, maybe lose a hand, maybe lose emotion, gradual demonization, whatever, but, what then?
Either you went the full road and your mc is forever weakened and is less able to deal with the world and you have to have him power back up anyway, or you have an mc who is an emotionless psycho or an actual demon and that's actually interesting choice but not what most readers came for, or you just wave away the loss by giving him a new mechanical hand, somehow hand waving away the loss of emotion and etc which brings us back to the initial point of no meaningful consequences but with a delay.

So however they turn writers are fucked, all roads lead to Rome unless you are doing one of those niche themes where the mc just... dies in the end or something similar which rarely works either (I still remember reading Robin Hobbs "The assassin's apprentice" series and just quitting at some point because that was just bloody masochism).

So yeah, maybe not the most coherent of posts but I am curious if anyone has an opinion on it.

 

[Andy333]

Every good hero needs a loss. One of the hard parts about writing is taking that loss and using it to change the main character. Its a key pillar of the heroes journey that the hero loses something so they can learn the lesson they need to kill the main bad guy so they become the hero they need to be.

 

[Urdont]

Every good hero needs a loss. One of the hard parts about writing is taking that loss and using it to change the main character. Its a key pillar of the heroes journey that the hero loses something so they can learn the lesson they need to kill the main bad guy so they become the hero they need to be.

Click to shrink...

Sure but it's almost always a one time thing and more psychological, the impetus for the start of the journey, the turning point that makes him realize something, etc.

It isn't losing to bandits and losing a hand forever so to say.

I know I am explaining it pretty confusingly, but basically the author can't allow a loss or consequence for that mc that will have him stop being that mc so to say.