We talked a lot in class about different heroes and what they had achieved to deserve the title hero. This left me with a burning question, what exactly does it mean to be a hero? It is a term
we often apply, but rarely take the time to digest and analyze. To start I would like to examine the function
of the hero. First and foremost the hero
is a role model whom we choose to take as our exemplar. The hero inspires us to follow in their path
and to adopt their qualities and characteristics into our own lives. In acting as this role model they become the
protagonist of their story. (that being
said I do not think all protagonists are heroes, simply that all heroes are
protagonists) The hero is the character
in whom we invest ourselves, and cheer on to victory or the fulfillment of
their aims. As the protagonist the hero
takes on a key role within the story, serving as a focal point around which the
narrative can develop. In fact the
narrative is on its most basic level a story about the hero or heroes and their
struggle. Because the hero is the focal
point of the story we gain an understanding of the world from their
perspective. As beings who have limited
knowledge (last I checked none of us were omniscient, if you are I have some
questions) we are also beings of limited perspective. In taking on the perspective of the hero they
become our access point into the world of the story which has been created for
us. Because we experience the story from
the hero perspective it is only natural that we build and develop sympathy with
the character which draws us deeper into the plot. (I should take a moment to clarify that by
perspective I don’t literally mean first person perspective, but even following
these characters through a third person narrator still limits our perspective
of the world to what these characters experience.) This sympathy is what enables us to elevate
the character to that of role model. We
see the heroes and the qualities which the exemplify, we admire them for those
qualities, and through sympathy we attempt to sublimate those qualities into
our own existence. But why should we do
this? Why is the hero necessarily a role
model?
Essential
to the figure of the hero is the context in which he/she exists; namely
conflict. As obvious as it is for me to
state, heroes require a conflict, or a struggle, in which they can be
challenged. This challenge provides the
hero the opportunity to demonstrate his qualities in undertaking a particular
struggle, and it is these qualities which we admire and laud them for. It is nonetheless and interesting fact that a
hero must exist in the context of conflict.
Even those heroes who embody tranquility and peace do so in the context
of conflict. Take the Buddha for example;
he is the embodiment of compassion, non-violence, and the serene tranquility of
perfect peace. However even these
qualities are only achieved through his struggle with daily life and his
attempt to find meaning in the world. He
must overcome many challenges before he can attain enlightenment. The fact that conflict and struggle are at
the center of the hero narrative is critical for understanding why they fulfill
the role model function.
They
act as our guide as how to deal with struggle and conflict, and show us how to persevere
through difficulty. On the one hand
conflict is simply a critical element of a good story, because without it the
story would be dull and not at all compelling.
However I think it also gets at one of the central anxieties of being
human. As people we live in a world of
conflict and struggle and we all face our own challenges every day. Heroes act as exemplars who help us struggle
through, who give us a sense of how to act or comport ourselves. They give us an ideal towards which to
strive.
There
are as many different kinds of heroes are there are different kinds of
people. People will construct the hero
which is most suited to their time and place.
The perfect example of this is the contrast between the selfless hero
and the selfish hero. The Lord of the Rings
heroes are all perfect examples of selfless heroes who battle evil at great
personal sacrifice, and routinely putting their lives in danger in order to
serve the common cause. This
selflessness is characteristic of the ideal Christian hero. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for
the greater ‘salvation’ of their world. The
fact that hobbits play such a central role reinforces this idea. After all it is the meek who shall inherit
the earth, and the lowest may rise up to challenge the mightiest of foes.
This is in stark contrast to what I
will here call ‘selfish’ heroes, who act not out of a desire to help others but
rather for their own glory and self-interest.
Beowulf is I think a good example of this, challenging and defeating
monsters for his own personal advancement and glory. That being said I haven’t actually read the entirety
of Beowulf, so I will instead refer to Achilles who I believe is also a selfish
hero. He fights for glory and the desire
to be remembered throughout eternity.
Achilles refuses to fight once Agamemnon slights him, refusing to serve
a king who shows him so little respect and who clearly views Achilles with
contempt. It is then Achilles’ selfish
desire for revenge which gets him to fight again. Who does revenge serve if not Achilles? Revenge is an inherently selfish act carried
out in order to achieve personal satisfaction.
Achilles is clearly an extraordinarily selfish character and yet he is
the poster boy for ancient Greek heroes, embodying their ideal of the strong
warrior who seeks out fame and glory. The
point I am trying make with this is that heroes will reflect the ideals of
their time, but these ideals are not static.
So if you wish to understand the virtues and ideals of a particular time
and place, it is best to examine what qualities can be found in their heroes.-Blake Alex
2 comments:
Dear Alex,
I agree with your overall assertion that the nature and characteristics of a hero reflect those that the society in which they are honored holds as an ideal. I would like to bring up an interesting example of this phenomenon which skirts the outside of some of the smaller arguments you made on the way to this conclusion.
By this I mean Boromir. I first thought of him when you brought up the distinction between selfish and selfless heroes by contrasting the Lord of the Rings’s heroes with Beowulf and Achilles. Boromir presents a problem in this context as he fails to fit nicely into either of these categories. While a member of the Fellowship and, thereby technically acting selflessly, his ultimate goal is not to save Middle Earth but to rescue his people from destruction. He comes to Rivendell. It is true that Gondor has stood as the bulwark against Mordor and in saving it, he is saving the world, but that is not what matters to him. Not only does Boromir want to save his people, he wants to be the one to do it. It is this desire for glory that the Ring uses to make him wish to use it as a weapon. Such selfishness is very similar to that which you ascribe to Achilles. Boromir does have a redemptive moment, however, when he tries to save Merry and Pippin from capture. Here he acts not for himself, but for them and, ultimately, gives his life trying to protect theirs. Such an act cannot but be called selfless. Additionally, he is widely regarded as a hero by the Gondorians, who see him as selflessly putting his life on the line for them every day of the long years of the war.
It is this last point that ties so closely with your main argument. Boromir is a hero to Gondor because he represents the very ideals that they have come to value. Many other characters in the Lord of the Rings have done the same for their own peoples. So I would like to modify your point slightly by changing “heroes will reflect the ideals of their time” to “of their time a place”.
Jeff Nocton
Thanks, Blake. This is a good, if generic, discussion of the hero-protagonist. It'd have been stronger with specific reference to some of the hero-candidates that Tolkien gives us. But still an interesting read. —Bill the Heliotrope
Post a Comment