Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Funny. I had this same discussion with a friend two days ago. We mostly argued about whether the death of the hero necessarily strengthened a narrative and that thus the strongest narratives must kill the hero. I argued that it was the case, my friend disagreed. In the course of this we needed to agree on the definition of a hero. My friend tried to argue that heroes are defined by their morality and that the best narrative is the one that is the most educational or entertaining. My definition of a hero follows below, and I argued that the best narrative is the one with the most memetic staying power, prevalence and influence.
Now, here's the definition of hero that I came up with:
The hero must have a key quality that elevates him above common people or characters. Whether this quality is intrinsic or not does not matter; dedication to a cause counts as well a great intelligence or courage.
The hero must develop this quality to the greatest degree possible. This needs to be an active pursuit, a hero who is merely granted such powers by others is of lesser quality.
The hero will only prove to have truly given everything in pursuit of that quality by dying in that pursuit. An accidental or unrelated death disqualifies, as does dying of old age.
It's a little circular in the context of the debate mentioned above, but I think it bears out. Perhaps characters can be heroic who do not fulfill these three points, but they will always be lesser heroes next to those who do. We applied these metrics to a large number of known fictional and historical figures and the following are some of the results:
Achilles: Prototypic hero, full match.
Hector: Same.
Ajax: Killed himself when he lost a bet, nope.
Diomedes: His powers were externally granted. He survived. Nope.
Odysseus: Too lazy. Survived. Nope.
Herakles: A cheap, lower class of hero, partial match at best.
Alexander the Great: Mostly heroic in life, certainly heroic in later narratives.
Hannibal: Sort of, depends a lot on unknown details.
Caesar: Depends entirely on the narrative.
Emperor Frederick Barbarossa: Neither in life nor in narrative.
Hitler: Depends on how you evaluate his suicide.
Darth Vader: Probably a hero.
Superman: Not a hero.
Harry Flashman: Not a hero.
Rick Deckard: Possibly heroic, but also possibly just doing his job. Dangerous job though. Actual dedication is hard to determine.
Roy Batty: More heroic than Deckard.
Gordon Freeman: Not a hero.
We didn't discuss the War in the Ukraine, but if I were to attempt to apply these metrics without the tempering effects of someone who disagrees:
Selenski: Did not abandon his post, did not sell out his country to the enemy, but it's entirely unclear whether he is doing so out of actual heroic qualities or simply out of fear of the consequences or out of hopes for some reward. It will probably depend on far he will go, and how he is to die, and what dirty secrets about him we know or will know.
Putin: Actually started the war himself, seemingly to pursue his stated goals, which earns him points. Withstands the vilifications of the western world and is seemingly unswayed by adversity. Unclear whether it really is all by his design or just a comedy of errors. There is heroic potential, but the man is still alive and there is much that may spoil it.
I'm realizing that I made a mistake using the verb form. Everyone seems to be seeing "Hero" as an identity, a lifelong one in your case. You simply can't be a hero without being a hero all of the time. I find that rather unrealistic. I probably should have used language more like "acting heroically" or "capable of heroism."
Probably, yeah. But then again, I probably would've used any phrasing as an excuse to write down my recent thoughts.
To come back to your original question, I think the apple of discord here is that it's too easy to see Selenski as someone who's merely putting on an act since he's an actor or as someone acting out of base motives because he's president of a famously corrupt country or out of a greed for glory and recognition that's mostly regarded as outmoded. Perhaps none of those are true and he's really doing it for his country, maybe all of those are true and he's also doing it for his country while he's at it, it's just potentially very complicated and people generally like their heroes spotless, shiny and clean.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link