On the definitions of a hero - teal deer warning or, OMG I did meta, plus a poll

[thismaz]

peasant_ got me thinking about what makes a hero. Then DJ and I were sitting at the kitchen table the other night (as we do) and, as happens, the thinking developed further. The following are our thoughts on the definition of heroes. I think it stands alone.

Oh, and there's a poll at the end.



ETA: And damn, I just realised I missed one of the options off John Hart, so you can't choose to designate him a villain. Sorry.

Originally, before we got too organised and civilised, there was the concept of the hero, who, to avoid confusion, I'm going to call the folk hero for the rest of this piece. He was a supporter of his people - the person who would fight and die to defend his people. But in a civilised and organised world, the larger political system borrowed the concept of the hero and applied it to the support of the state, so the hero concept was corrupted to become the person who supported the state and fought to uphold it.

In the cinema and popular novels, up until about the 50s, the heroes took this civilised form - conformist to the morals and mores of society. In addition, the hero was an absolutist and an idealist, who would not compromise his ideals and would stand and fight and die for the honour of it, because the state or the ideal was ultimately more important than winning. It is a trait of 'Society' that it requires conformity and it can even corrupt people in order to maintain that.

The folk hero was never a conformist. The folk hero was the person who was brave enough to sacrifice themselves for the people he cared about, but it was personal.

Then the Anti-Hero was invented - a man (because lets face it, it was always a man) who acted with a moral code of his own, but broke the rules of society. However it was not until the 60s or 70s that you could have the bank robber be a good man, who was allowed to get away with it (before that, I'm told there was actually a rule against it in Hollywood). The anti-hero was created because of the new concept that society itself could be wrong. The anti-hero was allowed to break the rules, in order to do what was right.

The rise of the anti-hero was possibly fuelled by the desire to regain the original concept of the hero (the folk hero), which was possible because it was all fiction, so we were safe to enjoy the hero, without threatening the stability of society.

A villain can possibly develop and earn their place as an anti-hero, but they rarely become a hero. However, nowadays the dividing line between hero and anti-hero is very blurred.

This new Robin Hood is interesting because he has both hero and anti-hero traits. It is made clear in the first episode that Robin won't kill (a very absolute and ideal determination, that sets him up as a hero). But later the writers had to invent the idea that Prince John would raze Nottingham if the Sheriff was killed, in order to explain why Robin wouldn't kill him, because by then he has become pragmatic enough to realise that it would be the sensible thing to do.

The modern hero is the intelligent hero who realises that if he is always bound by the rules, but the villains aren't, then he can never win. And he needs to win, in order to save his people. So he thinks about what is really important and he becomes a pragmatist, still motivated by the ideal, but recognising that breaking the rules is sometimes necessary. It becomes a matter of motivation. The hero's dilemma is, therefore, always having to make the judgment about how far he can break the rules to further the mission, while still maintaining his integrity. He has returned to the original idea of the folk hero.

A villain is not an anti-hero. The villain gains his power from the freedom to do whatever he wants. The hero, regardless of flavour, is always constrained by a code.

I haven't watched 24 since season 1, but from what I've heard, Jack Bauer's ideals and integrity have been corrupted and he has taken onboard that the ends justify the means. But is he still a hero, because he is doing it in defence of the city state, against outsiders?

Robin Hood is a hero of some sort - he won't break his own ethical code and he is defending 'his people' against the city state, while waiting for the King (the embodiment of the state) to return and put everything right. But he is breaking the rules of the state in the meantime. If the anti-hero is seen as a return to the concept of the folk hero, Robin, by this measure, could be possibly be classed as an anti-hero?

There is no doubt that the Sherriff is a villain, he is gleeful in his lack of concern for anyone but himself. Guy of Guisbourne is also a villain, weakly following The Sheriff's lead and doing what he is told. Captain John Hart is not supporting any people or structures, he's also totally out for himself. I would say that he is clearly a villain. But if he joins TW, can he become an anti-hero by taking up a cause and fighting for something bigger than himself? A bit like Guy. As peasant_ said, a lot of the last series of Robin Hood was about whether Guy could be redeemed, or not.

Personally, I think that John Constantine is a perfect example of an anti-hero.

Most modern heroes have aspects of the folk hero, the city state hero and the anti-hero in their make up.

So is Jack Harkness a hero or an anti-hero?

In season 4, was Spike still a villain? He was compliant with the scoobies, but only through necessity. In seasons 5 and 6, when he fell in love, was he a villain or an anti-hero? What about in season 7, when he had a soul?

Here's a thought - Perhaps the most perfect, as in the purest, incarnation of the anti-hero of recent times, has got to be Captain Sparrow, because he is clearly neither a villain nor a hero, but he is the one who makes things happen and makes it all work out right. Yes? No? Sorta? By contrast Will Turner is clearly the hero, which is why he and not Jack Sparrow has to be the one to get the girl, at the end.

So, having laid out my views and my uncertainties, a poll:

Which of the options do you think applies best to each of the characters. You can choose more than one if you feel more than one applies.

[Poll #1128056]

Comments

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

I'm on the villainy-side with TW because they seem too much like the Initiative to be any kind of heroes.
Anyone who thinks its okay to keep a Weevil in a bare cell with no environmental enrichment is a villain in my book.
And torturing someone who doesn't know they're a sleeper is not okay.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting comparison. I take your point about the weevil prison. As for the torture, it could be argued that they had her consent? Although, she didn't necessarily know the extent of what she was consenting to.
Thank you for voting and taking the time to comment.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

As for the torture, it could be argued that they had her consent? Although, she didn't necessarily know the extent of what she was consenting to.

... and Gwen told her Jack would do it whether she went quietly or not.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

She did.
I saw a trailer for the film Rendition the other day. It troubled me, even as I felt some disgust at the band wagon-iness of it (because it seemed, from the trailer, to do no more than exploit and play on easy emotions). But that was the dilemma the writers were exploring with in that episode of TW - that governments do things that cross many commonly agreed ethical lines, in order to prevent a greater evil. It was a straight application of what I said above - The hero's dilemma is, therefore, always having to make the judgment about how far he can break the rules to further the mission, while still maintaining his integrity.
The fact that the victim of the torture was as desperate as the TW team to know what was going on, and ultimately decided to die in order to remain human, to stay on the TW team's side in the battle, provides a post-event justification for their actions. But ultimately, Jack was convinced she was a sleeper and he made the judgement call to use any method necessary to discover the truth. If it had turned out she was human, they would no doubt have retconned her and the torture would have gone from her memory, which raises a whole different issue. But there would have been no story there, so she had to fail the test.
The interesting thing to me here was the reactions of the rest of the team - like the subjects in the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, they went along with Jack's decision. They stood around looking troubled, but Tosh turned up the dials and Gwen's protest was only a token one, designed to salve her own conscience.
But that doesn't make them villains. It makes the human, weak maybe, but human.
Jack was the motivating force. Jack took the decision to apply the mind probe. Jack weighed the results against the cost and decided it was worth it.
The thing I would like to see is the cost of that decision and its aftermath, explored further in the series. I kind of hope it will, but I doubt it.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

If it had turned out she was human, they would no doubt have retconned her and the torture would have gone from her memory, which raises a whole different issue.

The Willow and Tara issue!

Gwen's protest was only a token one, designed to salve her own conscience.

Well, yes - she's supposed to be the heart of the team, but they usually ignore it and listen to the head. I find Gwen irritating in her concerns most of the time, but when they matter, she doesn't win the argument.

The thing I would like to see is the cost of that decision and its aftermath, explored further in the series. I kind of hope it will, but I doubt it.

Me too - this ain't Buffy.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

The Willow and Tara issue!
Exactly!

I find Gwen irritating in her concerns most of the time, but when they matter, she doesn't win the argument
I know what you mean, but she, or someone with her values, needs to be there to provide that perspective. But if she'd won the argument, they wouldn't have found out the crucial bit of information to save the world, so... *shrugs*
I actually like Gwen, much of the time. Her role is to be the human of the team and the writers sometimes over do it, but I enjoyed her being all in charge at the beginning of the first episode. It was nice to see some of her inner steel emphasised.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

I think what I'm really objecting to with TW is that it's supposed to be a spin-off of Dr Who, and Jack is there supposedly (I think he said) because he's doing it for the Doctor, while going against pretty much all of the Doctor's principles apart from "protect earth". The Doctor would so bitch-slap him if he saw him torturing anyone, for whatever reason. If it had been a show that just came out of the woodwork, I'd probably have just accepted that this is the ethos of the show, and not watched it. But it's connected to DW so I have to watch it.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

I find it difficult to relate the new DW to the old one of my childhood. They are such different shows. The new one suits my adult tastes much better, but it seems to me that it has very little in common with the old DW, except for the idea of the main character and the TARDIS.
The new Doctor is a much harsher person than the old. One who will also torture, or at least inflict pain, in order to get the information he needs. I'm trying to come up with an example, but I don't know the show well enough, yet, to quote episodes. All I can see in my head is David Tennant, with his teeth gritted into almost a grin as he twists something, somewhere, in a way that is painful to the creature being twisted. Was it at the school under siege? Or on the space ship that was heading into the star? Or something to do with the aliens who took over Downing Street? *shakes head* I can't connect the memory to an actual event.
Maybe I'm wrong.

going against pretty much all of the Doctor's principles apart from "protect earth".
Hmmm. *thinks* Well, if he didn't have a different attitude, it wouldn't be a different show. Jack needs to be very different from the Doctor, in order for TW not to be a clone. That is actually one of the things I like about it.
It would be tempting to draw comparisons with Buffy and Angel, as the more adult and darker spin off from the original kids show, but that wouldn't be fair to TW, because Angel and Buffy were not really different, not essentially. Angel didn't break new ground, it just put a darker twist on exactly the same values as BtVS did. I loved both those shows, I have the DVDs of the entire run of each, but basically Angel was a spin-off, it didn't really break any new ground.
I think TW is much more interesting in that respect. It really is taking a different look at the world.