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

The Poll

[tigerstriped86.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...for most of them I had a hard time choosing an answer.
The only that seemed obvious to me was Spike in Buffy Season 4.
I knew as he exclaimed "I Can Fight Again!" that it was all about bashing peoples heads in and being on one "side" or the other didn't matter to him so much. As long as he got some fun.

During the last two seasons, they softened his character (for the sake of the Spuffy storylines-ick) and tried to make an anti-hero into a folk hero. A combo which clashed for me.

As for the Torchwood team?
Well, the whole point of Jack Harkness' character is someone who goes from being a con to a coward to becoming a hero. In some sense, he plays by rules in a time we haven't come to yet where rules are different (in essence either a hero or folk hero). Since he was described also as "Doctor Who's muscle and guns"-by none other than JB or RTD (can't remember which), he could also be made out as an anti-hero.

For the rest of the "Hubbies", I see a very folk hero attitude with some underlying issues about imprisonment/torture. Is it possible that it's supposed to be ambiguous? What is good for humanity? Subsequently, how many eggs do you have to break to get that omelet?

Jack Bauer? Jack went from hero to folk hero (like Billie Jean except with more guns and government involvement).

Re: The Poll

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

it was all about bashing peoples heads in and being on one "side" or the other didn't matter to him
That is absolutely true, at that moment he is pure villain still. What I find interesting is tracking his gradual change, eg when he takes a shotgun to kill Buffy and ends up comforting her instead. You say you didn't like the spuffy story arc? *g* I kind of agree with you, I find the inception of that arc difficult to accept, but it became a major tool for change in Spike, Buffy and even in Giles, so it was fruitful. Spike's difficulty in understanding what makes a good act is fascinating. He doesn't actually have an understanding. In Crush there is a conversation between Willow, Buffy and Tara about Quasimodo which is wonderful because it directly explains Spike and his relationship with Buffy. But in season 7, when he had a soul, I think the rules of the Buffy-verse meant that at that point he did have a moral compass and was no longer a villain.

he plays by rules in a time we haven't come to yet where rules are different
That's interesting, because I got the impression from Capt John, that they didn't play by any rules, not really, when they worked together.

Is it possible that it's supposed to be ambiguous?
Yes, that is it, for me. It is easy with clear cut presentation, but when ambiguity is added, when motives and outcomes are not clear, the story stops being a 50s comic book and becomes something much more like life, where issues are not straight forward and the shades of grey almost obliterate the black and white.

I mentioned Jack Bauer because he was mentioned in the discussion that inspired this post, but I actually only watched season 1. In that season he was a straight up hero. From what I heard, he has been forced to compromise his principles so many times now, that he no longer plays by the common rules of society, but will do what ever it takes to win. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, I'm not sure what kind of hero he is.

Thank you for joining in this discussion.