This article raises some fascinating points about the essential role of heroes in earlier generations vs. today.
It made me think of how the musical "Epic" approaches the hero story of Odysseus through a modern, "post-hero" lens. "Epic" largely concerns itself with the moral quandaries of mercy vs. ruthlessness, of how a life of violently fighting against his foes changes and scars Odysseus and his crew. But the original Homeric poem doesn't tackle any of these modern moral questions. Back then, it was a fundamental understanding of society that the world was full of people and monsters and elements trying to kill you, that men were supposed to be warriors, and that warriors fought and killed and tricked and outwitted their opponents, and were to be lauded and celebrated for their courage and heroics.
I'm very grateful that we no longer live in a world requiring every man to regularly fight to defend his town and village. But we do need a return to celebrating and lauding heroic qualities.
The ‘knight in shining armor’ trope was already satirized back at the start of the 17th century with Don Quixote. It’s a shame, really, but worse if ever the type of hero story should be limited, regardless of the age. I vote for both, crusaders and pilgrims.
Fascinating reframing of the hero story problem. The shift from courage to power/competence as core virtues really nails why modern heroes feel so hollow. I think the pilgrim tale angle deserves more attention, especially since moral courage (standing up when it costs something personally) is still incredibly scarce today. The courtly love tradition link is clever too, though dunno if romance readers are looking for redemption arcs as much as escapism from bureacratic drudgery.
For story purposes, at least, I think we have to make a distinction between virtuous and heroic. For story purposes, you generally want some moment of crisis where the risks are high to create the clear heroic moment. Steady, life-long, virtuous, self-giving behavior does not necessarily produce such moments. (Which is why most adventure stories are about men, since steady, life-long, virtuous, self-giving behavior is more characteristic of women than men.)
In life we do tend to call all such self-giving behavior heroic, which is perfectly fair. But in story terms the structure of a heroic tale demands something more bold, a moment of extreme danger. It is worth noting that whistleblowers are often secondary characters in fiction, protected by the hero rather than being then hero.
That said, there are other motives for the activities you mention. Crusading environmentalists are often attention seeking rather than pursuing any kind of rational policy change. Lawyers often do pro-bono work as a form of PR, never risking either their lives or their fortunes. The motives of pro-life councilors are much less mixed, but again, their activity is quiet and steady. It does not have the profile of a hero story.
Ultimately, stories simplify reality. There is a well-defined shape to the action and characters tend to be much more simple and clear in their motives. It is hard to map story tropes onto people in real life. Their lives can be much more random and their motives can be much more mixed.
Definitely an interesting question. I think I tend to agree that society needs heroes, but realistically speaking, heroes as we use them in fiction don't truly exist. Or maybe rarely exist. Real life is more complicated than there is good and there is bad. I've not seen much, if any, of that show "The Boys", but it is my understanding that Homelander is beloved of the masses and seen as a hero when in reality he is the opposite.
Life is a lot like that.
This is probably the historian in me, but nuance matters. I can say that Wyatt Earp was heroic in that is avenged his brother's death at the hands of the Clantons, and I can also say that he was a cheater at cards, a bad husband, and murder working outside the law. Bad people CAN do good things, and Good people CAN do bad things. Idolizing real and complex people as heroes leads to...issues...
In FICTION, however, we have a different story (see what I did there?).
I do believe there is a dire need to return to the idea of heroes in fiction, and I actually think we are seeing that movement. Fiction can provide ideals to strive for while being realistically complex or unreaslistically less complex. As a teen, fiction went throught this "Dark and Gritty" phase which produced the best Batman movie ever made, but little else. I think maybe we've seen the death of Dark and Gritty with Snyder's DC movies being laid to rest.
There is also the whole "world saving" problem, in that I personally don't care at all about saving the world in fiction anymore. Likely a byproduct of reading far too many Pulp short stories, I NEED my stories to have lower, more personal stakes. I need heroics I can relate to.
I just finished a story called "The Cure" by JD Newcom in a 1930 issue of Adventure (writing a post about it as we speak), and while the main character does accomplish something martially heroic, he also humbles himself in the process. I will likely never fight a pitched battle against Berbers on horseback, but I can recognize and strive toward the heroic ideal of being humble and not exaggerating my accomplishments.
The real world will forever be complicated and will likely grow more-so. If approaching individuals honestly and thoroughly, the idea of a true "Hero" living on planet Earth right now likley has no exemplar. If it does, we don't know who they are. I'd much rather my fiction provide tanglible, relateable examples of heroics (packaged in two-fisted adventure) that I can strive for in my life. That's where fiction excels.
This has grown long and is rambling, so I'll stop. Hopefully my point comes across.
This article raises some fascinating points about the essential role of heroes in earlier generations vs. today.
It made me think of how the musical "Epic" approaches the hero story of Odysseus through a modern, "post-hero" lens. "Epic" largely concerns itself with the moral quandaries of mercy vs. ruthlessness, of how a life of violently fighting against his foes changes and scars Odysseus and his crew. But the original Homeric poem doesn't tackle any of these modern moral questions. Back then, it was a fundamental understanding of society that the world was full of people and monsters and elements trying to kill you, that men were supposed to be warriors, and that warriors fought and killed and tricked and outwitted their opponents, and were to be lauded and celebrated for their courage and heroics.
I'm very grateful that we no longer live in a world requiring every man to regularly fight to defend his town and village. But we do need a return to celebrating and lauding heroic qualities.
The ‘knight in shining armor’ trope was already satirized back at the start of the 17th century with Don Quixote. It’s a shame, really, but worse if ever the type of hero story should be limited, regardless of the age. I vote for both, crusaders and pilgrims.
Fascinating reframing of the hero story problem. The shift from courage to power/competence as core virtues really nails why modern heroes feel so hollow. I think the pilgrim tale angle deserves more attention, especially since moral courage (standing up when it costs something personally) is still incredibly scarce today. The courtly love tradition link is clever too, though dunno if romance readers are looking for redemption arcs as much as escapism from bureacratic drudgery.
Do you see whistleblowers as modern heroes or outcasts? Crusading environmentalists, lawyers giving their all for justice? Pro-life counsellors?
For story purposes, at least, I think we have to make a distinction between virtuous and heroic. For story purposes, you generally want some moment of crisis where the risks are high to create the clear heroic moment. Steady, life-long, virtuous, self-giving behavior does not necessarily produce such moments. (Which is why most adventure stories are about men, since steady, life-long, virtuous, self-giving behavior is more characteristic of women than men.)
In life we do tend to call all such self-giving behavior heroic, which is perfectly fair. But in story terms the structure of a heroic tale demands something more bold, a moment of extreme danger. It is worth noting that whistleblowers are often secondary characters in fiction, protected by the hero rather than being then hero.
That said, there are other motives for the activities you mention. Crusading environmentalists are often attention seeking rather than pursuing any kind of rational policy change. Lawyers often do pro-bono work as a form of PR, never risking either their lives or their fortunes. The motives of pro-life councilors are much less mixed, but again, their activity is quiet and steady. It does not have the profile of a hero story.
Ultimately, stories simplify reality. There is a well-defined shape to the action and characters tend to be much more simple and clear in their motives. It is hard to map story tropes onto people in real life. Their lives can be much more random and their motives can be much more mixed.
Definitely an interesting question. I think I tend to agree that society needs heroes, but realistically speaking, heroes as we use them in fiction don't truly exist. Or maybe rarely exist. Real life is more complicated than there is good and there is bad. I've not seen much, if any, of that show "The Boys", but it is my understanding that Homelander is beloved of the masses and seen as a hero when in reality he is the opposite.
Life is a lot like that.
This is probably the historian in me, but nuance matters. I can say that Wyatt Earp was heroic in that is avenged his brother's death at the hands of the Clantons, and I can also say that he was a cheater at cards, a bad husband, and murder working outside the law. Bad people CAN do good things, and Good people CAN do bad things. Idolizing real and complex people as heroes leads to...issues...
In FICTION, however, we have a different story (see what I did there?).
I do believe there is a dire need to return to the idea of heroes in fiction, and I actually think we are seeing that movement. Fiction can provide ideals to strive for while being realistically complex or unreaslistically less complex. As a teen, fiction went throught this "Dark and Gritty" phase which produced the best Batman movie ever made, but little else. I think maybe we've seen the death of Dark and Gritty with Snyder's DC movies being laid to rest.
There is also the whole "world saving" problem, in that I personally don't care at all about saving the world in fiction anymore. Likely a byproduct of reading far too many Pulp short stories, I NEED my stories to have lower, more personal stakes. I need heroics I can relate to.
I just finished a story called "The Cure" by JD Newcom in a 1930 issue of Adventure (writing a post about it as we speak), and while the main character does accomplish something martially heroic, he also humbles himself in the process. I will likely never fight a pitched battle against Berbers on horseback, but I can recognize and strive toward the heroic ideal of being humble and not exaggerating my accomplishments.
The real world will forever be complicated and will likely grow more-so. If approaching individuals honestly and thoroughly, the idea of a true "Hero" living on planet Earth right now likley has no exemplar. If it does, we don't know who they are. I'd much rather my fiction provide tanglible, relateable examples of heroics (packaged in two-fisted adventure) that I can strive for in my life. That's where fiction excels.
This has grown long and is rambling, so I'll stop. Hopefully my point comes across.