As we know, the term hero is thrown around quite a bit in this day and age, often in situations that most would agree don't quite match up to the heroes of old (e.g. role models). However there are also those who are labeled as heroes for a single action, such as saving someone from a fire or from being mugged etc. Not many people would question the heroism of these individuals, and undoubtedly they act with bravery and morality, but how well does this match up with our concept of the literary hero?
In literature, heroic stories often explore themes such as sacrifice, redemption/vengeance, passion, morality, and countless others, but these themes are noticeably lacking from most "real hero narratives" if you will. Saving a civilian in need is rarely premeditated. It is likely not the "climax" of said person's life, nor is it necessarily a pivotal point in their psychological development or journey. The event itself is a story. These "heroes" are very unlike literary heroes who usually set out with a life goal, must endure many hardships and self-sacrifice, and finally emerge victorious, a changed being, and not always for the better. There is an implicit criterion of these heroes where their heroic action cannot be separated from their existence; their goal is their end all be all, their ultimatum. In a sense they personify the ideals and purpose behind their heroic action. Even athletes, who on the surface seem less heroic than the aforementioned good citizens fit much more neatly into the literary hero category, as they possess similar devotedness to their passion.
I usually use "role model" for any real life situations just because most humans at some point commit unheroic acts and are unpredictable compared to literary heroes. I wouldn't say that athletes or someone that saves some else is a hero, but I would definitely say that they commit heroic acts. I feel like the title of hero entails too much, and everyday people can't live up to the standards it sets.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that there's a distinction between being a hero and doing something heroic here. Someone who just saves someone once can't really be considered a hero because it was sort of one-time, sudden thing. However, a literary character that goes around saving lots of citizens in the same way would be seen as a hero because they're clearly intentionally doing it. It requires a lot of devotion to, and even repetition of, heroic acts to be seen as a hero. Nobody who just does one thing, no matter how good, can really be considered a "hero," they have to continue doing good things.
DeleteI think the role of hero has some unattainable value that only can be achieved in literature. You make a good point about how heroes in literature set out with a goal in mind and people who save others generally aren't, unless they are people like police or firefighters who do set out to prevent deaths and help people. It makes sense that you talk about athletes being more heroic because they are setting out to do whatever their heroic act may be.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting observation that a person who commits a heroic act when the opportunity arises doesn't necessarily then become "a hero" as their general identity, as if this one act now defines them completely. This seems connected to how such people, almost always, will not be comfortable calling themselves "heroes"--shrugging off the praise is part of the heroism.
ReplyDeleteBut there's a special fascination, I think, for people who do routinely commit heroic actions as part of their everyday working life--an EMT, firefighter, midwife, police officer. The idea of such extraordinary, dramatic life-and-death circumstances being just a day at the office is so hard for the rest of us to wrap our heads around.