Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: Heroes.
Someone elsewhere asked whether there's a place for idealised heroes in our society anymore.
I think superhero comics is one of a very few areas where there is. In TV, film or novel, the perfect hero - say, an early John Grisham lead - is nauseating and offputting because we know real people aren't like that and he's been contrived: we feel manipulated, and even envious of this perfect, fictional character. Even if it's a superhero film, we see the actor and his nose isn't right, or we worry that our partner in the cinema with us is admiring his pecs, or whatever. Perhaps it's only in comics that we can accept a real hero: the costume gives him the distance (of course he's not real, so no attempt at manipulation), he's explicitly symbolic so we don't feel eclipsed by him, and we're not envious of his physique or whatever because he's a drawing.
I think Captain America can only come to life in a superhero comic.
I could, of course, be wrong...
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
Its partly the old problem of evil being more interesting than good, which Hasrubal has touched on elsewhere.
What I have also noticed is that in many heroic stories from Monkey to Blake's Seven via Robin of Sherwood and the X-men the central hero will accrue a set of friends to express the other (usually Jungian archetypal) perhaps less heroic facets of his (or her) personality: the trickster, the child, the sage, the anti hero, the warrior, the gentle giant etc.
So there is a place for the hero still, whether costumed or otherwise, but only when he has a full set of cohorts to make the story whole and satisfying in a psychological sense.
Just a theory _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
But then Captain America, unusually perhaps for a superhero of his vintage, hasn't had a stable supportng cast. In wartime there was Bucky, but he's just a sidekick. In more modern times there's been an occasional relationship with Nick Fury, and that with Sharon Carter, but for the most part, no circle of distorting mirrors.
He has come up against evil patriots, the Serpent Society and Super-Patriot among them. Not to mention USAgent.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 637 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: Heroes.
Heroes in comics, or any other type of fiction, often have less depth than the villains. Authors are overly content and confident the audience will accept a good guy without the need for character exposition. The hero may have a creed to do right, but it usually goes unexamined.
Occasionally, in real life, you may be fortunate enough to find a friend who believes in doing for others what they can not do for themselves. That is the essence of a hero, no more, no less. Blue and red circus tights aren't required.
Here's link to a Superman story which defines the character better than any other.
Turn that around, Palmers. It isn't so much that Cap hasn't had a strong supporting cast as much as he has worked with everyone in the marvel-verse.
Heroes are more archetypical than villans and as such they will always have less depth. A simple axiom. However, the trend is bent here and there. Until the 80's you really didnt get to see huge chunks of the personal lives of the everyday hero. Now it seems that everyone wants their hero or villan born out of some great tragedy.
For a while writers were overcompensating for the lack by throwing so much at us that it made comics a bit of an emotional bog. As a writer myself i see that things have evened out a great deal and the writing of funny books seems to be better then ever.
I think there is, but I agree with GhostofMacbeth that they have to be done right.
I'm observing that the anti-Hero seems to have run its course: anti-heroic movies, novels, and comics aren't quite as large a money making draw as they once were. [Look at Hollywood's steadily declining grosses on some movies that *should* have been blockbusters even 10 years ago.] Spiderman's not an antihero, and he is one of the hugest money makers in recent films.
digitalmagi wrote:
Heroes are more archetypical than villans and as such they will always have less depth.
Only in the hands of incompetent writers.
Lois MacMasters Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan turns that on its ear. Heroic character, fantastic amount of depth. Honor Harrington: heroic character, fantastic amount of depth. I could go on.
We may have to face the concept that as much as we might dislike the idea, a LOT of comic writers and filmwriters are untalented at characterization and depth as opposed to novelists: they opt for the easy way out far too much of the time.
Anti-heroes and villians are easier to make interesting. Heros take hard work.
Heroes also take a writer that isn't squeamish about the concepts they embody. Take your example of Captain America: he's *never* been handled properly by any Marvel writers. Not really. There's always been at least a bit of tongue in cheek snickering at the "Embodiment of American Values" thing that makes Cap work.
If the writer sneers at his character... it's not going to be possible for the reader to be really sympathetic. To do heroes properly, it takes someone who doesn't snicker at the concept of heroism. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
I wish I could remember who made the quote (I'll find out), but I read a piece from a respected writer who commented that now that satire and cynicism was in absolutely everything to the level of oversaturation, it may well make a welcome change to reintroduce more old-fashioned themes and ideas. I think this ties in somewhat with the idea of the Superhero having had his day. It could be that yes, we've gone through the whole process of complete deconstruction and ridiculing of the characters and writing knowingly about them based on their histories, and now people accept that but perhaps they just want to get back to reading about them as heroes again.
As much as to say "Yeah, you're right, they could be cheesy and out of step, and we agree. We know now. But we still enjoyed them like that, and let's enjoy them like that again."
I went through a period as a kid when I really enjoyed Hopalong Cassidy, Randolph Scott, and the rest of the classic western heroes. Then I went through a loonnngg period where I thought they were hokey and outdated - as much from the heroic theme as from the production values. Eastwood's anti-heroic "Man with No Name" was MUCH cooler.
Somewhat recently though, when Westerns Channel started re-running them, I rediscovered them with new eyes, and found them refreshing. Yes, I still like the Eastwood style westerns... but it's kind of nice to see something that embraces values I like to practice without sneering at them.
You can get too sophisticated for your own good sometimes. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Lets look at something recent that deals with heros
Take Smallville here we don't see superman we see what Clark goes through to become superman. Yes some of the stories are out there in left field but it still shows all the frustrations he goes through haveing to avoid certain events and social structures that have influenced many people. And through that he keeps trying to right wrongs.
In comic books Characteration of a hero it would most likely be spiderman to look at. Why Marvel does a good job at showing the impact of his crime fighting on his family life and his family life on his crime fighting.
Sadly 'no man is a hero to his valet', which is why we need fictional heroes to embody the sorts of ideals that no-one outside of Captain America, Buddha and Jesus (and then only on their good days) are capable of living up to 24/7
From personal experience I know that the most unlikely persons are capable of acts of great heroism, so there is hope for us all, but only if the heroic ideals are not lost in a welter of post modern cynicism.
Of course what constitutes a hero is a moot point, on my thread asking guys what kind of hero they would wish to be most seemed to concentrate on the physical attributes of a (super) hero until Hasdrubal came in with Mr Kipling (he wrote exceedingly stirring poetry)
Smoke me a kipper I'll be back before breakfast... _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Of course what constitutes a hero is a moot point, on my thread asking guys what kind of hero they would wish to be most seemed to concentrate on the physical attributes of a (super) hero
*shakes head* And the comics and movies have added to that misperception.
Some of the bravest, toughest, most heroic men and women I've known were "normal" type people: not musclebound and large at all. One of the most dangerous men I've ever met looked like an accountant. One of the bravest women I've ever met was 5'4" and pudgy - she looked like someone's cute younger sister.
Heh. Both ends of the scale: Bill Jordan was 6'5" and looked the part. Ed McGiverns [one of the fastest and best of the last of the real gunfighters] was a little guy, and looked like a rancher.
Fictional: Spiderman was always described as a "skinny kid" [even though he got more and more muscular as time went by]. My example above, Miles Vorkosigan, is a tiny short fellow with severe medical conditions.
It's the inner core that matters. Heroes and cowards come in all shapes and sizes of packaging. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Sorry: I haven't been getting notifications on this thread, so thought it had died.
I think most of you are right: we are ready for heroes again, and I think the success of the recent crop of superhero films is partly due to that. The weakest films - X-Men 3? - aren't really about heroic characters, while the most successful - Superman Returns (which I saw last night), The Incredibles, and very, very much Spider-Man - distinctly are.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
I think children are always ready for heroes, which(hopefully) provide role models for their adult selves.
However when as adults we realise the impossibility of living up to those childhood ideals we become jaded and disenchanted.
This is unhealthy both for ourselves as individuals and for the society we live in.
A satisfyingly heroic story - fictional or otherwise - can rekindle those aspirations, take us back to those days when anything and everything was possible, which is why those stories are so important.
We all need to be the hero of our own story. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
However when as adults we realise the impossibility of living up to those childhood ideals we become jaded and disenchanted.
This is unhealthy both for ourselves as individuals and for the society we live in.
Pah. And balderdash.
Beg to differ.
"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are -
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
My observation is that we only become jaded and disenchanted insofar as we refuse to grow beyond the adolescent "must be Perfect or it's NO USE!!!" fantasy and fail to realise that it's the striving, not the achieving, that marks an adult's journey.
I'm never going to be Quigley, or John Chance, or Bill Jordan, or Audie Murphy... or even my dad [sadly]. That doesn't stop me from recognising those ideals, characteristics, and traits as both laudable and worthy of emulation - nor does it stop me from striving to reach those ideals. No matter how imperfectly.
It's also a childhood fantasy to believe that heroes are like that all the time, and overlook the moments of doubt and disillusionment that they go through - OR to look at those and figure that not being perfect makes them less of heroes.
Real heroes are like the firemen and NYPD officers who rushed into the towers, knowing they could collapse at any moment, or the men and women of flight 93: taking an action that they had to know stood a high likelyhood of death. Real life heroism is finding that moment that calls for it and rising to it. Or not. No one is a hero every minute. Not all heroes succeed.
Striving for ideals, striving for ethics, and striving for something larger than life isn't "unhealthy both for ourselves as individuals and for the society we live in", it's what carries us beyond a life that's "nasty, brutish and short" and lets us occassionally become something better than we expect we can be.
It's giving up on the ideals, snickering at the concepts of heroism and greatness that's led to the near deaths of our societies. And of that spirit that once carried us to "some works of noble note".
"Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods."
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
