Some dictionary definitions: a legendary figure often of divine descent, endowed with great strength or ability; an illustrious warrior; one admired for his achievements and qualities; one that shows great courage.
Apart from the divine descent (which sort of relates to M'onel), I think all the legionnaires qualify by that definition.
We did have the Least Heroic thread, in which I voted for Apparition - mainly because I just don't like her much and was feeling catty, but partly because I question how much courage it takes to face foes when you just become immaterial and all passes through you.
I like the hero who achieves against the odds, even if the "achievement" is a minor one by most standards. So to me, the less-powered legionnaires are, generally, the most heroic.
I also like the idea of the flawed hero. Superboy was incredibly powerful, incredibly good and humble too (another heroic quality I would add is humility) - but M'onel has been more interesting with his hidden past, his curious power-failures, his pre-boot mental instability.
When the courage fails, yet the person persists or returns to try again, is when heroism shines. When the self is truly abnegated for the greater good, that is heroism.
posted
A hero to me is someone who has some talent... be it the ability to be brave, the ability to entertain, eating matter in all forms... ANYthing, really...
And uses that talent to make a DIFFERENCE. Even if it's a SMALL difference.
posted
I basically agree with that last line -- it has to do with genuine altruism, being more concerned for the welfare of others above your own needs/ fears/ struggles.
One of the big problems however, comes when determining just what is "best" for everyone when one has the power to effect great change -- look at what happened with Hal Jordan when he tried to restart time and create a new universe where "everyone wins". The "heroes" of the DCU didn't go for that. And during "Final Night" they only allowed him to save the sun and repair the ecological damage to the earth, but not reverse the suffering that was caused.
The heroes also stay away from political problems and they don't feed all the starving people on the planet.
So maybe it follows that the true hero does what s/he can to preserve the rights of others to determine their own fate -- to not allow personal liberties and freedoms be at the mercy of madmen, natural disasters, or misguided benefactors who wield too much power over them. Political situations would still be seen as within the realm of personal determination since that's the way the history of the world has been written, thus their reluctance to topple dictators.
From: New York, NY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such a topic deserves more thought, but for now, I did want to register a brief dissent.
FC wrote, "When the self is truly abnegated for the greater good, that is heroism." Drake wrote, "So maybe it follows that the true hero does what s/he can to preserve the rights of others to determine their own fate."
I have to ask: Why must a hero negate one's own self and one's own interests? Why must the interests and rights of all "others" be preserved, beyond and ignoring his or her own?
It's entirely possible to see the heroic impulse as one of personally not wanting to endure, or witness, or compromise with, some force that is beating down those rights -- especially those of life, liberty, and individuality.
And that motive can entirely include the hero personally. In fact, if it didn't include the one who was doing such deeds, I'd have to wonder why he or she would feel that one's own life and interests are of no consequence. It speaks for a lack of dedication, motivation, consistency, and even basic logic.
Heroism doesn't require altruism and self-abnegation. If it did, these wouldn't be sentient beings, they'd be empty shells, or puppets whose strings are pulled by everyone else.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You get a free "harumph!" for that, Greybird.
I understand your point, I believe, and I don't disagree with it. What I had in mind when I wrote about putting the commond good first (perhaps "abnegation of self" was not a judiciously chosen term), was something like Mr. Spock giving up his life, or so he thought, to enter the radiation chamber and fix the problem. I don't remember the details of that movie, and I feel some remorse at not having an example from something other than pop culture. " 'Tis a far far better thing I do than I have ever done," I believe he quoted, thereby beating me to the Tale of Two Cities example.
The idea that maybe you want to sit home tonight and watch the ball game but you have special powers and the earth needs you.
We tend to heroize people who give their lives that another may live. Or who suffer great personal discomforts, physical or emotional, so that something may be accomplished which benefits the community. Hunting down the wolf. Fighting fires. Not hoping someone else will do it.
So abnegation was probably too strong a word, because many such actions would also benefit one personally. And certainly, it takes great heroism to be the lone defender of rights or fighter of injustice, when one is impelled to take action due to one's own personal moral code.
From: Café Cramer | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
