![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI'm sort of confused as to why I get -so- riled up by posts like ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
teratologist's about how sucky/hypocritical/actually-evil 'Heroes' (or 'Gryffindors in general') are ('current US media incarnation only' notwithstanding). It's mostly that the examples given, whether it's the Weasley twins in HP or current US policy (WTF?!) aren't really heroic at all, and I -don't- just mean 'platonic ideal'. I mean that heroes basically have to be noble&good, or they are not true heroes, no matter what you call them or what they call themselves. They have to actually act heroic, noble, self-sacrificing and pure or it's no good. They can't help but fall into the (rather attractive, I must say) pit of being anti-heroes, aka:
awkward, antisocial, alienated, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, obtuse, or just ordinary; but they are always, in some fundamental way, flawed, unqualified, or failed heroes.
That's the Weasley twins right there, right (give or take a few unsavory adjectives)? Good, now we can move the hell on, having admitted that 'Gryffindor' can mean successful or failed heroism, and since being a true hero is, you know, hard, naturally the whole House can't be anywhere close to the ideal. (And if I see one more person Gryffindor-bashing, I will really write a rant I don't want some of my Slytherin-loving friends to see. -.- 'Cause I actually think the Slytherin type is just another way to say 'anti-hero', which I love, but. This is why I should stay out of fandom, btw.)
I really really really hate it when people rag on heroes or heroism or, well, Gryffindors (meaning, in general rather than specific), because it shows that they misunderstand the nature of the archetype and more than misunderstanding, they're dismissing it at the same time. Archetypes & ideals, basically, can't be held responsible for flawed or aesthetically inadequate representations thereof by a tired/hypocritical/creatively bankrupt culture; also, separating pure-Good and pure-Bad speaks of stupidity and specifically low moral IQ rather than any culture-specific bias, per se. People have always been macho, vigilante, self-serving, stupid and insular-- what else is new?? However, having that be seen as 'the new Hero' just really gets to me in a major way; it simply can't be heroic by definition, and not (not!!) because heroes don't have flaws or human weaknesses: because one of the ways a generally young, flawed (often lazy and careless and arrogant, etc) protagonist becomes a Hero is by fighting those very things in himself. Period. That's the little thing we folklore-obsessives like to call 'the Hero's Journey', har har.
Anyway, I think this is in danger of teetering over & degenerating into a rant -.- *sigh*
Uh. Basically, what I want to say is, current media 'heroes' (in the popular movies, anyway), are generally anti-heroes instead. I think Harry Potter in particular is probably a liminal case; meaning, he -is- actually on a Hero's Journey, on his way to becoming a better person, etc etc and so on and so forth; therefore, judging his behavior in earlier books as if it was a 'done deal' is not only unfair, it is entirely unfounded if you look at it from a folkloric or archetypal point of view. Harry tries to live up to his own ideals of heroism; sometimes he fails, sometimes he doesn't, but the point is that he's growing up and figuring these things out. Draco has also started to figure out how his ideals applied to the real world in HBP; it's just that Harry began to be tested at a much younger age & also he has greater power and influence over his environment.
However, I have to admit that the line between 'hero' and 'anti-hero' can be pretty fine; usually it's not something so simple as personality or even a presence or absence of some 'moral center'; a lot of times I think it's as subtle as the Hero possessing the ability to look within the Abyss inside himself and still fight to go on and transcend his own limitations because of a belief in something greater than himself. Basically, it's that one moment, that one Choice. An anti-hero would (I think) remain inherently selfish; even if he chose 'love' or 'others', it would be a selfish choice, whereas a hero would truly possess the capacity to be utterly unselfish.
teratologist's about how sucky/hypocritical/actually-evil 'Heroes' (or 'Gryffindors in general') are ('current US media incarnation only' notwithstanding). It's mostly that the examples given, whether it's the Weasley twins in HP or current US policy (WTF?!) aren't really heroic at all, and I -don't- just mean 'platonic ideal'. I mean that heroes basically have to be noble&good, or they are not true heroes, no matter what you call them or what they call themselves. They have to actually act heroic, noble, self-sacrificing and pure or it's no good. They can't help but fall into the awkward, antisocial, alienated, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, obtuse, or just ordinary; but they are always, in some fundamental way, flawed, unqualified, or failed heroes.
That's the Weasley twins right there, right (give or take a few unsavory adjectives)? Good, now we can move the hell on, having admitted that 'Gryffindor' can mean successful or failed heroism, and since being a true hero is, you know, hard, naturally the whole House can't be anywhere close to the ideal. (And if I see one more person Gryffindor-bashing, I will really write a rant I don't want some of my Slytherin-loving friends to see. -.- 'Cause I actually think the Slytherin type is just another way to say 'anti-hero', which I love, but. This is why I should stay out of fandom, btw.)
I really really really hate it when people rag on heroes or heroism or, well, Gryffindors (meaning, in general rather than specific), because it shows that they misunderstand the nature of the archetype and more than misunderstanding, they're dismissing it at the same time. Archetypes & ideals, basically, can't be held responsible for flawed or aesthetically inadequate representations thereof by a tired/hypocritical/creatively bankrupt culture; also, separating pure-Good and pure-Bad speaks of stupidity and specifically low moral IQ rather than any culture-specific bias, per se. People have always been macho, vigilante, self-serving, stupid and insular-- what else is new?? However, having that be seen as 'the new Hero' just really gets to me in a major way; it simply can't be heroic by definition, and not (not!!) because heroes don't have flaws or human weaknesses: because one of the ways a generally young, flawed (often lazy and careless and arrogant, etc) protagonist becomes a Hero is by fighting those very things in himself. Period. That's the little thing we folklore-obsessives like to call 'the Hero's Journey', har har.
Anyway, I think this is in danger of teetering over & degenerating into a rant -.- *sigh*
Uh. Basically, what I want to say is, current media 'heroes' (in the popular movies, anyway), are generally anti-heroes instead. I think Harry Potter in particular is probably a liminal case; meaning, he -is- actually on a Hero's Journey, on his way to becoming a better person, etc etc and so on and so forth; therefore, judging his behavior in earlier books as if it was a 'done deal' is not only unfair, it is entirely unfounded if you look at it from a folkloric or archetypal point of view. Harry tries to live up to his own ideals of heroism; sometimes he fails, sometimes he doesn't, but the point is that he's growing up and figuring these things out. Draco has also started to figure out how his ideals applied to the real world in HBP; it's just that Harry began to be tested at a much younger age & also he has greater power and influence over his environment.
However, I have to admit that the line between 'hero' and 'anti-hero' can be pretty fine; usually it's not something so simple as personality or even a presence or absence of some 'moral center'; a lot of times I think it's as subtle as the Hero possessing the ability to look within the Abyss inside himself and still fight to go on and transcend his own limitations because of a belief in something greater than himself. Basically, it's that one moment, that one Choice. An anti-hero would (I think) remain inherently selfish; even if he chose 'love' or 'others', it would be a selfish choice, whereas a hero would truly possess the capacity to be utterly unselfish.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 02:53 pm (UTC)It's true that the hero-in-training is a subset of anti-hero; sort of like Han Solo, if wikipedia is to be believed :D Hahaha Harry-as-Han-Solo just cracks me up :D
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:02 pm (UTC)Okay, I'm bringing in my own bias here that has more to do with the type of hero I like, but while I can see linking the two together in terms of saying that our hero (Harry) hasn't yet matured and makes mistakes, I still think he's pretty obviously Hero all the way. Not just because his author's all "Perfect boyfriend...blah blah" or whatever but just because I think Harry is ultimately about his birth and the way he'll end up despite mistakes along the way.
Now I'm going to disappear for the rest of the day reading all the links I can find on the subject. I've just always been kind of confused about the distinction. I'm off!
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:21 pm (UTC)Like... starting off with an eye towards one's whole life and who one is rather than just what one does under the circumstances; perhaps that's why the world & modern literature/culture is full of anti-heroes but there are precious few 'Heroes'. Because basically the view that we are born to Be something with a capital B (implying 'Destiny' with a capital D) has become rather unpopular; in that sense, the thing that Han doesn't have & Luke does is actually not any specific difference in heroism but rather having a Destiny. And perhaps this brings in a whole 'nother kettle of fish where we'd have to decide whether Heroes & Destiny go together; in a way, the 'Hero's Journey' is so... um... predetermined in itself, that would be its own destiny already, perhaps. Whereas Han just does the best he can, destiny not included.
I think the place people go wrong with classifying Harry is that they make the elementary mistake of associating heroism directly with personality, with which I believe it has only an indirect correlation. Also, it's another characteristic of the anti-hero, perhaps, to possess a certain 'sort' of personality (antisocial, selfish, arrogant, obnoxious, etc), whereas a hero can possess some of those traits or not, or basically possess any trait as long as they make that Choice in the end. Hmm.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:29 pm (UTC)There's the destiny bit, which Harry has, but I think yeah, it seems like a way of starting out. Like...Harry goes through a lot and his personality is flawed plenty of times. He's not Dudley Doo-right. But it seems like the idea of him is still a sort of Golden Child. He's born to these wonderful parents who die yet he retains their good qualities (and even is instinctually repulsed by James' bad qualities, though he may have to confront that he's not all good either in the next book). Dudley, by contrast, is already greedy and kicking as an infant.:-) He's put in a bad environment but doesn't really internalize it. He rails against it at times, but underneath he's not cynical. When he becomes friends with Ron and Hermione, for instance, it's not like Han who goes into it thinking he only cares about himself and has to break through that to even admit they're his friends. Harry's very happy to have a friend.
Then there's the whole idea that his special power is apparently love....I guess it's basically that Harry is really never fighting against himself as I might imagine to be if he were an anti-hero. He fights against others and he has minor conflicts within himself, but really he's strongest when he's going on his own instincts. Not just fighting instincts because a character like Han has those too, but his instincts about life. Even his weakness at Occlumency points to that. He's not rewarded, exactly, for failing to do it, but ultimately it's kind of an example of Harry winning over Snape in that he disagrees with Snape's outlook on life and that seems to be a good thing. (If Snape's a good guy, he's more of an anti-hero. If we were reading Draco's story in HBP he'd maybe be more of one too.)
Harry's challenge seems to be more about relaxing his outlook, opening it out and understanding others. James too, we're told, "hated the Dark Arts" and that's the reason he hated Snape. So there's that same instinct for "right." Harry just has to be able to see good in more places. But even if he has to re-think his past actions I think it will be more about how he treats the people who are wrong, rather than seeing they weren't wrong, if that makes sense.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 03:47 pm (UTC)I guess it's basically that Harry is really never fighting against himself as I might imagine to be if he were an anti-hero.
I think 'not fighting against himself' is important for making one a hero; or rather, the reverse is central to making one an anti-hero, because of all those negative qualities the anti-hero always has, with selfishness generally dominating. I know I said that the hero would face and overcome his own negative traits & that was the point of his journey, but at the same time I think his relationships to those traits would be different, somehow. Like... yeah, it's as you said, the hero's instincts would point him in the right direction no matter if he makes mistakes or not, whereas the anti-hero would generally be... uh... either learning to trust his instincts for the first time or learning a new system of understanding (like realizing 'friends are good' or something-- that example was really great, especially 'cause distrust & jadedness of that sort is typically anti-heroish & almost never heroic).
Harry just has to be able to see good in more places. But even if he has to re-think his past actions I think it will be more about how he treats the people who are wrong
Yeah, totally! Of course it makes sense-- and it totally makes it more likely that book 7 will deliver, 'cause instead of somehow 'improving' Harry's personality, all it has to do is show him that he should be nicer to those poor deluded sods, they try so hard, etc :D :D Oh, and Snape is definitely the very prototype of 'anti-hero', which is partly why I'm so easily annoyed at people who're all GRR ARGH GRYFFINDOR and then like YEAY SNAPE. -.-;; Well, I mean, Snape isn't hypocritical about his gentler kinder nature, true, but he's hypocritical in other happy juicy ways instead, so. Also, the whole issue of hypocrisy seems misplaced: Harry isn't hypocritical, he's just naive, basically, and needs to learn (something Snape is near-incapable of doing, btw).
Anyway, I definitely think you're right-on with the "instincts about life" thing; I think it's a heroic quality insomuch as a hero needs to have that bit of naivete or openness at the center that enables him to be unselfish in the end. 'Cause like, if you're really practical or non-idealistic or whatever, you won't really be able to... um, believe enough to become a Hero. I think.