[wherein Reena proves the Gryffindors are flighty numbskulls]

[reenka]

I'm sort of confused as to why I get -so- riled up by posts like 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.

Comments

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

I've got to the point with those debates where I have to scroll past, because my basic viewpoint is that, for the most part, JKR is creating realistic and hence somewhat flawed characters (and also , well, she's the author, why shouldn't she talk about her own vision of them ???????). I see lots of discussion about Fred and George (who I think we're meant to slightly worry about), not much on Umbridge being a nasty old bag but actually not a force for evil.

On this: well, I think Harry's the Reluctant and Frankly Below Par Hero, who gradually amasses the right qualities over time. But, he's not an anti-hero in the slightest...

*is confused*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahaha I didn't know it was gonna be like that when I clicked. Silly metafandom with its confusing silly quotes -.-;;; Just when I thought I'd escaped, too :D I'm just plain -impatient- with people who harp on about F&G... I mean, seriously, isn't that a little too obvious, and since when are they the designated Force of Good in the books? More like Force of Chaos, but blah-blah-this-is-my-pet-peeve-#1830849303. :>

I don't think anyone (well, by 'anyone' I mean me) was calling Harry an anti-hero, but then I felt the need to distinguish him from other 'bad heroes' who're actually anti-heroes even though he isn't. Or something :> Not that Harry's even as bad as all that anyway. -.-