Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

In classic literture, the tragic hero rails against his fate by displaying his divine qualities. Indeed, the hero often IS divine: Achilles, Herakles, Aeneis and Perseus were all descended from Gods.

The best of the modern heroes (now reasonably called "protagonists" by literary types) continue to show their divine qualities. Huckleberry Finn sees his friendship with Jim as more important than whether he goes to hell; Jane Eyre must learn unconditional love; Perre Bezhukov learns the value of disinterested love. Even Becky Sharp displays the amorality of a Greek God.

Perhaps this is best illustrated in one of the first European novels. Don Quixote lampoons knightly heroism, but the great Don and his faithful Sancho transcend the lampoon, and tell the reader that the divine is not demonstrated by what one accomplishes, but by what one attempts. Quixote is no Herakles or Achilles. But he is equally a hero, and equally demonstrative of the divine in human form.

[Agent Smyth]

Heroes are, from what I've seen and heard, principal characters in a narrative. Tired of the classic mold, many playwrights, novelists, etc. have attempted variations that have over the years been not just entertaining but more relatable and also realistic, as realistic as theatrics permits. Perhaps we're beginning to realize ... the truth.

[Stoppelmann]

Heroes are, from what I've seen and heard, principal characters in a narrative. Tired of the classic mold, many playwrights, novelists, etc. have attempted variations that have over the years been not just entertaining but more relatable and also realistic, as realistic as theatrics permits. Perhaps we're beginning to realize ... the truth.

The decline of the hero has taken the form of ideologically based, and ridiculous implausibility, especially in the portrayal of women with slight figures and well-sitting hairstyles, who beat up men with superior physiques, supposedly using their strength and not some intelligent means. The attempt to make female heroes into the better men, include any kind of distractive weakness, but still come out on top, is boring and has nothing to do with truth.

Equally, the tendency to restyle old heroes, or replace them with alternatives in the cause of being "inclusionary," instead of writing new stories where these people could excel, is another nail in the coffin of imagination and creativity.

[Agent Smyth]

Heroes are, from what I've seen and heard, principal characters in a narrative. Tired of the classic mold, many playwrights, novelists, etc. have attempted variations that have over the years been not just entertaining but more relatable and also realistic, as realistic as theatrics permits. Perhaps we're beginning to realize ... the truth.

The decline of the hero has taken the form of ideologically based, and ridiculous implausibility, especially in the portrayal of women with slight figures and well-sitting hairstyles, who beat up men with superior physiques, supposedly using their strength and not some intelligent means. The attempt to make female heroes into the better men, include any kind of distractive weakness, but still come out on top, is boring and has nothing to do with truth.

Equally, the tendency to restyle old heroes, or replace them with alternatives in the cause of being "inclusionary," instead of writing new stories where these people could excel, is another nail in the coffin of imagination and creativity.

True, true. While I'm, perhaps like you, skeptical about the whole notion of a hero, male/female/homo/trans sexual, I do sense a grain of truth in the general idea of a savior who single-handedly assures a happy ending for all.

[Stoppelmann]

In classic literture, the tragic hero rails against his fate by displaying his divine qualities. Indeed, the hero often IS divine: Achilles, Herakles, Aeneis and Perseus were all descended from Gods.

The best of the modern heroes (now reasonably called "protagonists" by literary types) continue to show their divine qualities. Huckleberry Finn sees his friendship with Jim as more important than whether he goes to hell; Jane Eyre must learn unconditional love; Perre Bezhukov learns the value of disinterested love. Even Becky Sharp displays the amorality of a Greek God.

Perhaps this is best illustrated in one of the first European novels. Don Quixote lampoons knightly heroism, but the great Don and his faithful Sancho transcend the lampoon, and tell the reader that the divine is not demonstrated by what one accomplishes, but by what one attempts. Quixote is no Herakles or Achilles. But he is equally a hero, and equally demonstrative of the divine in human form.

Classical literature does have the heroes’ journey aspect observed and popularised by Joseph Campbell, but the monomyth has become so much the common template of modern entertainment that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed, that people seem to slowly get bored. To solve this, these heroes are being given a work-over, but it is in many cases merely superficial make-up and in the end implausible.

The “heroes” or protagonists that you mentioned are, despite their discovery of values over and above common day experience, plausible and tangible people, except Don Quixote perhaps, who is the hero of a farcical tragedy in which his idealism and nobility are viewed by the post-chivalric world as not enough and they are defeated and rendered useless by reality. The suggestion that he is a real person is a metafictional trick that gives the story a feeling of historicity despite the absurdity of the figure, and there is an underlying message that you cannot ignore – even if you can’t explain it.

I have a large, illustrated version of Don Quixote, and the second part explores the concept of a character who understands that he is being written about, which is an idea adopted by many writers in the 20th century. The whole work stands especially tall in its genre and will probably remain unbeaten in imagination.

[Ecurb]

Classical literature does have the heroes’ journey aspect observed and popularised by Joseph Campbell, but the monomyth has become so much the common template of modern entertainment that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed, that people seem to slowly get bored. To solve this, these heroes are being given a work-over, but it is in many cases merely superficial make-up and in the end implausible.

The “heroes” or protagonists that you mentioned are, despite their discovery of values over and above common day experience, plausible and tangible people, except Don Quixote perhaps, who is the hero of a farcical tragedy in which his idealism and nobility are viewed by the post-chivalric world as not enough and they are defeated and rendered useless by reality. The suggestion that he is a real person is a metafictional trick that gives the story a feeling of historicity despite the absurdity of the figure, and there is an underlying message that you cannot ignore – even if you can’t explain it.

I have a large, illustrated version of Don Quixote, and the second part explores the concept of a character who understands that he is being written about, which is an idea adopted by many writers in the 20th century. The whole work stands especially tall in its genre and will probably remain unbeaten in imagination.

Of course I agree about Don Quixote. Many of the chapters lampoon topical issues in Spain. The chapter where the Don's friends and realitves burn his books about chivalry mirrors the book-burning that was actually happening. Cervantes buys the tale from a rag merchant: great works of Arabic literature were being sold as rags because it was illegal to possess them (also, paper and cloth were very expensive back then).

In addition, although it may seem that in 1600 the age of chivalrous adventures had long disapeared, some of the boldest adventurers in history were Spanish Conquistadors. Cortez sailed the Atlantic, and fearing that some of his men would turn tail in the face of the might of the Aztec Empire, burned all of his ships. He appeared alomost as mad as Quixote, but with a few score men Cortez and Pizarro conquered giant empires. The Conquistadors had their many faults, but cowardice was not one of them.

Did you know that Cervantes fought in Leponto, and was enslaved by the Moors for a couple of years? His life was as dramatic as his novel.

As an aside, speaking of dramatic lives the tombstone of the great playwright Aeschylus makes no mention of his literary career. Instead, it reads: "Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian, who died in the wheat-bearing land of Gela; of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak, and the long-haired Persian knows it well". Personally, I would not have messed with the guy.

[Stoppelmann]

Of course I agree about Don Quixote. Many of the chapters lampoon topical issues in Spain. The chapter where the Don's friends and realitves burn his books about chivalry mirrors the book-burning that was actually happening. Cervantes buys the tale from a rag merchant: great works of Arabic literature were being sold as rags because it was illegal to possess them (also, paper and cloth were very expensive back then).

Yes, there are various mentions that reflect the world that Cervantes was living in, and I’d heard about the tale being from Arabic literature, but not about the rags … how tragic. However, I have long been the opinion (probably also from someone else) that these stories evolve and pass through generations and cultures. Hamlet’s Mill describes the process of how classic mythologies based on the night sky are shared by cultures in the East and passed through to Nordic cultures. Of course they are relatable through experience, but there are probably many more.

In addition, although it may seem that in 1600 the age of chivalrous adventures had long disapeared, some of the boldest adventurers in history were Spanish Conquistadors. Cortez sailed the Atlantic, and fearing that some of his men would turn tail in the face of the might of the Aztec Empire, burned all of his ships. He appeared alomost as mad as Quixote, but with a few score men Cortez and Pizarro conquered giant empires. The Conquistadors had their many faults, but cowardice was not one of them.

Certainly not, but madness seems to have prevailed around those times, which provide history books with their tales of achievement, often underrepresenting the cost to human life, which was more expendable then, probably because life itself was for most people a case of obeying who fed you. It was either be just as mad, or die.

Did you know that Cervantes fought in Leponto, and was enslaved by the Moors for a couple of years? His life was as dramatic as his novel.

No, I didn’t, but then again numerous authors led adventurous lives and drawn inspiration from their experiences. Ernest Hemingway comes to mind immediately because we were in Ronda last year, where he travelled to just to watch a bullfight, and left again, but had a terrace named after him (Paseo de E Hemingway). He served as an ambulance driver during World War I, was a journalist during the Spanish Civil War, and went on safari in Africa. All taken into account in his books such as "The Old Man and the Sea" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls." I sat at a table overlooking that enormous chasm that separates the town, with its massive bridge and had to think that if I had time, many stories would spring to mind, as was the case in Sri Lanka, Egypt, or Thailand. Travelling does inspire us, and especially the more adventurous the journey is. I was a boy in Malaysia in the 1960s, and you can imagine what that did for the imagination.

But there was also Jack London, known for his adventures in the wilderness, who spent time in Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush, and who’s experiences inspired his writing, including his famous book "The Call of the Wild." Mark Twain travelled extensively throughout his life, working as a riverboat pilot on the Mississippi River, travelling to the Hawaiian Islands, and writing about his travels in Europe. Roald Dahl, an example of a British author who served in the RAF during World War II, flying fighter planes until he was injured in a crash, which inspired his book "The Gremlins." His experiences during the war also influenced his other works. But there was also Gertrude Bell, an example of a woman archaeologist and explorer who travelled extensively throughout the Middle East, and wrote several books about her travels and adventures, including "The Desert and the Sown," which chronicles her journeys in Arabia.

As an aside, speaking of dramatic lives the tombstone of the great playwright Aeschylus makes no mention of his literary career. Instead, it reads: "Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian, who died in the wheat-bearing land of Gela; of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak, and the long-haired Persian knows it well". Personally, I would not have messed with the guy.

It truly is funny to hear how people remembered personalities that we know in a completely different context. Socrates as a soldier, Plato as a wrestler, and numerous other surprises in literature make you realise who two-dimensional we look at the world.

[HJCarden]

Heroes are, from what I've seen and heard, principal characters in a narrative. Tired of the classic mold, many playwrights, novelists, etc. have attempted variations that have over the years been not just entertaining but more relatable and also realistic, as realistic as theatrics permits. Perhaps we're beginning to realize ... the truth.

This is the downfall of modern art in all its forms. Relatability. The desire to connect to the audience, for what ever reason, is fundamentally misguided. Heroes that are "like us" justify our faults. The weakness of modern man is that he hates himself for his shortcomings. The weakness of modern art and literature is that it seeks to shield us from this shame. There is no truth to be found here, unless by truth you mean a bare reflection of ourselves. Why would we need heroes to show us this? Be honest with yourself, and your flaws are immediately apparent.

Truth to me is that we do desire perfection, we do strive for greatness, we do want to have all of the good traits of the hero. So why debase these once great figures? To satisfy a smirking desire that "were all the same on the inside"? I seek to distance myself from the most average of society. I seek the unattainable standard of heroism, as I know that if I fall short in this pursuit at least my compass was set to a noble degree.

[Lagayascienza]

I don't see too many modern humans hating themselves for their shortcomings. And I don't see why they should applaud themselves for their shortcomings either as a few seem wont to do.

Much art, especially literature, film and theatre, is about how, despite our weaknesses, we can still overcome and achieve the extraordinary. And a lot of art is about the perennial struggle of good over evil. That idea that we are all the same on the inside when it comes to human rights and justice, for example, is a good thing. And I don't think there is any widespread, "smirking desire" to debase "heroes". Although it is true that some who were in the past seen as heroes have been somewhat downgraded. Perhaps rightly so.

[Stoppelmann]

I don't see too many modern humans hating themselves for their shortcomings. And I don't see why they should applaud themselves for their shortcomings either as a few seem wont to do.

Much art, especially literature, film and theatre, is about how, despite our weaknesses, we can still overcome and achieve the extraordinary. And a lot of art is about the perennial struggle of good over evil. That idea that we are all the same on the inside when it comes to human rights and justice, for example, is a good thing. And I don't think there is any widespread, "smirking desire" to debase "heroes". Although it is true that some who were in the past seen as heroes have been somewhat downgraded. Perhaps rightly so.

I must say that most modern "entertainment" bores me silly because it is just more of the same pattern that sells. There has been a tendency recently to present heroes that by fluke are immediately perfect at what they do, with no arc of development, no failures, and the normal and somewhat predictable enemy that is always so strong, competent, organised, or whatever, that keeps coming back until, once again predictably, the hero can turn the tables.

Another thing is that female heroes are furnished with physical strength that their dainty frame denies, and in the scenes where the male and female combatants are seen next to each other, you can see how ridiculous that is.

[Xenophon]

I don't see too many modern humans hating themselves for their shortcomings. And I don't see why they should applaud themselves for their shortcomings either as a few seem wont to do.

Much art, especially literature, film and theatre, is about how, despite our weaknesses, we can still overcome and achieve the extraordinary. And a lot of art is about the perennial struggle of good over evil. That idea that we are all the same on the inside when it comes to human rights and justice, for example, is a good thing. And I don't think there is any widespread, "smirking desire" to debase "heroes". Although it is true that some who were in the past seen as heroes have been somewhat downgraded. Perhaps rightly so.

I must say that most modern "entertainment" bores me silly because it is just more of the same pattern that sells. There has been a tendency recently to present heroes that by fluke are immediately perfect at what they do, with no arc of development, no failures, and the normal and somewhat predictable enemy that is always so strong, competent, organised, or whatever, that keeps coming back until, once again predictably, the hero can turn the tables.

Another thing is that female heroes are furnished with physical strength that their dainty frame denies, and in the scenes where the male and female combatants are seen next to each other, you can see how ridiculous that is.

Propaganda is permitted to suspend the laws of physics. Someone in this thread was under-conditioned. Not to worry, camps are coming in a decade nearing you.

[Lagayascienza]

Whose propaganda? The loony left's or the rabid right's? If you think you are the only one who hasn't been conditioned you need to think again. No doubt there'll be cosy camp for you to enjoy, too.