Qualities of a Hero

[Al]

When on Earth did impossible degrees of perfection become the test of herodom? No one expects or can achive 100% perfection. That does not mean one cannot strive for perfection. It does not mean someone cannot act heroically. It does not mean one cannot keep ideals in mind at all times, even if one cannot always achieve them. A moment of weakness does not make a heroic life worthless. A single good act does not redeem a life of evil. (Anakin Skywalker aside....)

A hero is not a god. For that matter outside of monotheism, no one expected the degree of perfection you describe from their gods either. Sheesh, you make it sound like your heros could lose their paladinhood for failing to return an extra 3 cents worth of change at McDonalds.

My instincts are that we're actually on the same side of the proverbial fence but shouting across it. Your post is precisely the case I have made (i.e. that it is counter-productive to test our heroes against a yardstick which is unattainable). The exact reason why I am sceptical about the qualities listed on the first page is precisely because they are unattainable. It is because they are unattainable that I believe that the list is misleading, since it entails that people whom you or I would regard as heroes are, a priori, not.

Let us consider it logically. If I posit that a hero must have qualities A, B, and C, then we can deduce that unless a person indeed possesses qualities A, B, and C, he cannot be a hero. Thus we infer that someone who only possesses qualities A and B falls short of the mark. I hold this to be misleading and wrong. Misleading because one can be a hero without having to consistently comply with the traits outlined in the LotR manual; wrong because they denigrate true heroes by measuring them against an unattainable benchmark and finding them wanting. This is not to say that such qualities are not desirable, or indeed to contend that they are not heroic. Rather, I am arguing that we should be more flexible in our definition of heroism. If we set the benchmark too high, there can be no heroes at all.

 

[WizarDru]

Misleading because one can be a hero without having to consistently comply with the traits outlined in the LotR manual; wrong because they denigrate true heroes by measuring them against an unattainable benchmark and finding them wanting.

I didn't assume that they meant that a hero HAD to match all the qualities listed therein, merely that someone who was identified as a hero invariably had SOME of the qualities listed. For example, Faramir is listed for Honesty and Fairness...but while Faramir might not snare even an Orc in falsehood, we have several instances where the hobbits travel in disguise...and use the name "Mr. Underhill" as an alias, a lie suggested by Gandalf. Certainly, there are legitimate circumstances for both, but a lie is a lie. Boromir was a hero of Gondor, but the Wisdom was the purview of his brother Faramir...Boromir possessed Valor, instead.

In other words, those qualities are demonstrably absent from some members of the Fellowship at certain points. Further, LotR is an epic that has little to do with the realities of the day-to-day and more to do with a series of grand myths concerning idealized characters. Characters like Aragorn, Faramir and Elrond don't have to be flawed - that's not the kind of story Tolkien was telling, IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Steverooo]

I do not deny superman is "Good". I deny that he is a hero.

Being a hero requires sacrifice. If there isn't sacrifice, it is simply being good. It's not actually hard for Superman to do what he does. He does not sacrifice anything; he doesn't have the ability to sacrifice. Superman doesn't have fear for himself; hence he isn't actually courageous. He can't be a hero.

<Snip!>

Now, those police and things you mentioned are heroes, because they act in adversity. Superman doesn't have such adversity (or danger.) He would do what any good person would do given supermans powers.

Unless you wish to deny that heroism needs sacrifice, I'm fairly certain my argument isn't too silly.

Wrongo, Keebler! Supes ALWAYS faces adversity, as any hero does! He has a great many weaknesses, too! He can die of old age, which will weaken him, long before it kills him! He can be killed by green Kryptonite! He is downright powerless on any world with a red sun (and fought Lex Luthor and his robotic dogs on just such a world, where Lex was a hero). He is also vulnerable to magic (and the list goes on!)...

Now compare Supes to the list of qualities... Honesty? Check! (With the exception of lying to protect his secret identity) Self-sacrifice? Check! If nothing else, he gives up his time to help others, for which he gets no pay. Nobility? Check (as far as I'm concerned)!

The LotR characters probably all fail to live up to at least one of the list, at some point. Gandalf would be the first to admit to failures of wisdom, methinks. Boromir certainly did. Methinks all of the Hobbitses failed at valor, initially. Aragorn often berates himself for failing at wisdom... Legolas & Gimli have no failings that I can point to, but probably added the least to the party...

No, the above is a good list for what heroes should strive to be, even if they fail to be it. Not even a hero is a hero all the time! Eventually, the crisis is over, and he takes a vacation... Does he stop being heroic just because no evil rears its ugly head to be bashed?

Hardly!

 

[The Shaman]

The exact reason why I am sceptical about the qualities listed on the first page is precisely because they are unattainable. It is because they are unattainable that I believe that the list is misleading, since it entails that people whom you or I would regard as heroes are, a priori, not.

I think the goals are lofty, but not unattainable.

I'm a little skeptical myself of analogies being drawn to firefighters and rescurers of kitties from trees - the list of qualities reflects the standards against which fantasy heroes are measured, not a good samaritan helping out at a car crash.