" Hero, n: A name given (as in Homer) to men of superhuman strength, courage, or ability, favored by the gods; at a later time regarded as intermediate between gods and men, and immortal.
The later notion included men of renown supposed to be deified on account of great and noble deeds, for which they were also venerated generally or locally; also demigods, said to be the offspring of a god or goddess and a human being; the two classes being to a great extent coincident."
--OED
I am curious of the historical, culture, and literature path of a hero. Often times we assume or read about someone who has been chosen to do a an ultimate path or a plain guy who was swept up in something outside his normal reality. But we are always given the concept that he (as he usually is male) is filled with honor or noble deeds. But centuries upon centuries ago, it was just a man of inhuman strength favored by the gods for one reason or another.
If we look at Hercules, he was not the brightest hero around and had a tendency of losing his temper. He even killed his wife and is just not how we typically view a hero.
Even today, the idea of hero has changed from the idea of a white knight to someone with a bit more dark, seductive edge. But still, when one says hero what is the first thing people think of? Is it still something more pure and epic?
This comes back to Byron and his Byronic hero. The individual who is perhaps beautiful on the outside, but damaged on the inside. Someone who is not moving forward simply for the good of everyone but perhaps for selfish reasons. Perhaps someone like within the poem now, the Giaour, we are not given the typical goody-two-shoes (perhaps plain?) hero. He is dark, is out for revenge, and has some different twisted thoughts. Was he the start of a new evolution of the hero? But then, did the pure hero come before him, and the powerful before that?
If anyone has websites or books, I would really like to look a bit into the past and everything else about the evolution of a hero.
Annnnd for some reason the text is messed up. I really don't know how I am so good with messing up computer stuff :/
ReplyDeleteThe idea of what constitutes a hero is always a fascinating subject. I always think of superheroes and how complex their backgrounds have become. Batman and Watchmen are perfect examples of how the hero has become a very human character, we don't want it to be easy for them.
ReplyDeleteThis raises the consideration: does art mimic life, or does life mimic art. It's probably some kind of reciprocity, it's always some kind of middle-ground isn't it? That kind of makes life boring, thinking black and white distinctions, which everyone knows we love, are rarely applicable, if at all.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of a hero is someone who lives up to the standards of who we wish we could be but don't have the courage, strength, resolve, etc., to become.
This is interesting that the OED defines a hero as "a name given as in Homer" when Byron has such a fascination with Greece.
ReplyDelete