free counter with statistics Arma virumque cano | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

s-logo.jpg
Arma virumque cano


The Burning Violin (A Weekly Column) / Steven Lloyd Wilson

Film Reviews | March 11, 2009 | Comments (30)


In the interests of etymological peace, translation of the title is left as an exercise for the reader in this edition.

“Yes, it’s terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.” —

Giles, “Lie to Me”

There is an old saying that it is possible to see all of Rome in a day, some of it in a week, and none of it in a month. Writing about heroes feels that way. You can sum them up in a few words quite easily: “The good guys,” but people have spent entire careers composing treatises on the nuances of the hero. We’ll try to find a sweet spot a bit shorter than a book, but a bit more introspective than three words. That may be an elaborate cop-out avoiding comprehensiveness, and may or not be a round-about preemptive fuck off to accusations of leaving out important elements. But it’s midnight in Indiana, my body thinks it’s eight pm, I’ve been running on fumes since I got up at four am my time, and my shuttle leaves for the airport in four hours. So let’s talk about heroes.

Our society is free and loose with the term heroes, using it as a superlative for anyone who does the slightest positive thing. Reporters sniff out heroic human interest stories the way a randy dog hunts down a cheesy crotch. The mailman who stops delivering junk mail? Hero. The angry centenarian who chases armed robbers out of 7/11 with naught but her umbrella and her fury? Total hero. That kid with AIDs who faced down adversity and discrimination to make a real difference? See, I totally made you think the third one was going to be something ludicrous like a monkey who could suck his own balls, and you almost caught yourself before laughing automatically, but not quite, so you were laughing at a kid with AIDs. Asshole.

“The real heroes are the guys who didn’t make it back.” It’s repeated often enough in one form or another, but it hints at our awareness of a deeper understanding of heroism. Heroes are more than just the good guys, more than protagonists, more than common people who manage something extraordinary like rescuing babies from burning buildings or storming nightmarish beaches of steel and smoke. Heroes are the ones who stare into the abyss so that the rest of us don’t have to.

Joseph Campbell- - no one seriously thought we’d make it through this without dropping some serious Hero’s Journey references did they? — identified the common metaphor that we use for heroes. We talked about the metaphor of monsters, this is the metaphor of their counter. He identified the symbolic journey that our conception of the hero follows. The hero suffers, succeeds, and ultimately is so changed that he can never truly return home. In saving the village, he destroys his own place in it. At the end of stories, heroes must disappear, they cannot linger. It’s true in our real life interpretation of heroes as well. Alexander dies of malaria a thousand miles from Macedonia, Gandhi and Martin Luther King never see the futures for which they fought. When it’s not true, we deny it, we ignore the rest of the hero’s life. Napoleon dies without a whimper in his final exile, McArthur fades away. We cling to our metaphors even when they don’t precisely reflect the reality.

“Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” It’s not just a cute turn of phrase. The martyrs are to some degree the lucky heroes, because they don’t live long enough to take on the taint of the monsters that they fight. Die young, stay pure. Fight monsters long enough and you become a monster. The metaphor of the monster is wrapped around the metaphor of the hero. One does not exist without the other. But that works both ways. The monster causes the world to create heroes, but the hero causes the world to create monsters.

“All progress depends on the unreasonable man. The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.”

— George Bernard Shaw

Senior year of high school, I took a literature elective on Science Fiction. The centerpiece of the class was the final two weeks of the semester when an elaborate trial took place, students playing jury, attorneys, and characters from the novel. We put Paul Atreides on trial for being harmful to society. Frank Herbert has said that he wrote Dune in part as a cautionary tale against the role of heroes, that they are not an absolute good.

In well written stories, every character thinks that he is the protagonist. That’s what real life is: everyone, including Hitler, thinks that he is the protagonist of his own story. They think that they are the good guys. But that’s also what makes heroes problematic; they cast things into black and white, into fundamentalism. You can’t have heroes without villains, and in the real world where everyone thinks they are the hero of their own piece, that means that the villains are the opposite side of the same coin. Villains are just the other guy’s hero.

In shitty stories this isn’t the case, the hero is distinct from the villain. Reality (and good stories) just doesn’t work that way. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t good and evil, that everything is just a gray moral relativism where nothing is wrong and nothing is right. It’s more to say that heroes and villains are the same fundamental force acting on society, differentiated only by whether we agree with the direction it pushes.

Without heroes, we don’t progress. We don’t build better things without breaking down the old. Heroes are the societal equivalent of DNA mutation. The right mutation, the right little misinterpretation of a few base pairs can create a wonder. Ninety times out of a hundred it does nothing meaningful, all sound and fury. Nine times out of a hundred it causes some variety of cancer that rips apart the entire body politic unless excised. But that one time out of a hundred it can create something beautiful, something that shatters societal inertia and drives evolution. We can’t have one without the other. We can’t have a society that produces heroes without the wreckage of failed attempts.

Heroes aren’t all saints, they have elements of horror bred into their bones, else they couldn’t fight monsters in the first place. It is so tempting to insist that this doesn’t have to be so, that we could conceive of a hero without the flaws, that flaws are just literary devices not inherent qualities. But the flaws don’t just make a hero more interesting, or more human, they are intrinsic to heroism itself. You can’t take away Ender’s sympathy for those who abused him without destroying the empathy that made him a leader and commander. You can’t take away Batman’s capacity for brutal violence without eliminating the will to stalk the streets in the first place. The qualities that make them heroes are the exact same qualities that make them monsters.

Morality isn’t a zero sum game. The good you do never offsets the evil you do or vice versa. Good and evil don’t cancel each other out on a balance sheet so that you can beat Ma’at’s feather. It was one of Angel’s epiphanies. You don’t get a free pass on doing something evil just because you’re still ahead in the bigger score, and no amount of good deeds can ever make up for an act of evil. The duality of man and heroes is that that they are both simultaneously good and evil.

The banality of evil derives from this duality. It shouldn’t be a wonder that a man exterminates Jews by day and goes home to read his son stories before bed. Only in bad stories is evil ever anything but banal. There is always something human and redeemable about every villain, because there are no villains.

“Answer me this - just one question, that’s all. If the Doctor had never visited us, if he’d never chosen this place… on a whim… would anybody here have died?”

— Joan Redfern

Steven Lloyd Wilson is the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. He is a hopeless romantic who can be found wandering San Diego’s strip malls and suburbs looking for his mislaid soul and waiting for the revolution to come. Burning Violin is still published weekly on Wednesdays at www.burningviolin.com, along with assorted fiction and other ramblings.


Pajiba Love 03/11/09 | The Worst Movie of the Aughts



Comments

Again...Buffy standing on The Doctor's face. Yeesh!

Posted by: Jay at March 11, 2009 2:15 PM

I love that Giles quote so much.

Posted by: Julie at March 11, 2009 2:18 PM

Julie: I know! How seriously fucking awesome is Giles?

But seriously, Stipe42, you never cease to completely blow my mind. Thank you.

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at March 11, 2009 2:32 PM

Stipe42:

I missed your last column, read it a few days later and then attributed it to Snath. This time I'm glad I'm around to say, "very nicely done". These columns return the debate on these pages to the good old days of early 2008 and for that I am grateful.

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 11, 2009 2:43 PM

Just lovely Stipe42. I find the dark sides of heroes are what makes them interesting. All good ain't all good.

Posted by: Cindy at March 11, 2009 2:57 PM

Interesting Paul Atreides debate. Was it confined to the Dune novel, or the whole series? That would probably make a pretty big difference

I've always liked that 'one man's villain is another man's hero' point. It reminds me of political discourse- I may think Bill O'Reilly is an insufferable cocksucker, but my uncle thinks he is the voice of all that is good and sane in this world. Neither of us can even conceive of a world where the other person might be right. Not exactly the same thing, but it just shows how powerful your context is. Of course, the difference isn't always ideology. It can be personal characteristics, too. One of my favorite early examples of the anti-hero is an old western called Johnny Guitar in which the protagonist sees a wagon train being robbed in the opening scene and just rides off in the opposite direction.

Oh, on a random side note, has anyone seen the part of Band of Brothers towards the end where the guy talks about his grandson asking him if he was a hero in the war? Kind of sappy, but man that just kills me every time.

Posted by: phaedawg at March 11, 2009 3:05 PM

Ah Virgil, The Aeneid:

Arma virumque cano . . .

I sing of arms and of a man . . .

Posted by: BWeaves (from a different IP address) at March 11, 2009 3:08 PM

I'm as wary of moral relativism as I am of moral certainty. Recognizing one's own propensity for evil does not absolve us of the sin of inaction.

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."

I'd rather be wrong trying to do right than be an apathetic hipster douchebag and never do anything at all.

Posted by: twig at March 11, 2009 3:10 PM

Good stuff, Stipe42. I think you nail it. It's exactly this sort of proper treatment of "heroes" that draws me to works like The Wire and George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice & Fire series. Those two series, in particular, handle the whole "hero" issue incredibly well, by allowing you to see every side of the story. Many who would in almost every other story be the "villian" are much more complex and raise above, and many who would be considered "heroes" are quite flawed.

Giles is certainly the man. The one quote of his that always got to me and even managed to a milk a sweet, delicious tear out this here pastry was at the end of Innocence, when he finally talks to Buffy about what happened with Angel:

Do you want me to wag my finger at you and tell you that you acted rashly? You did. A-and I can. I know that you loved him. And... he... has proven more than once that he loved you. You couldn't have known what would happen. The coming months a-are gonna - are gonna be hard... I-I suspect on all of us, but... if it's guilt you're looking for, Buffy, I'm-I'm not your man. All you will get from me is-is my support. And my respect.

To me, that was the finest moment in the Giled/Buffy relationship. (Not to distract the comments from Stipe42's great piece).

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at March 11, 2009 3:12 PM

very nice essay from buffy to doctor who with lashings of the superman s is a recipe for happy jim. Annoyingly you are very right on the size of the topic. Now for me to go away and think about greek heroes and norse gods.

Posted by: jim at March 11, 2009 3:38 PM

Excellent piece, Stipe42. You made me feel like I was in a really good college lecture. (God, I miss school.)

Posted by: Mike R. at March 11, 2009 3:42 PM

This article drives home the point that heroism and villainy is a matter of context and perspective. One of my all time favorite books is Villains by Necessity, by Eve Forward. Good guys have won so many times that the resulting utopia is leading to cataclysmic destruction. A ragtag band of evil doers have to join together to collectively save their own necks and, as an afterthought, the rest of the world. Its not the best novel ever but its certainly a thoroughly entertaining read.

Posted by: onehandclapping at March 11, 2009 3:51 PM

Come and join hot tall dating club ___T a l l m i n g l e . C om___ has lots of sports fans there! besides, it's hot modelss, milfs, sexy chick s and handsome young men and chicks dating club!!LOL Don't miss out!! :-)

Posted by: owen at March 11, 2009 3:54 PM

Seriously i try but can never make it past 2 or 3 sentences .

Posted by: gilp at March 11, 2009 3:54 PM

another excellent column--thank you.

Posted by: kara at March 11, 2009 4:04 PM

Love discussions like this.

The hero/villain debate can also stem from a nature/nurture debate. Are heroes created in response to horror (nice line, by the way), or are they born to fill that role? I think comic books and other "black and white hero" stories pull from "Destiny as Reason" thinking, creating heroes for dangers that exist in the future.

Also, are heroes really those that stare into the abyss to save us from the terror? I don't know. I think we all stare into the abyss eventually. Perhaps because heroes stare into the abyss, it makes the idea of our own eventual mortality not quite so terrifying, and maybe, at some point, even acceptable. Or perhaps, because they stare into the abyss and don't come back with the knowledge--knowledge that we find so comforting in its mere existence, knowledge that can create a personified horror--that we create an imagined terror that is light years more intense than the reality.

Posted by: boo at March 11, 2009 4:26 PM

I love this exploration into what it means to be a hero, or a villain, or both. It's true that we unconsciously expect a hero to fade out, or disappear when his/her good deeds have been done.

I really love Ender's Game, and have re-read it numerous times, but I never really enjoyed Ender's sequels. Maybe it because I felt like I was reading something rather irrelevant; the story of the exiled hero. But I enjoyed the hell out of Ender's Shadow and all of Bean's sequels. They dealt with his continuing heroism on Earth- and Bean is one of the most intriguing "heroes" I ever read of. Very much a mixture of good and evil, he barely even knows what those words mean.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 11, 2009 4:42 PM

Got to love a good Ender's Game reference. Once again, I'm reminded why I love Pajiba.

Posted by: kelsy at March 11, 2009 5:04 PM

Okay, Stipe42. I'm kind of convinced we're sharing a wavelength. This is getting freaky.

The undergraduate thesis I'm currently finishing up? On the conception of the modern hero through Jewish American fiction (with some special attention to Joseph Campbell and how the authors deconstruct his structure).

And that spiritual atheism guide from a few weeks ago? My statement of purpose for grad schools (I know, I know, graduate students are the worst, but dammit! I like studying and writing papers and arguing about minutia) focused on the stripping down of religion in modern genre shows (including Doctor Who) to remove the patriarchal privilege and open it up to those marginalized by the patriarchy. And the writing sample that finally got me in was on the human rejection of the Judeo-Christian god in The Second Coming and Angels in America.

If I didn't already have a twin, my parents would be getting some questions tonight.

Posted by: foursweatervests at March 11, 2009 5:13 PM

Great article. Makes me think of the end of "Falling Down" when a shocked Michael Douglas says "I'm the bad guy?

And on a totally puerile note:
"they don’t live long enough to take on the taint of the monsters that they fight.

Monster taint? Ewwwwww....

Posted by: Odnon at March 11, 2009 5:31 PM

Excellent work Stipe. If I were your high school teacher I would be feeling like a bite up shilling in a ten cents party because you soaked in the lesson of the class and helped relate
to others in a way which they could appreciate.

Posted by: Four Eyes at March 11, 2009 7:01 PM

Stipe42, usted es un homo de flaming.

Posted by: Pookie at March 11, 2009 7:38 PM

I hate having to contemplate the role of medication levels, Pookie -- but every once in a while you really sock one out of the park with just a bat of sheer irreverence.

Posted by: Che Grovera at March 11, 2009 7:51 PM

Color me undecided, stipe42. I'm inclined to like your fluid prose, even when it meanders like a lazy river over a flat landscape. I would be tempted to buy your book if it wasn't available only for the Kindle; any chance of scoring a PDF?

Posted by: Che Grovera at March 11, 2009 7:57 PM

So did you like it or not Che? And stop being so fucking coy. Half of the time I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about with all of your goddamn double talk. You are my second favorite person here, but Jesus Christ man, speak english.

Posted by: Pookie at March 11, 2009 8:09 PM

I laughed out loud, Pookie -- longer than I'd like to admit. Thus, I liked it. A lot. But not literally.

Posted by: Che Grovera at March 11, 2009 8:53 PM

I'd rather be wrong trying to do right than be an apathetic hipster douchebag and never do anything at all.

twig, you are now quote on my wall.

Posted by: DoubleH at March 11, 2009 9:48 PM

Che: Why, since you bring it up, I have set up a deal for publication of my first novel, Katorga, and am in the process of final edits before the proofs and printing. So non-Kindle owners will be able to buy Katorga in trade paperback on Amazon and other fine online book stores within a month or two. I'll let you fine souls know as soon as it is available.

Posted by: stipe42 at March 11, 2009 11:46 PM

You didn't trick me. It's not very nice of you to try, though.

Posted by: Lucas at March 12, 2009 2:17 AM

Stipe,
I'll keep looking forward to Wednesday if you'll keep writing these thought provoking, beautifully written posts. I'm sure your theme this week is no coincidence given the Watchmen opening. I enjoyed the movie because I found myself pondering many of the points you've so eloquently raised both during and after the movie. You're correct that "Heroes aren’t all saints." And not all saints were heroes or consistently saintly during their lives.

Sounds like you went to a great High School. The nuns at mine would never have considered offering Science Fiction as an elective or had a mock trail that didn't include Pontius Pilate.

I'm 99% positive you've already read this series but on the 1% chance you haven't, I believe you'd enjoy Dan Simmons SciFi Hyperion series. It's rife with classic literature and philosophy references (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin plays a role both thematically and as the name of a character) with an amazing, capital M, Monster.

Keep us posted about your book, I'll buy one.

Posted by: Sharopa at March 12, 2009 3:06 AM