CSotD: A Mystery of Heroism
Skip to comments
Friend-of-the Blog Brian Fies has created a on reflection heroism, on one hero in particular, and on one anti-hero in particular.
It is short and worth your time: Go read it.
As it happens, I just included this bit of Lou Grantly wisdom for the young writers I direct in the job that pays my rent:
Editor's Note: Don't expect a moral to every story
As you work to learn the difference between writing as a journalist and writing as a student, there are all sorts of little things that pop up, and this one makes me smile.
Teachers usually assign a story or book because it contains a moral and they want you to figure out what that moral is.
Certainly, high quality novels and movies contain morals, and it's worthwhile to point them out. But we often assign book and movie reviews just for fun, and the point of your review is to tell our readers if it's worth their time and money to check it out.
Often, there isn't any moral. It's just for fun.
Don't strain your brain looking for something that isn't there.
Brian's moral is most certainly there, and it hit me at a receptive time, not only because of the immediate example that inspired him, but because of a more general commentary he offers on us, and on our times.
I'm perfectly willing to look for morals when they are present, and, at this moment in our history, we seem obsessed with the concept of heroism.
Since 9/11, when genuine heroes gave their lives in an attempt to save others, we've begun to declare anyone who wears a uniform a "hero" without requiring anything more, and yet there has to be more.
In his short story, "A Mystery of Heroism," Stephen Crane wrote of a pointless, unnecessary act of derrying-do, opening the issue of what merits the label. A young soldier, his unit pinned down in battle, races to a well and back to fetch water, less because they needed the water than because he wanted to prove his bravery.
I prefer Tolstoy, whose heroes operate largely out of circumstance rather than deliberate choice, most notably Denisov, for whom heroism is second nature. If Denisov had the opportunity to live his entire life without performing a single heroic act, he would take it, but he doesn't turn away from the moment either.
Denisov would not have been so vainglorious as to risk his neck for a pail of water, but he did destroy his military career to hijack a supply wagon for his men, because sometimes the enemy is not the person shooting at you, and there's your mystery of heroism.
Which brings us back, or close enough anyway, to Brian's point.
And, beyond the specific example he brings forth is this: Underlying his description of the original, pure Superman is the cold fact that, while there was a time when Clark Kent was an uncomplicated, metaphorical hero, we have since changed things such that the main thrust of storytelling appears to be denying and undercutting all good intentions and proving that Superman is "more complex" than that.
It's no longer a story, told in a single issue of the comic, about red kryptonite or Mister Mxyzptlk, but rather a sweeping declaration of our collective refusal to accept the idea of someone who simply wants to do right and is content to make the world a better place.
Twas not always so.
Like most little boys of my era, Davy Crockett was a huge hero in my young universe, but I didn't pretend to be Davy when we played. I was Georgie Russell, his pal.
I'm not sure why: Perhaps Davy, like Superman, was untouchable, inhumanly perfect, more metaphor than person.
Unlike Zorro's servant, Bernardo, Georgie did more than hand Davy things: He stepped up and took the risks alongside him, and he did it with more intimacy and friendship than any of Robin Hood's Merry Men or those who fought alongside the Swamp Fox.
That roll call being one of the Grand Ironies, since we were raised with visions of heroes who stood up to injustice in the form of alcaldes and Sheriffs of Nottingham and bureaucrats who tried to steal land from the Indians, but the intention, as they proved a decade later, had not been to bring up a generation who marched in the streets.
Nonetheless, those were our heroes, and we could use a few of them today, and you only need a couple of Davy Crocketts if they are backed up by a sufficient number of Georgie Russells.
Juxtaposition of the Day, w/clarification
One moment in the debate that raised my skepticism was the claim that a Trump company had been sued by the feds for discrimination. His response, that several companies were involved and that he never admitted guilt in the matter, seemed credible.
That is, it's not unprecedented for a lawsuit to name a number of companies under a broad umbrella for various practices, such as, for instance, including provisions to land sales that prevent re-sale of the land to minorities.
Those restrictive clauses were once common, tucked into contracts amid all the boilerplate, and honored more in the breach than in reality. Still, it was necessary to make sure they were taken out. Similar odd, out-of-date, unacceptable things popped up in rental agreements and other real estate documents.
So when you hear that a company has faced action over discrimination, and settled it without an admission of guilt, it's entirely possible that they were swept up in one of these clarification moments, responded with a consent decree, perhaps paid a fine and then moved on.
Because people aren't metaphors. And they aren't always heroes.
This really happened, and it destroyed his political career.
Still can't believe Walt showed it to a generation of kids.
Comments 1
Comments are closed.