Is the literary hero dead?

[smilerbabeuk]

Sebastian Faulks, in his BBC2 show last weekend stated that the literary hero is dead. My first reaction was to think 'of course its not', but the more I think about it the more I think it may be true. It does depend on how you define a hero, whether they are simply the male lead character or if you take it as someone with exceptional courage, nobility or strength. The latter, a dictionary definition, doesn't really appear any more in literary works. They are full of the normal, flawed, conflicted man rather than the 'hero'.

 

So do you agree? Is the literary hero dead?

[vodkafan]

Sebastian Faulks, in his BBC2 show last weekend stated that the literary hero is dead. My first reaction was to think 'of course its not', but the more I think about it the more I think it may be true. It does depend on how you define a hero, whether they are simply the male lead character or if you take it as someone with exceptional courage, nobility or strength. The latter, a dictionary definition, doesn't really appear any more in literary works. They are full of the normal, flawed, conflicted man rather than the 'hero'.

 

So do you agree? Is the literary hero dead?

 

When I read the title of your post I misunderstood and assumed by literary hero you meant a gifted or powerful writer.

But below I refer to your definition.

Of course the older novels with their classic hero characters are still around and just as readable....but thinking back to older books I have read, I cannot think of any such noble character; even a hero needs to have some flaws or some kind of internal conflict going on in order to be interesting to read about.

Can you give us a couple of examples of exceptional hero characters to start us off?

[smilerbabeuk]

I think that older books tend to focus much more on what was impressive about the hero, very much play down any flaws. So you get heroes like Sherlock Holmes who seem somewhat invincible.

Now books are much more about overcoming flaws to achieve great things, much more about the ordinary aspects of the character than the extraordinary.

There will always be heroes, but nobody writes about people that are nothing but impressive except in children's books.

[TheNinthWord]

I should mention that this post may contain a few spoilers.

 

I disagree that the literary hero is dead. I just think it's evolved.

 

Whilst it might be true to say that writers focus on a character's flaws more often nowadays, it still takes an extraordinary amount of strength to overcome these "ordinary" flaws and succeed. I'd even be tempted to say an "heroic" amount of strength and courage. A modern hero is an ordinary person in an extraordinary situation, yet still comes through against all the odds. Of course, there are tragic heroes, where they don't make it, but there is usually some cathartic moment they have just before they die; a moment of enlightenment.

 

Compare Beowulf, one of English literature's earliest heroes (around 1000 years old), with, say, Pamela from Richardson's Pamela, then on to your example of Sherlock Holmes. (I apologise for the length of this post already).

 

Beowulf is the typical "hero". He exhibits great strength, great bravery, great nobility. He overcomes monsters, though he eventually meets his downfall at the hands of the dragon. The poet doesn't seem to mention his weaknesses at all (though some can still be interpreted from the text, such as his constant need to fight, even when he perhaps shouldn't).

 

Then jump forwards 700 years to one of the earliest novels, Pamela. This is a somewhat different case, since the hero is in fact a heroine, but she still exhibits strength (of will), bravery (against a man she is afraid of), and nobility (through her indomitable virtue). She is still a hero, though more normal than most. She is a servant, who happens to catch the eye of her master who then attempts to seduce her. Her resistance is commendable, but though she eventually succumbs to his advances, she does so with grace. She accepts the events, and flourishes. Her heroism comes not from her stubbornness, but from her ability to adapt to the new life that terrified her at the start of the novel.

 

Then jump forward another few hundred years to Sherlock Holmes. Faulks mentioned that he is one of the first "superheroes"; his almost inhuman ability of deduction is unmatched. But Faulks goes on to mention that Holmes still has his vices. He is addicted to solving crimes. When there are no crimes to solve, he turns to drugs to fill the gap. This is an example of a character whose nobility, strength, and bravery are compromised by morality, but he is still heroic.

 

I'm trying to think of a modern example, but I'm struggling. The modern stuff I read is mostly fantasy, where the epic hero is still very much alive, though much changed from older examples.

 

I'll take the example of Griet from Tracy Chevalier's Girl with a Pearl Earring. Her stance as a heroine is unusually passive. Whilst her presence in the Vermeer household causes lots of problems, it is because of other characters' reactions to her, not because of anything she does. She is the perfect servant, doing what she is told, even when she must sit for Vermeer's painting. She is torn between loyalty to her master, and loyalty to his wife. It is a case of the ordinary person in an extraordinary circumstance. Despite her limitations as a maid, despite her inability to resist Vermeer, she is still heroic. She maintains her virtue, though it is a great struggle to do so. She remains likeable. Throughout it all, through strength of will, great bravery, and great nobility (she knows the consequences of her actions, and is prepared to meet them) she maintains her status, what she sees as her "proper place" in life. She has her flaws, but she comes through and keeps what is most important to her.

 

No. The literary hero is still around.

 

Edit: made the change pointed out by Vladd.

Edited February 13, 2011 by TheNinthWord

[Kidsmum]

Following on from what Ninth word put so eloquently, maybe the modern day heroes are people who have triumphed over adversity, there are a plethora of books on the market these days about people who have had terrible childhoods full of hardship & abuse but have survived & gone on to live happy lives, I suppose they could be considered modern day heroes & heroines.

[Vladd]

Then jump forward another few hundred years to Sherlock Holmes. Faulks mentioned that he is one of the first "superheroes"; his almost inhuman ability of deduction is unmatched. But Faulks goes on to mention that Holmes still has his vices. He is addicted to solving crimes. When there are no crimes to solve, he turns to drugs and women to fill the gap. This is an example of a character whose nobility, strength, and bravery are compromised by morality, but he is still heroic.

I don't know which Holmes stories you have read but I don't remember Holmes chasing women when he had no crimes to solve. As for the question, I think the 'perfect' Hero is no more, all the heroes today seem to be more rooted in reality (though some have deeper roots than other) with human flaws and defects in fact it is the overcoming of their flaws etc which is the very thing which makes a modern character a hero.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Vladd

[BookJumper]

Further from Ninth's excellent points, I would dare to argue that all the literary heroes that have fascinated and intrigued readers through the centuries - nay, longer - have done so not in spite of, but because of their weaknesses. Human beings are interested in investigating other beings in situations they can relate to, and have since the dawn of storytelling; now, what's relatable about perfect courage, integrity and nobility?

 

I mean, think Knights of the Round Table. Surely they're the paladins of all that's good and true, right? Wrong. They haven't survived the Middle Ages because they were ever perfect, they survived the Middle Ages because of their jealousy, pride and wrath. It's these imperfections that makes them human, their humanity that makes them heroic, and their heroism that makes them immortal.

[TheNinthWord]

I don't know which Holmes stories you have read but I don't remember Holmes chasing women when he had no crimes to solve. As for the question, I think the 'perfect' Hero is no more, all the heroes today seem to be more rooted in reality (though some have deeper roots than other) with human flaws and defects in fact it is the overcoming of their flaws etc which is the very thing which makes a modern character a hero.

 

I'll be honest and say that I haven't read any Holmes stories; I tried Hound of the Baskervilles when I was younger. I was just going by what I (fuzzily) remember from the programme. I apologise for the mistake.

[ian]

I suppose you could argue that the literary hero isn't dead, he or she has just become more realistic. Certainly in serious fiction. The "perfect" hero still exists in the more, churn-'em-out thriller type. (I should know, 'cos I read so many of them!)

 

I'm thinking specifically of the Clive Cussler creation, Dirk Pitt here. Even as a 14 yo, he struck me as unbelievable!

 

Ian

[Pixie]

...or if you take it as someone with exceptional courage, nobility or strength. The latter, a dictionary definition, doesn't really appear any more in literary works. They are full of the normal, flawed, conflicted man rather than the 'hero'.

 

So do you agree? Is the literary hero dead?

No, I don't agree. Here is why.

 

A normal, flawed, conflicted individual is the hero. You cannot have exceptional courage, nobility, or strength without the flaws.

 

If you are never afraid or full of doubts, you are not courageous. If you are always perfect in thought or deed, you are not noble. If you never have a moment of weakness to overcome, you are not strong.

 

I will admit, I have not read a lot of the classics, but if the "hero" was portrayed as being perfect, was there really any story to tell? It seems it would get old and boring fast.

 

I didn't see Bookjumper's post before I wrote this. She said what I said, just much more eloquently. Thank you, Bookjumper.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Pixie

[BookJumper]

I didn't see Bookjumper's post before I wrote this. She said what I said, just much more eloquently. Thank you, Bookjumper.

No, thank you I say we were both pretty eloquent.

 

Short of it is, everybody's replied here confirm that no one likes their heroes shallow and two-dimensional, and I don't think that's a particularly Modern preference - after all, life's always been in 3D.