I side with the good guys. I'll let you know that up front. I enjoy heroes, even the ones with the tarnish on their armor. I'll go as far as enjoying an anti-hero when there's no better option. I suppose it has more to do with being able to see a respectable mission statement driving their actions. I love Superman and Wonder Woman, but I also am a fierce supporter of Batman and The Shadow and Jack Bauer.
I don't cheer for the bad guys or think they're cool. Sure, I can see that there are varying shades of bad, ranging from the laughable and sad all the way out to horrifying agents of inhuman evil. Some people find themselves drawn to the seductions of the dark and consider those of a heroic nature to be weak or "lame". I keep an eye on those people. They make me wonder about them.
I don't live under a rock, so I've seen the rise in interest of vampires as heroic and romantic figures rather than as predatory villains that an audience will enjoy seeing defeated. I still find this a curious phenomenon and find that fighting the dark side makes far more sense. Give me "Blade" over "Twilight" any day. I'm still on the fence over "Star Wars", since Lucas added all that stuff about the "good guys" starting up a slave army. I definitely wasn't crazy about Darth Maul being a popular Halloween costume choice.
Long ago, I went to watch a movie with a friend. It was a comedy remake of a foreign film that ran longer than it needed to, but my friend really wanted to see it. Let's just say that it focused on three men and a baby of uncertain parentage. This was an era when irresponsible sex or, as Julia Roberts taught us, being a prostitute to a rich guy was funny. Anyway, at the climax of the film, a couple of the men and the baby were being pursued by gun-wielding criminals intent on doing bodily harm to the helpless comic actors. My friend bounced on the edge of her seat tensely urging the protagonists to "Get away! Get away!" with anxious whispers. To me, it was obvious that they'd come out OK because this wasn't the kind of movie that Hollywood was about to throw a bloody body count into any sooner than they would bring a serial killing pedophile onto "Full House" to destroy the Olsen twin empire in its infancy. Still, she made me wonder..."Are there bad guys out there cheering for the criminals to catch the men and the baby even though it was clear that there was no chance of evil triumphing in this movie?" There was no way for me to answer that at the time, so I filed it away in the vast brain cell storage repository I keep atop my neck.
A few years later, I was on a business trip. I worked for IBM at the time, so they were fairly common. On this particular trip, I had the good fortune to meet a lot of people from different parts of the country and talk with one who had worked on a computer network installation in a juvenile detention center. Well, having not had the exposure to the criminal element that I would in years to come, I leapt on the opportunity to explain to him my movie theater question and ask if he had perhaps gleaned any insight he could offer me. He paused thoughtfully and cocked his head to one side as he searched his own memory repository, then looked at me with epiphanous intensity as he said, "You know, they do!"
Ah, sweet confirmation! Even though our entertainment industry has given us the hard-sell on messages like "crime doesn't pay" and "good will triumph", bad guys will cheer for bad guys. Who doesn't like Superman? Bad guys, that's who. When you're composing your next work of intriguing fiction and remembering to infuse your antagonist with heaping quantities of humanity for the audience to identify with, don't be shy about making bad guys bad. Why? Because they are. I've met a lot of them. They're human, but they're quite willing to disregard that you are. Some of them are good at hiding their dark qualities from the masses, but they do harbor them and eagerly seek the bright virtues in you that afford them ready prey. They seek your trust and your empathy. Whether harboring fear or anger or whatever other dark motivators, bad guys are ultimately true to their labels. They range from the laughable and pitiable to the cold and monstrous.
Flirting with the dark may give you a thrill, but you're turning your back on what's good for you to invite something bad inside. Next time you're relishing your gaze into the abyss, delightfully engaged by intriguing villainy, be careful not to lose yourself in there. You have to live with what comes back out.
Showing posts with label anti-hero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-hero. Show all posts
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
16392--Lowering the Bar
I'm...wondering about us. I'm not just wondering about a selective "us". No, this time, I find myself concerned about the collective "us".
Stop rolling your eyes. This is for your benefit, too.
Our stories are our mythologies. They aren't strict histories, but they are tales of us and our culture. They may be more telling now than any other time we know as we have not only local cultures, but grand global culture as well. Tales of the global culture have grown and changed over the last few decades, with creators and audiences finding comfort in exploring greater levels of detail and emotional depth.
We have largely foresaken simplistic tales for those deemed more realistic. As a result, we have populated our stories with protagonists and antagonists who find themselves sharing more traits with each other. Antagonists who wear the mantle of tragedy or show some quality making them worthy of redemption have become most interesting. Likewise, protagonists are heralded not for the heroic qualities they use to rise above crisis and conflict, but their own flaws over which they find triumph in spite of lest they be deemed lacking of sufficient dimensionality. While we are certain we have gained previously unknown richness in our entertainment, have we done so at too great a cost to ourselves?
We have given ourselves protagonists increasingly willing to embrace internal darkness as part of their nature rather than as a part of their struggle. Flaws have become less the uncertain footing for a hero to guard against and more the traction of his foundation. A character like Superman has been deemed "too good" by many with his heroic ideals considered to be something to which we can no longer relate. Many modern folk have come to champion Batman and Wolverine as examples of those with whom they can find greater comfort because of their darker aspects. What are we saying about ourselves when we find that we're happier dealing with a hero who's a brooding alcoholic willing to take a few shortcuts to win the day than one who's willing to put other people's needs ahead of his own and make the right choices even though they're hard choices? On what side of the line in the sand have we chosen to stand when we find more ready respect for a villain than a hero?
Have we lowered the bar too much? In some ways, it seems we have. I've become concerned for us because it has started to look like we are more comfortable with protagonists and antagonists who seem more realistic because of the challenges they don't represent rather than those that they do. An antagonist we can understand is one we can possibly talk with rather than fight. A protagonist who doesn't stand as too tall a role model, daunting us with lofty aspirations, makes us feel less inadequate but also gives us lower goals for which to reach. Sadly, we're left lost and confused.
Remember the TV series "Heroes"? It started off with decent energy, but lost its way as the most heroic heroes squandered their potential and became too flawed to function. As that went on, the show's most villainous villains had themselves more put together than the heroes to the point that the baffled audience no longer knew for whom to cheer. The show ended quietly, mercifully, as ratings fell along with interest. On this side of the TV screen, we've likewise been battered with years of ridiculous presidential failures. Some have been as simple as maligning English and the image of the office. Others been more blatant machinations like lying to Congress and We the People, having the audacity to question the definition of "is" to avoid answers or engaging in complex criminal activities while investigators and whistleblowers die off in curious ways. Flaws and shortcomings like these will apparently persist as long as we abide them. Are they what we want? We are the ones who've decided to hold people to a lowered standard.
I recently found myself ready to fight over one noted writer's notion that Superman was disliked because of his working-class background while Batman was loved for being a billionaire who beat up poor people, thus representing a wish fulfillment fantasy. My vehement response included a recommendation that said writer had at the least become a victim of his self-professed drug use and could do far worse than to submit himself for psychiatric evaluation. If surveyed regarding his opinions, I will obviously choose the "strongly disagree" option. I don't think we've gone so far afield yet that we've completely lost sight of the "good guys versus bad guys" basics.
In a time when many of us have become more comfortable with celebrating mediocrity and comforting underachievers, however, it seems to be increasingly within reason that we would succumb to this brand of socialism that has us seeking our lowest common denominator. That's the thing about socialism, though: you can bring everybody down, but you can't lift everyone up. It seems odd and sad that many of us have given in to weariness, since we have so long held that our reach should exceed our grasp and aspired to better ourselves. I know, though, that we know better than to merely surrender. Just as satisfaction comes from achieving our goals, it wears on us to fail. We have always set that standard of success as having the will to rise that one last time and to never stop striving to be more than we already are. That's the heroism that blossoms from within us. It fuels our strength to rise, our courage to be unselfish and our will to face our fears. It brings none of us down and can lift everyone up. That is a part of ourselves we must never relinquish or we resign ourselves to always being less than our best.
Oh, sure, a certain level of laziness, settling for less and reclining in comfort holds a basic physical appeal to us. We need it. This allows us to enjoy our rest from our efforts and relax. There's a limit to how much of that we can handle, though. That's the line where outright sloth begins. Reaching for more is inherent in our psyche, a basic part of driving us to improve. Looking at it closely, it still appears to be worth our efforts not to abandon anytime soon. Daring ourselves to dream means not lowering the bar. It means finding the strength to fight evils that are indeed evil and not merely misunderstood, just as it means allowing ourselves to feel worthy of heroes who are better, stronger and faster than we are so that we might learn to fly and continue to achieve ever-greater goals.
Stop rolling your eyes. This is for your benefit, too.
Our stories are our mythologies. They aren't strict histories, but they are tales of us and our culture. They may be more telling now than any other time we know as we have not only local cultures, but grand global culture as well. Tales of the global culture have grown and changed over the last few decades, with creators and audiences finding comfort in exploring greater levels of detail and emotional depth.
We have largely foresaken simplistic tales for those deemed more realistic. As a result, we have populated our stories with protagonists and antagonists who find themselves sharing more traits with each other. Antagonists who wear the mantle of tragedy or show some quality making them worthy of redemption have become most interesting. Likewise, protagonists are heralded not for the heroic qualities they use to rise above crisis and conflict, but their own flaws over which they find triumph in spite of lest they be deemed lacking of sufficient dimensionality. While we are certain we have gained previously unknown richness in our entertainment, have we done so at too great a cost to ourselves?
We have given ourselves protagonists increasingly willing to embrace internal darkness as part of their nature rather than as a part of their struggle. Flaws have become less the uncertain footing for a hero to guard against and more the traction of his foundation. A character like Superman has been deemed "too good" by many with his heroic ideals considered to be something to which we can no longer relate. Many modern folk have come to champion Batman and Wolverine as examples of those with whom they can find greater comfort because of their darker aspects. What are we saying about ourselves when we find that we're happier dealing with a hero who's a brooding alcoholic willing to take a few shortcuts to win the day than one who's willing to put other people's needs ahead of his own and make the right choices even though they're hard choices? On what side of the line in the sand have we chosen to stand when we find more ready respect for a villain than a hero?
Have we lowered the bar too much? In some ways, it seems we have. I've become concerned for us because it has started to look like we are more comfortable with protagonists and antagonists who seem more realistic because of the challenges they don't represent rather than those that they do. An antagonist we can understand is one we can possibly talk with rather than fight. A protagonist who doesn't stand as too tall a role model, daunting us with lofty aspirations, makes us feel less inadequate but also gives us lower goals for which to reach. Sadly, we're left lost and confused.
Remember the TV series "Heroes"? It started off with decent energy, but lost its way as the most heroic heroes squandered their potential and became too flawed to function. As that went on, the show's most villainous villains had themselves more put together than the heroes to the point that the baffled audience no longer knew for whom to cheer. The show ended quietly, mercifully, as ratings fell along with interest. On this side of the TV screen, we've likewise been battered with years of ridiculous presidential failures. Some have been as simple as maligning English and the image of the office. Others been more blatant machinations like lying to Congress and We the People, having the audacity to question the definition of "is" to avoid answers or engaging in complex criminal activities while investigators and whistleblowers die off in curious ways. Flaws and shortcomings like these will apparently persist as long as we abide them. Are they what we want? We are the ones who've decided to hold people to a lowered standard.
I recently found myself ready to fight over one noted writer's notion that Superman was disliked because of his working-class background while Batman was loved for being a billionaire who beat up poor people, thus representing a wish fulfillment fantasy. My vehement response included a recommendation that said writer had at the least become a victim of his self-professed drug use and could do far worse than to submit himself for psychiatric evaluation. If surveyed regarding his opinions, I will obviously choose the "strongly disagree" option. I don't think we've gone so far afield yet that we've completely lost sight of the "good guys versus bad guys" basics.
In a time when many of us have become more comfortable with celebrating mediocrity and comforting underachievers, however, it seems to be increasingly within reason that we would succumb to this brand of socialism that has us seeking our lowest common denominator. That's the thing about socialism, though: you can bring everybody down, but you can't lift everyone up. It seems odd and sad that many of us have given in to weariness, since we have so long held that our reach should exceed our grasp and aspired to better ourselves. I know, though, that we know better than to merely surrender. Just as satisfaction comes from achieving our goals, it wears on us to fail. We have always set that standard of success as having the will to rise that one last time and to never stop striving to be more than we already are. That's the heroism that blossoms from within us. It fuels our strength to rise, our courage to be unselfish and our will to face our fears. It brings none of us down and can lift everyone up. That is a part of ourselves we must never relinquish or we resign ourselves to always being less than our best.
Oh, sure, a certain level of laziness, settling for less and reclining in comfort holds a basic physical appeal to us. We need it. This allows us to enjoy our rest from our efforts and relax. There's a limit to how much of that we can handle, though. That's the line where outright sloth begins. Reaching for more is inherent in our psyche, a basic part of driving us to improve. Looking at it closely, it still appears to be worth our efforts not to abandon anytime soon. Daring ourselves to dream means not lowering the bar. It means finding the strength to fight evils that are indeed evil and not merely misunderstood, just as it means allowing ourselves to feel worthy of heroes who are better, stronger and faster than we are so that we might learn to fly and continue to achieve ever-greater goals.
Friday, July 29, 2011
16362--Is the Hero of Your Story Really a Hero?
Coined in English 1387, the word "hero" comes from the Greek "heros", which originally translated as "protector" or "defender". What is a hero, though? What qualities define your character as actually being heroic?Is your hero just holding the title by virtue of being the main character in the story? There are plenty of those out there and you may know a few. They lack strength of character, sense of responsibility, compassion for others...Well, you're smart enough to see where this is going. We're not talking about a heroic hero.
Maybe you're working with a tragic hero who has been set on his heroic path by tragic circumstances. You know, Superman and Batman sort of heroes who rise from being orphaned into perservering champions. Some are also obviously superhuman, though that isn't a prerequisite. In some cases, it adds to the story and in other cases it works better for the hero to be very human, putting life and limb at risk for the sake of others. Either way, it sounds like you're building a role model worthy of the title. This is why their level of sacrifice is important. Batman was orphaned when he watched the murder of his parents, setting down a purposeful path for his wealth and focus and sacrifices yet to come. Superman had a larger sacrifice up-front with the death of not only his parents but his entire world. Then, he had to learn how to live among the people of Earth with the unique hidden burden of ever-growing power.
You can have a reluctant hero or a brooding hero or one who eagerly embraces a destined path. In our modern age, an audience is also likely to encounter a rough-cut anti-hero who doesn't really care about others, but whose goals happen to coincide with some outcome that's good for somebody who isn't bad. Your hero may even be a vigilante, operating so far outside the law that "right" and "wrong" have new definitions. The recent film "Despicable Me" was as devoid of law and order as "A Fistful of Dollars", with both the protagonist and the antagonist operating as self-proclaimed villains dedicated to outperforming each other in magnitude of criminal grandeur. The protagonist only crossed the line at the story's climax when he set his own wishes aside in favor of...OK, again you're smart enough to see where we're going.
Just because your hero isn't a clean-cut milk-drinker who contributes to widows and orphans doesn't mean he has to turn in his badge. There are a lot of different kinds of heroes. Some of them wouldn't even get along with each other. Some use weapons and some are willing to kill to achieve their goals. Some justify their actions easily while others go through endless internal conflicts. They're all fine as long as they measure up to getting the part of their job done that dictates they put their own issues aside to fulfill their heroic purpose. What that purpose is...Well, we've established that you're supposed to be smart and it's your story, so you tell me. What is your hero doing to earn the title? What sacrifices and conflicts have challenged your hero to grow into the role?
What makes your favorite hero tough enough to have earned the status?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)