First Discussion: The Hero

In this thread we will define a hero. Using classical examples (Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Chinese, etc...) define a hero. Using the work of Joseph Campbell explain what the Hero's Journey is and give an example of a well known classical hero paying specific detail to their hero's journey.

So...what is a hero? Well, according to Joseph Campbell, a hero cannot just wake up one morning and be a hero. There is a metaphorical journey that must be undertaken.

Roughly speaking – the journey begins with a call to adventure, which is often initially resisted. Once they heed the call, they cross into the ‘world’ of adventure and are confronted by a series of trials, culminating in the hero confronting the thing that holds the ultimate power in their life. They must overcome this in order to become a new person – the hero – and only once this has happened can they move on to achieving the goal of their quest. The hero must then return, resisting the temptation to stay, and must manage to integrate themselves back into normal life, sharing the wisdom gained from their quest and living as their new enlightened self, the hero, free from the fear of death.

So to describe a hero in my own words - a hero is someone who sacrifices their life, or aspects of it, to undertake tasks that are for the greater good. The undertaking of these tasks is also accompanied by a self-awakening - a realization that they are destined for this higher purpose, meaning that once the task(s) have been completed, the hero does not return to being the person that they were before receiving the call, but lives in their new, reborn, hero state, continuing to work for the greater good.

I am not well read in classical hero mythology, so choosing a classical hero to discuss was difficult. I have gone for Heracles (sometimes known as Hercules), one of the most famous heroes in Greek mythology.

As he is the illegitimate son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Heracles starts off life as a mortal, living an ordinary life in the ordinary world. He receives the call to adventure when he destroys the Minyans, freeing his town of Thebes from having to pay homage to them. However, he could also be seen to be refusing the call when he commits some terrible acts, including killing his children, when Zeus’ jealous wife Hera tries to send him mad. Campbell’s hero model includes having someone cast in the role of mentor or guide, and this is evident in Heracles’ story when he goes to the Oracle of Delphi for advice. He leaves his old life behind and crosses the threshold into the world of adventure when he agrees to undertake a series of ten labours (which later become twelve) as penance for the crimes he previously committed. These labours, and the challenges encountered along the way, act as the trials that the hero must undergo and overcome. For his final task, Heracles travels to the land of the dead and returns alive, bringing with him Cerberus, the guard-dog of the underworld. This signifies his complete rebirth as a new person and as the complete hero. The completion of these labours enables the fulfilment of Heracles’ original quest – to gain atonement for his crimes. Signifying his letting go of his life in the adventure world and return to normality, Heracles gives his wife to a friend and moves on to the next stages of his life. As a result of the deeds that he has done, he is seen as a hero and is granted immortality, and later becomes a real God, free from the fear of death.

I've personally read a good bit of mythology, as well as a good bit of Campbell stuff. I'm well acquainted with his ideas of "monomyth" and the hero cycle, and personally I think it's an interesting theory, but fails the test in real-life application. Specifically, I think it's created this false idea that every hero has to follow this pattern/archetype.

One thing that stands out in my mind is playing the original Halo years ago (I still have it somewhere). In the extra features, there's an interview with the game's designers, and the lead guy mentions that generally speaking, in video games, you start out with a potential hero who is not all that great, but gradually progresses through experience and gradually becomes more powerful (not unlike Campbell's hero cycle). He said Halo broke the mold, because the characters are consistent throughout the game, entering it as soldiers that know what they have to do, and having long had the abilities to do it (or attempt, anyway). Perhaps flawed heroes, unlike the idealistic image of a Campbell hero, but infinitely more realistic.

Perhaps my first experience with an "outside the Campbell box" hero was Dash Rendar, who is a supporting and, dare I say, minor character in the Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire novel and comic book series, but is the hero of the SOTE video game. Unlike Luke, Anakin, or Obi-Wan, Dash enters the scene from the beginning knowing what to do. His only increase in power throughout the game is a result of acquiring new weapons, or rather, different forms of ammunition which are all fired from his trusty blaster. I remember from a young age being enamored with him because he deviated from the Skywalker-esque hero mold, as I knew it then, which 13 years later I recognize as the "Campbell mold."

Of course these heroes don't exit their mothers being heroes. A more obscure example but one that is very near and dear to me is Kirth Gersen, the protagonist of Jack Vance's five Demon Princes novels. When we are introduced to him in the first novel, he is in his mid-thirties with tons of live experience and fighting ability, having spent at least the past 20 years learning martial arts, marksmanship, and poisoning in order to exact revenge on the five criminal overlords who were responsible for the destruction of his village. As stated, he didn't start out as an expert killer, and were it not for the tragedy that occurred early in his life, he never would have become one, and yes, he had to endure a long and arduous two decades to attain his abilities, but he did so without the occurrence of anything Campbell-esque.

I could come up with many more examples, but I don't want to write a book, or even an essay here. I hope I don't sound like I'm on a vendetta against Campbell, trying to ruin his posthumous credibility. Far from it, I've read a few of his books, enjoyed them, and I appreciate his influence on Star Wars. However, I want to make it clear that he never had the monopoly of the science of heroes, and that many heroes can and do fall well beyond the reach of his cycle.

There are so many heroes throughout history and in myth. They are the ones that inspire and teach us the lessons of life when we are younger. As we grow we learn to identify with them and always take something different than we did in the beginning.

A classic hero that I always liked when I was younger was Achilles. He was a prince, son of Thetis and Peleus, king of the Myrmidons. He is hardly a hero by the standards of Joseph Campbell though. There are several accounts of his life and different deeds and adventures. What I find interesting is his struggle with his own pride and emotions… which ultimately become his down fall. And it all depends on where you learned about him and what you were taught as to which lesson you take from it.

He was a warrior through and through and his conflicts were with the leadership of the time. His temptress was his pride and honor. And his atonement with his father was with the king for which he fought. But, that is just one way of looking at one of the stories. The most famous of his tales is of course the battle of Troy. Where in you can see the departure, the initiation and the return. Although at the end of his tale he is not a victor by the standard measure of the word. But he won something greater than gold or wealth. His name has been remembered throughout all history.

How would I define a hero? I would think that there are several different types of heroes. For me there are few qualities that must be present for what I like to refer to as the “Epic Hero.” And the Epic Hero is the one all the little boys want to be like. First, they would be someone that rather they want to or not embarks on a path that outs others and a greater cause above their own wants and desires. And secondly, they must be willing to sacrifice all to accomplish the goal or continue down that path. And lastly, the hero would never consider themselves to be one. They realize that even though they are on this path, it could have just as easily been anyone else that fate may have decided to place there. They awaken to the reality of the situation and proceed to certain failure without thought of reward or recognition.

Joseph Campbell tells us that the hero, starting from an average world, receives the call to adventure. The myth/story follows a ‘guide’ for the evolution of the hero on his path.

For my classical hero, I’ve chosen Prince Hector of Troy. In my opinion, he is one of the best examples of what a hero should be, in terms of morals and principal. Hector is the greatest fighter in all of Troy, and also a peace lover.

His call begins when his brother, Paris, takes Helen from Sparta and begins the Trojan War. He crosses the threshold upon killing Protesilaus at the start of the war, a realization that there was no going back.

Throughout the course of the war, Hector goes through the trials, unlike his cowardly brother. Hector put his family and country before his own safety and fights against several of the Greek heroes such as Ajax and Achilles.

Hector’s wife Andromache while holding Hector’s son, Astyanax, begs for Hector not to fight Achilles. By this time, Hector realizes that Troy is doomed, and he won’t sit back and allow it to happen. He shows a tender side of himself by removing his helmet because it was scarring Astyanax as he said his farewell to them with a final embrace. This is Hector’s meeting with the Goddess.

Hector’s ultimate boon went unrealized, as he was killed by Achilles outside the gates of Troy. In a sense, Hector makes the return from the threshold after his father, King Priam, makes a sorrowful plea to Achilles for the return of Hector’s body. Achilles, moved by Priam, gives him Hector’s body, and allows him a twelve day truce for Hector’s funeral.

Following the funeral of Hector, Troy was sacked and burned to the ground, and his wife and child were slaughtered. In the ‘Divine Comedy’, it is said that Hector and his wife and son live on the outskirts of Hell, a place for honorable non-Christians.

“A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” (Campbell, 2004)

This is the best and quickest way to describe a hero according to Joseph Cambell, but I would like to consider the Tragic Hero by looking at Oedipus Rex.
Now the Tragic Hero is like this, he or she is the character in the play or story that the audience feels pity for, whose prospects go from good to bad based on an error or fatal flaw.

Meet Oedipus, king to the loyal subjects of Thebes who are, in this play currently rocked by misfortune thanks to the murder of their former king, the guilty party having not been brought to justice. To make matters worse, the guilty party has also fathered children with the widowed queen committing two ethical crimes.
Oedipus is out to set things right and has already sent someone to go and inquire of the oracle what must be done to rid Thebes of this misfortune. The killer of the king must be brought to justice. He therefore makes the decree that whoever has killed the former king if he is a Thebian will be exiled and if he is a foreigner will killed.

In an effort to find out more about the murder and the killer, Oedipus consults the prophet Teiresias. Oedipus asks for further details and the man brings the shocked news that he, Oedipus, is in fact the killer. Well, Oedipus is sure there must be some mistake, after all, the king Laios is not his father, but Oedipus came from Corinth escaping the prophecy that he would kill his father there. Now that that’s cleared up, let’s find the real killer, shall we?

Enter Oedipus’ wife, Jocaste who explains that she and Laios had a son, but that he was left to die by the king having heard the prophecy that his own son will rise to kill him. The shepherd assigned to leave the poor baby with pierced ankles on a mountain top took him to Corinth having felt pity for him. This same baby left Corinth scared by a prophecy and killed a man in his travels, king Laios. In Thebes he solved the Sphinx’s riddle and was made their king and given Jocaste as a wife.

In the end, Jocaste commits suicide and Oedipus gouges out his eyes with her broaches and is led away blind into exile after seeing his daughters one last time
Summary ends here
---

Commentary

Moving on a Lie
Oedipus moved from Corinth under the assumption that the king of Corinth was his father. But this set in motion the events that eventually led to his downfall. But before the downfall was the rising to greatness. He rose to greatness having solved the Sphinx riddle allowing the people to be free of her oppression. Even in hindsight, the question must be asked if we would rather have countless people continue to die while none could solve the riddle, or if we would have Oedipus confront his fate? A difficult question to be sure, but a necessary one because it’s answer allows us to confront our own fate. See Oedipus is not a man larger than life, but an “everyman”. He has nothing but a sharp mind. His quest for knowledge and thoughtful nature allowed him to solve the Sphinx’s riddle, but ultimately led to his downfall. He spent his life running from a fate he could not escape, but in the end, his exile was the salvation of the people he ruled. He was therefore a hero.
I ask myself, would I be terrified beyond moving because of what fate has in store for me? I would hope not. I would hope to just keep putting one foot in front of the other in my own hero’s journey.

Pride and Grief
In making the pronouncement to the people of Thebes regarding the killer of Laios, Oedipus has no doubt he is innocent. I do not believe he would’ve made such a harsh pronouncement had he thought he was guilty. It is his pride that gets him exiled. I do not believe that this is the work of fate. I believe this is purely the work of a man who acted rashly. Fate gives us only so much to work with, it is us who take the work of fate to extremes. I guess a second lesson is be careful of the oaths you pronounce.
Now to the grief and shame he feels at the end having been unable to escape his fate. Why did he gouge out his eyes? Well, one argument may be that he was thinking “what good is eyesight without insight?” But he really was not being helped by the oracle when he left Corinth. The oracle did not explain all of the details to him. I think had the oracle explained everything Oedipus would’ve remained in Corinth free of his fate since the king of Corinth was not his father, but the people of Thebes would’ve kept dying at the hand of the Sphinx.
As a final lesson I say this: all of the details of the journey cannot be explained, they must be lived. Explaining them all may hinder your progress.

A final note
A hero is one who behaves ethically according to knowledge. Once Oedipus knew who he was he took action to save his people. Who can tell whether one of us may be faced with a similar situation? Everyone is a hero in some fashion. Who decides whether we become like Oedipus, Hector or Gregor Sama or like Hercules, Luke, or Odysseus? Only fate can determine this. Whether Oedipus is remembered as a byword or cautionary tale, I tell you this: that he saved the people of Thebes not once, but twice, and that ladies and gentlemen is a hero.

For my second contribution for this discussion, I'd like to look at the following comment of Wescli's:

Wescli Wardest wrote: And lastly, the hero would never consider themselves to be one. They realize that even though they are on this path, it could have just as easily been anyone else that fate may have decided to place there. They awaken to the reality of the situation and proceed to certain failure without thought of reward or recognition.

I thought about including this in my own definition of a hero. In general, I think that a hero doesn't see themselves as such. Perhaps they may have childish fantasies of being a hero, but they generally wont ever actually think that they will become one in reality. Going back to my example of Heracles, to begin with he was just an ordinary boy living in the mortal world, and was only spurred into initial action by an unjust situation, which is probably how most heroes begin their journey. They do not go out looking for an unjustice, but when they come across one they feel compelled to do something about it.

However, I elected in the end not to include it in my definition, because although it is true for most heroes, I decided that it would theoretically still be possible to become and be a hero whilst being fully aware of it and perhaps even wanting it to happen. What is trickier to decide is how much arrogance affects whether or not someone can be classed as a hero - if a hero is aware of their hero status and thinks "yeah, I'm totally amazing, everyone should love me for the things I have done for them"...are they then still a hero? The conclusion that I have come to is that it comes down to their motivation for their hero acts. If they are acting heroically for the purposes of feeding their own ego, then they are not a true hero. If they are arrogant yet acting heroically for the greater good then I would say that they are a hero - a flawed one, but still a hero (deviating from the classical theme here, but just to illustrate - think Anakin Skywalker in the Clone Wars).

I thought about that quite a bit before adding it. And I figure that by the time the Hero actually becomes the Hero they would have shaken most of those thoughts. All the people I have known throughout my life that would be considered to be a hero by others do not have such thoughts. And I realy can’t imagine that anyone once getting to that level of dedication to others or the higher cause would regard themselves or their own contributions to be of such high importance.

And that being said… it could be a reason for the protagonist in a story. The one that could have been the hero but because they were not able to dedicate them self to a higher cause it drove them to the point of megalomania.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I thought about that quite a bit before adding it. And I figure that by the time the Hero actually becomes the Hero they would have shaken most of those thoughts. All the people I have known throughout my life that would be considered to be a hero by others do not have such thoughts. And I realy can’t imagine that anyone once getting to that level of dedication to others or the higher cause would regard themselves or their own contributions to be of such high importance.

And that being said… it could be a reason for the protagonist in a story. The one that could have been the hero but because they were not able to dedicate them self to a higher cause it drove them to the point of megalomania.

I think you are right about a hero not thinking themselves to be a hero. Think about the progression, the journey one must go through. At the trials mark Fate has designed any number of tests to deal with ethical,physical, mental etc. weaknesses. Once the trials are over, the hero has overcome these weaknesses in some degree or has become acutely aware of them so as to not act upon them. If the hero at some point was dealing with arrogance, fate would've designed a trial meant to expose and confront this.
I particularly like the last part of your post here. It brings to mind some of the villans in stories. I always find it interesting that these villans have a strong "fan base" for lack of a better word. It makes me wonder if the goals that they aspired to were not "good" to some people in some regard at some time. For this reason only a few remain with the villan once he goes off the deep end.

Sorry about my lateness. I will post my post before 12:00 a.m. tonight Cst. Work has been murder