UPDATE: Yakov Merkin responds.
UPDATE: Benjamin Cheah responds.
I like the Youtuber Super Eyepatch Wolf. His analyses on The Simpsons’ rise and fall as well as the archetypes of shonen manga are quite informative, going in-depth while keeping the content interesting throughout and the delivery smooth. He’s not a bad videographer, so be sure to check his stuff out.
That being said, I disagree profoundly with this particular video:
To summarize, he asserts that the traditional virtuous superhero is false and unrelatable, whereas the morally compromised anti-hero is more real and thus better from a narrative standpoint. Furthermore, he states that the amorality not only makes them interesting, but that good and evil are merely subjective, and thus there is no real difference between a hero and a villain; in this view, one man’s Luke Skywalker is another man’s Darth Vader.
In short, we are to deem heroism as false while weakness, cowardice, and amorality are real. He praises Deku of My Hero Academia for his weakness, rather than his drive to improve. He praises Dr. Manhattan of Watchmen for his detachment from conventional morality due to his godlike power.
But why is there this idea that virtue, and exercising virtue while having great power, is some kind of idiotic fantasy? Why are the nihilistic bloodbaths of Game of Thrones and Preacher treated as truer to life than something like Dragonball Z? Why was an iconic and idealistic hero like Superman turned into a brooding sociopath in Batman v. Superman, and similarly iconic Captain America turned into a Nazi in the Secret Empire comics?
I believe the root lies in the desire to not offend. Note that I am not attributing any malicious motive to Super Eyepatch Wolf, but rather speaking in terms of the broader culture; I do not know Wolf’s motives in making the above video beyond what he stated in it.
Let’s consider the idea Wolf states at the end of the video — that heroism and villainy are subjective.
Traditional Western morality is based upon Christian principles and Greek philosophy. To treat these ideas as the fundamental source of right and wrong — even in a secularized way — would offend those of different faiths and those who reject both religion and classical philosophy as regressive. Since one cannot present all moral thinking as equally right without contradiction, it is better to throw up one’s hands and say that it’s all subjective to keep anyone from feeling bad. Morality is inherently exclusionary; some things are right, while others are wrong.
Thr desire to not exclude is also why weakness and corruption are common in modern heroes. Not everyone is heroic or strong, so showing virtuous, powerful characters exercising their great power with great responsibility makes those who are less moral and less powerful feel small and weak, the thinking goes. Better to make the hero an amoral scumbag or a cowardly weakling — that way, it wouldn’t exclude anyone, since not everyone is virtuous or strong.
This also reveals something else: heroism and virtue are inherently anti-egalitarian values. Amoral anti-heroes are the product of a culture that values egalitarianism above all else. This is why critics often praise deconstructions of heroism, romance, morality, and beauty — even if one strives for these things, one might not measure up, so one shouldn’t even try. Virtue is hard, and some are more virtuous than others, so to equalize things, we must cut down everything virtuous. Then we will all be the same, and all injustice will cease.
Nonetheless, traditional heroism does connect with people in a big way; the ongoing success of the Dragonball franchise, the insane profitability of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the backlash toward The Last Jedi (which openly repudiates heroism) is testament to this. When you give people something other than gloom and doom, you brighten their day and inspire them to be better than they are. Because deep down, people want to be better. People admire success and virtue, even when they don’t measure up. People like a sense of wonder and excitement.
People do not like to be dragged through the mud.
A friend argued with me about this video because SEW wasn’t “saying” that traditional heroes are weaker or that Dr. Manhattan was a better character than Superman. He also wasn’t “saying” that “relatable” heroes were worse than “idealistic” heroes.
And he was right. SEW didn’t “say” it. Postmodernists never “say” it.
But that’s exactly what he meant.
I don’t doubt he honestly believes this is true, but let me let you in on a secret: he has admitted he doesn’t like My Hero Academia. When you realize that, this whole video’s existence makes more sense.
Everything he mentioned about Deku in this video was an attempt to rationalize MHA’s success in his own made-up framework (look at where he is on that silly chart in regards to everyone else) and completely missing why the series works in the process. People don’t like Deku because he’s weak. They like him because he never gives up and strives to improve. That’s why they like all the characters in MHA. That’s one of the main themes of the series.
MHA is insanely popular and its whole moral framework is about how good and evil are entirely objective, and a hero makes a call to do the right thing while a villain does the opposite. there is always a right thing to do even if it isn’t always clear or obvious. If this grey morality gunk were as popular as he says, people wouldn’t be into this show nor would the mass public at large being waiting in droves to see Marvel movies. So, no, a good hero does not have to be an emotional, psychotic wreck. They just have to be good.
Also, tangentially related, but did you ever notice how these people praise psychotic anti-heroes who murder indiscriminately for their own gain but will then turn around and mock action movies as unrealistic and childish? The difference is that there is no grey gunk in action movies to give the faux idea of complexity. This is essentially another attempt to turn escapist fantasy fiction into “art” to make yourself feel better about watching a man punching another man in the face.
Spot on; couldn’t have said it better myself. Deku works because he pushes onward and strives to do the right thing in spite of his flaws. He is the anti-snowflake, who strives to improve himself and the world around him without blaming others for his failures. All Might is strong and virtuous; despite his true scrawny and sickly form, he is never presented as a fraud or a joke — his courage is real, even in the face of terminal illness brought on by his injuries.
Virtuous heroes have great appeal, no matter what the so-called smart set says about them.
That’s not to say I can’t enjoy a story with an anti-hero in it, but I’m also not going to pretend it’s any more realistic than one with an idealistic hero.
True enough.
Reminds me of how I’d always argue with my friends whenever they said he was boring. Batman was more realistic supposedly because he was a deeply flawed character with a tragic backstory. I preferred Superman because he was an idealized, upstanding person who just wanted to do the right thing.
Indeed. That kind of thing is why the classic image of Superman is so well-loved.
I like both. What I alwsys appreciated Batman as an ordinary hero who uses his brsin and gadgets to fight crime. Superman is the crypto Jesus who inspires us to be better. I understand why in yhe Cartoons are best friends with Superman, each one complements the other. Batman reprsents prudence to Superman’s optimism. And vice versa.
It’s frustrating thst this dynamic was compketrly botched n the Superman vs Batman
Anti-heroes work best in an underlying moral framework. Classic Superman and Batman didn’t call evil a mere matter of perspective. In their own ways, both of them righted wrongs, but they had a sense of right and wrong to begin with.
I would argue deeply with the claim, “heroism and virtue are inherently anti-egalitarian values.” Anyone who makes this claim is missing an important piece of the puzzle. Heroism and virtue are inherently anti-egalitarian values only if you assume people are inherently rampantly individualistic (which North American society has always been). But “traditional Western morality is based upon Christian principles and Greek philosophy,” and both of these sources assume people are inherently bound by the ties of family and wider society. Under such closely knit associations of people (where the smallest unit of society is not the individual but the family), the heroism and virtue of one will always lift the other along with him.
Nice essay, and nice site by the way. I have just started something similar with a YouTube channel called The Fourth Age (and I called it that because in Greek myth the fourth age is the age of heroes). I’ll be following you from now on.
Thank you for taking the time to comment! I agree that I didn’t spend enough time on a hero’s relationship to the community; just as it is common to show morally compromised heroes, it is also common to show morally compromised societies that aren’t worth saving.
If you feel like going into detail about how heroism isn’t anti-egalitarian, feel free to leave a comment or a link to a blog post or video. I’d like to hear your perspective.
Rawle, how heroism is egalitarian is a wide subject. First, you would have to clarify if you are talking about heroism in real life or in fiction/myth. From the origin of this essay, I’d say you are concerned with the latter. Portrayals of heroism in fiction/myth have an additional layer of symbolism.
However, to try and boil it down to an understanding that deals with both, I’d have to say the following. Heroism (as you indicated) does indeed involve pointing to an overarching truth (and, as a side note, both traditional Christianity and Greek philosophy would state that statements of truth can be tested through observing reality). And truth, according to traditional Christianity and Greek philosophy, is like water or light. Water and light try to pour themselves out as far and wide as they possibly can. Truth does the same. Thus heroism, which involves truth, is simply a flash-point for the light of truth to cast itself upon as many people as possible. And the illumination of all by truth is what egalitarianism is all about. Sorry if I’m being overly poetic, but people tend to tune me out when I only use dry academic language.
Also, I do have a video planned concerning the symbolism of heroism. I will be doing it through a look at Captain America and Wolverine, and it will, in part, deal with this subject. I’ll let you know when it’s finally done.
PS. While I agree that those who reject both religion and classical philosophy take offense at discussions where Christian principles and Greek philosophy are treated as the fundamental source of right and wrong, I do not find it that way with people of different faiths. I find that people of different faiths are usually much more open and say something like, “I always wondered why that was. I glad someone finally explained it.”
While I agree that those who reject both religion and classical philosophy take offense at discussions where Christian principles and Greek philosophy are treated as the fundamental source of right and wrong, I do not find it that way with people of different faiths. I find that people of different faiths are usually much more open and say something like, “I always wondered why that was. I glad someone finally explained it.”
Excellent point about people of other faiths. When people avoid Christian values and classical philosophy, they do so out of the fear of causing offense, not because the ideas actually offend those who have a different faith. Relativism is a very squishy way of thinking, always trying to avoid committing to something.
The idea that virtue is boring is based on an erroneous assumption that all virtue (and hence all virtuous characters) are the same. But that simply isn’t true. Compassion and justice may both motivate a man to take up arms against an unjust regime, but a character motivated by compassion will be different than a character motivated by justice.
In fact, virtuous characters can be in conflict, though each is driven to do the right thing. If two policemen are pursuing a criminal, and they discover that the criminal cannot be brought to justice without bringing to light evidence that would disgrace an innocent party, one officer may believe that it is better to let the guilty go free than to harm the innocent, and the other believe the opposite.
Batman and Superman (at least ad they were written before DC embraced grimdark) are an example of such a difference in heroic motivation.
Groups of characters based on the seven deadly vices are a cliche–I could probably list more than a dozen off the top of my head–but how often does one see a group of characters written around the seven cardinal virtues?
As always, you bring a fresh perspective. I’ve heard that “good vs. good” is an excellent avenue for conflict.
It’s hard to bring two virtuous characters into conflict than a virtuous and an evil one, but it’s all the more tragic because something good has to give.
Excellent post!
Now I must look into this MHA that you and Mr. Cowan speak so highly of.
You can begin here. It’ll take you right to the first episode, free and legal.
“Heroism” is anti-egalitarian when we are looking at the concepts of heroism that come from inherently anti-egalitarian societies. And when we look at the classic, or lets say stereotypical image of heroes in the fiction of recent years, it draws very heavily from the Ancient mediterranean and 19th century Western Europe and North America. Both extremely inequal forms of society. To become a hero, a character has to be an imbodiment of the qualities that their society promotes and favors. Which in these cases is the ability to use force to subjugate anyone who isn’t part of the ruling elite and to impose their will on their environment.
These are qualities in a person that mainstream society does no longer consider virtuous. Instead, they are seen as evil. So there is a very real reason to raise the question of whether the traditional image of a hero is still worthy of admiration and able to serve as an example for ethics and morality. And when this question is raised and properly pondered, the answer for most people is no.
The problem is that this is really only just the first step. Once we stripped the hero character of our preconceived traits of what makes a hero, we need to start working to fill this void with new ideals. If we define “hero” as “a man who kills who he doesn’t like and gets whatever he wants without taking anyone else into consideration”, then a hero is something that has no place in our modern culture. But instead we should define “hero” as “a person who embodies our contemporary virtues and strives to be a force to improve things for others”. And I think this is the appeal of protagonists that start out with lots of flaws and are struggling with doing the right thing. They embody this process of realization that generic images of heroism are not actually a force for good and the struggle to redefine what they consider good and just. But it can’t end there. The character’s development has to continue to find a new ideal of heroism that can be thrived for and eventually attained.
A well-thought out comment. I’ll have to address it in a separate blog post after thinking on it for a bit.
Martin, you’re argument is based upon the modernist idea that language is simply a plaything shaped by individuals and individual societies. As such you redefine heroism as you see it and conclude that society will have to continually redefine heroism to keep it relevant and egalitarian. Such an idea is inherently irrational and, as such, anti-egalitarian.
The classical understanding of language (of which this article references tangentially) assumes that language has a objective quality through its connection to reality, and that this understanding is one of the fundamental basis of rationality. In other words, reason in accord (i.e. using the check of) reality, can produce objective understanding that persons can use to produce language, and, thus, understand each other according to reality. As such, this undercurrent of all languages transcends the limitations of different times, places, cultures, etc. And, under such understanding, all people can rely on (or at least appeal to) reality in asserting equality with others (i.e. egalitarianism).
The modernist view separates people by denying them the common ‘language’ of reason by which to understand each other. The individualist assumption that language is purely subjective, forces a distinct disconnect between people. Thus ‘egalitarianism’ based on such only emergence from a common ignorance and the lowest/basest qualities of human nature. And to try and ‘redefine’ heroism under such a norm is a fools errand.
The classical definition of a hero is someone with the qualities of a demigod, but who is still human; or, in modern language, someone possessing powers far beyond those of mortal men. These powers were seen as both physical and ‘internal’ (the ancients focussing on physical strength, the Christians focussing on the internal strength of virtue). These qualities are broad enough so that many different aspects can be focussed on in calling someone a hero, but to completely redefine what a hero is according individual times and cultures is simply a way to use the term ‘hero’ to refer to something completely unrelated.
Although, I don’t see your analysis as completely wrong, just employing flawed norms. If you meant to say that a hero needs to chip away all the gunk that societies try to apply to the idea of a hero so that he can see the true (objective) nature of what a hero is and use that as a basis to be better, I’m all with you.
You also have to define what “flaws” means in this context.
There is a difference between the “flaws” if Izuku Midoriya whose flaw is being weak and fighting against it, and someone like Dr. Manhattan that cares nothing about humanity and does nothing but restate that fact over and over again. One strives to be a hero and the other wallows in the dark.
A lot of postmodernist defenders lump all the flaws together as if they are all equal when they are most definitely not. The original Captain Marvel is a boy who can be naive, and he’s a Golden Age hero and yet the Golden Age is always slandered for not having faults. The problem is that they’re not the flaws postmodernists want to see. They only want faults that spit on heroism.
Batman v Superman was a magnificent tale of redemption and the perfect sequel to Man of Steel.
I pretty much agree with everything else you said.