Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 1709875" data-attributes="member: 2238">PMan, I think our argument is semantical.  I am saying that in our language and times, many past "heroes" are in our terms anti-heros.  I thought it was Percival that actually got the Grail?  I thought Galahad got close, but it was his son Percival that actually got it.  I could be remembering wrong.  But I think what Malory was saying was a sort of "no one that lived in egypt can live in the promised land" WRT the grail.  No one that was not born into the round table could recover the grail.  As Malory's Arthur is a commentary on the politics of his time he is basicly saying that England needed to get its crap together but none of those living are going to be able to appreciate the benefits of the peace they may or may not achieve, but rather their children born to peace.  With the idea of an american-hero, I simply mean that the late classical to the modern era has been a transition from the capable hero to the moral hero.  We have a very different morality than that of the Classical peoples.  And our heros have evolved with it.  This evolution reached a point of the moral hero.  So looking back it is easy to spot the ones that conform to the realised moral hero.  Medieval Saints and Knights from Arthurian Romance fit the bill better than most others.  Percival/Galahad are simply the great grandfather of Superman.  They are part of the evolution of the Moral Hero.  Its evolved to the point where we hold our own soldiers to that almost-impossible-in-war-time standard.  While I do think there are some earlier examples of nations holding their soldiers to higher standards, our are bordering on the unrealistic.  Thus as the capable hero evolves into the moral hero, we open up the idea of the anti-hero as a place for all those "heroes" that no longer fit the bill.  About Rape.I don't condone rape.  However, I have been raised to understand its somthing that happens.  And as long as there is sex, sex will be used as a weapon.  Do I think that makes it alright?  No.  Does that mean I think it has no place in literature?  No, quite the contrary.  I think if we were more open about rape and about how it happens more often than not (an aqaintence, or person in a position of trust) we might be able to actually do somthing about it.  However, putting in the context of the protagonist causes problems as the question arises of weather the author condones it or not.  And I think that is the problem that most people have with TC.  The central character is comitting the act.  When a protagonist commits such an act, I simply say, "ah we have an anti-hero then"  In the end I guess I am saying that the anti-hero is a very old and can be a viable literary figure.  Is TC one.  I don't know.  Mainly because we find the flawless hero boring, and the flawed hero a little more interesting.  Our interest peaks as we get closer to the reality of the anti-hero.  I'm not saying the moral hero is a modern development, but I will say that the American Hero is a subset of the Moral Hero and may be its perfection.  But personally I think no one can be a moral hero if they kill, or rape, or carry out similar actions.  Its just not possible.  So heroes (modern) IMO range the gambit from almost anti to almost moral.  Aaron.</blockquote>

Verification