| | I was reflecting upon one of the primary topics of this thread (go figure), which was the subject of the hero, and heroism.
My original line of thought was that of defining a hero from heroic actions in general. That took me to considering hero in myth, legend, and stories vs. real-world heroes. The discussion went for some time as to narrowing what constitutes a real-world hero from everyday people and heroic acts.
But, my interest was more in the what ,why, and "where from" of the fictional hero, as they appear in countless myths, legends, and stories, including stories written by Ayn Rand. As to the prior, I would say that it is good to consider that the mythical hero is there to be studied by all people. Hero stories are for people, by people, and often evolve through people.
In terms of talking about origin, I am convinced that Joseph Campbell has the deepest and most thorough work, although of course there are many others. One thing he talks about is that man has shifted his focus on who his main heroes were over time. At first, these heroes were predominantely animals. Later, heroes became based on the seven traditional celestial bodies. In the end, the focus became on the "I": on man himself as hero. Accordingly, the metaphors shifted along with that change. After that, the predominant story of the hero became strikingly uniform in its elements. The hero leaves his home, and goes on a long journey. Somewhere along the line they encounter a profound transformation- it might be told such as they "die" to themselves, and are "reborn" or transformed in some other way. This is usually at the point where the journey has become incredibly long, and where the hero sees no end in sight. All appears to be lost, all is about to be lost. Then, the hero returns home, but changed. I think that's a fair summary, on the whole, although Campbell documents all this much more concisely. In any event, the possible methaphoric interpretations should appear obvious to most people. If not, do a quick uptake on it, it's easy to find.
So, I'm running all this back to myself, and it as always makes sense to me. I also find that it makes more obvious sense in terms of the Rand novels, and the shift of hero-focus to the "I". It appears obvious that what she did was literally re-engineer the "I" part of the very strong heroes she created in her stories. So far, so good.
Then, the whole Talmud quote thing came back to me, as you can imagine it was now laying around my front line like a troll turd on my treelawn. What Branden said about it (and it matters not at this point whether it was translated correctly or not, it was what he was working with) is interesting from this re-engineered "I" standpoint.
I'm not saying Branden was thinking this, only that he happened to lead me to it by his statement:
It is reasonable to say that often, the hero's enemy is portrayed metaphorically (and quite frighteningly at times) as a part of himself. Think along the lines of the unconcsious, and its contents; maybe use a simple Jungian archetype like the Dark Man. It doesn't matter.
All that in place, talking about the true hero being he who makes a friend of his enemy takes on an entirely different significance, and it is a psychological one. At that point you could be talking about befriending your unconscious. I do know that one thing that I am not interested in is doing battle with it.
rde
(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/30, 9:21am)
(Edited by Rich Engle on 8/30, 9:28am)
|
|
