Re: Well, I dunno (r) -- La Femme Nikita Fan Fiction Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Saturday, January 28, 10:47:43am
Author: Swatkat
Subject: Re: Well, I dunno (r)
In reply to: JayBee 's message, "Well, I dunno (r)" on Friday, January 27, 11:17:45am

I read your post and was struck with how *very differently* we define heroism

Re-reading my post, I think I failed to define 'heroism' at all, because 'heroism' is not the same thing as being the Hero, in the archetypal sense of the term. 'Heroism' � doing noble acts (to put it in a very vague, broad way) � alone does not consist of being a Hero (I keep capitalising it because the Hero is an archetype; the hero could be you, or me, or anyone else), although it is a very vital (obviously) part of it. You and I are capable of heroic acts, but that does not make us archetypal Heroes. And it's also not merely 'being moral', although it's certainly another important part of it. Because morality is relative � never absolute, often defined by circumstances, and this is something the Hero has to accept, although after a point they don't have a choice but to go in for some sort of moral absolutes. It's something they have to struggle with everyday. Being the Hero is being moral, and also doing something about it � if that makes sense? There are certain responsibilities, there is a conscious acceptance of that responsibility; certain burdens, certain eventual failures. It also follows that it's easier to create/accept such a figure in a fantasy/sci-fi setting that a real world setting (see Jack in Lost for further info. Or maybe it's just because I hate Jack and would like to see him die, but the writers have definitely set him up for that position. It was the third ep, wasn't it, when he had to be their hero and all that?). And in *this* sense, none of the LFN characters really fall into the archetype. The writers were probably trying to make Nikita one, but the writing was too inconsistent, and the world too difficult to really accommodate such a figure. But there is certainly some desire in *her* to be something like that, and that is what I find fascinating. Michael doesn't believe in a Hero.

This wasn't what ~delle was asking, though.

An ardent Nazi who threw himself on a grenade to save Hitler would be, by the definition I gave in my post, "heroic" in his own way. But by your definition, he most certainly wouldn't be.

Ahaha Godwin's Law!

Okay. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist. *g*

Seriously, what you're talking about here is the essential dichotomy that exists in the very concept of heroism, isn't it? One man's terrorist is another man's hero. Often depends on which side you're on.

Swatkat, trying to be coherent

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Carrying on a bit more (r) -- JayBee, Sunday, January 29, 03:27:08am