Comments on: The Hero as Werwolf

By: mona

mona — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:56:13 +0000

The purposeful confusing of Che as a Hero, in any sense of the word… Pause || A hero in the ancient Greek tragic epic sense is very different from any moralistic or hollywood notion of hero as “someone you should imitate”. It’s two completely diferent definitions of hero. If someone’s made it clear they are talking about the former, you can’t drag it into the latter only because you’re more used to that meaning. The question is, if Che Guevara is heroic in that former epic sense at all. I think it’s a third meaning that’s more associated to his iconography, the hero as modern legend, charismatic leader, rockstar, icon, which is after all how he has come to be known to younger generations, and that’s probably the notion the film appeals to.

By: valMichael

valMichael — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:07:05 +0000

Achilles was a coward. He knew that he couldn’t be hurt or killed as long as he kept his sole weakness secret. Then he goes to pick fights with others? That is being both a bully and a coward in his actions and his outlook.

By: james

james — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:54:52 +0000

The purposeful confusing of Che as a Hero, in any sense of the word, coupled with the complete refusal to correct this in a straight forward manner, leads to the natural conclusion that the author views Che as a hero worthy of imitation.

By: Ty Lookwell

Ty Lookwell — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:50:36 +0000

God, one of my favorite Gene Wolfe stories. Nice. I miss the Gene Wolfe who wrote that wonderful tale, and the first 4 books of the New Sun. His modern writing is much more airy and lyrical.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:21:25 +0000

But didn’t Chris attack the Slate author’s criticism of Che on the basis of the Iliad and its conception of “heroic”? That seems to me to be an example of this equivocation. I didn’t read the Slate article, so I don’t know if the Slate author was the person who originally brought Homer into the argument. It seems to me to be pretty clear that mostly, though not entirely, Brad and the CT folks are talking about different things. And to the degree to which they are talking about the same thing, it’s precisely the degree to which the argument is about how appropriate it is to say that Achilles and Che are admirable and people who should be emulated. And that, I submit, is not in any sense an argument about Homer. Sure, it may be an argument about notions of virtue that in some sense correspond to the Greeks’ arete—but you don’t need to confuse the issue by moving to a different cultural context to make the point that, basically, idealized, romantic qualities are often admired, even if their expression results in tragedy, ungliness, and despair. One side says they shouldn’t be admired, another side says they should. Okay, fine, let’s talk about that then. Not Homer.

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:24:08 +0000

Though I read Brad’s 1st post, I didn’t read the comments. I am probably violating some thread comment etiquette here, but Keith, when you say “More than anything else, the real argument here is about whether Che—and to a degree similarly Achilles—is admirable, someone that should be emulated,” Chris has specifically refuted that when he wrote in Brad’s comments “the point of my post over at CT was not to say that I wished to have their character, but rather to say that a certain type of commentary (the Thersites/Berman type) is wholly inadequate to capture what is humanly important about these people and their projects.” I don’t think that Chris is romanticizing Guevera, I think he is just thinking how does one portray him. To invert that notion a bit, how has Jesus been portrayed and have those portrayals been successful? I missed Brad’s second post, pushed down as it was by the rolecall of the shrill, (and thanks for directing me to the Hector comment!) and there’s far too much to respond to in there. But I think (unless I missed it) that no one noted that Hector was the enemy, the non-Greek. Yes, there is something (as you pointed out) ugly about Achilles, but there is also something ugly about Helen (I think in the Teichoscopia, where we also have the first time that someone ugly (Odysesseus) can be eloquent). But one of Homer’s stunning achievements is to create an ‘enemy’ who is as worthy and noble as the obstensible ‘good guys’ (Something we still quite don’t have the hang of) FWIW, I still disagree with the notion that we have a set catalogue of ‘heroic qualities’ that we must find in those who we affix the label of heroic. We often recognize obstinancy and refusal to change as heroic qualities. We also often recognize a refusal to compromise and a desire for utopic visions as heroic. To then add that we have to adjudge their objectives to determine those objectives are also “heroic” seems to dilute the word beyond recognition.

By: Keith Ellis

Keith Ellis — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:06:28 +0000

Regarding "liberal japonicus's" previous comment...I honestly and earnestly believe that it is as absurd to take an extreme culturally relativist position as it is to take an extreme culturally absolutist position. Clearly, the sense in which Achilles was "heroic" to the Greeks is quite different from the sense that Brad De Long thinks of Hector as "heroic". ...But even so, the virtues that De Long sees as "heroic" in Hector are virtues that Homer and the Greeks clearly admired, as well.(1) There is a very real sense in which the classic notion of virtue and the modern notion of virtue intersect. It is quite clear that Homer and the Greeks regarded Hector in a very positive and sympathetic light. Would they describe Hector as "heroic"? Actually, Homer does, doesn't he? So, to Bob McManus's comment, I do think the specific argument about whether Achilles is "really" a hero or not is a non-argument that results from a failure to well-define "hero". I think that Homer would agree with Brad that Hector was virtuous and admirable in a way that Achilles was not. And I know, because Brad has written it, that he agrees there's a sense in which Achilles is "heroic" and, perhaps, admirable, in a way in which Hector is not. So the argument is not whether one can properly say that Homer or even Che is "heroic". Even restricted to strictly either the classic or modern context, the term "heroic" is just too damn ambiguous. More than anything else, the real argument here is about whether Che—and to a degree similarly Achilles—is admirable, someone that should be emulated. And, as I asserted on Brad's blog, that argument is essentially an argument of idealism versus pragmatism. The Greeks were idealists, excellence—even excellence in murder—is necessarily a virtue because excellence approaches the ideal. Similarly, we have the related modern romantic notion of the principled dreamer. That is the romanticized view of Guevara De Long is critical of (2). He's not critical of the assertion that Che was a principled dreamer; he's critical of the assertion that to be such a principled dreamer is, alone, sufficient to be admirable. Indeed, he's making a stronger argument, and that is that to admire such a principled dreamer outside the context of his/her actions is morally perverse. People—people here—disagree. That's fine. But can we not keep the argument confined to that disagreement and not muddy the waters with the ambiguity of "heroism" compounded with the ambiguity of "heroism" in a culturally relativistic context? Are Chris and Henry both polisci people and not analytical philosophers, as I think at least Brian (IIRC) is? I ask because I would expect some of the timberites like Brian, at least, to avoid this kind of sloppy equivocation. Honestly, I expect more of Brad and Chris and Henry, but at least it's not their profession to be extremely rigorous with their use of language. Even so, I am certain that all three are quite aware of how important it is to do so. 1 See "Hector's" thoughtful and amusing comment in De Long's second post on this subject for a nice presentation of this position. And a criticism of De Long's overstatement. 2 At the risk of speaking for Brad De Long, which I shouldn't; and I apologize to him in advance if I mispresent his position.

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:54:26 +0000

From HD Kitto from the earlier cite I gave “What moves the Greek warrior to deeds of heroism is not a sense of duty as we understand it…duty towards others: it is rather duty towards himself. He strives after that which we translate `virtue’ but is in Greek areté, `excellence’—we shall have much to say about areté. It runs through Greek life.” I don’t know what the current Homeric scholarship is, but I find it hard to believe that it is now accepted that the Greeks were just the same as us and that ‘hero’ would have the same connotations. Here’s what Christopher Logue, who has done an absolutely brilliant rendition of Homer, points out: “Even though it owes its life to ridicule or to the power of bad taste, any poem that servives outside literary circles for more than one generation is noteworthy. For a poem of over 15,000 lines representing an age as remote from its own as it is from ours to survive the collapse of, not just one society (a serious critical test that no poem in English has, as yet, to pass), but two, could easily mean that those who have kept it alive are mad.” Chris’s original point was how do we portray the protagonist (I was taught that we don’t use the word hero in order to avoid the kind of debate we are having now) and mentioned Achilles, Lenin and Alexander. Henry picks up the thread and concentrates on Achilles. It is IMO a worthwhile point to try and understand why we are able to, in some form or fashion, put such people on a pedestal. It’s fascinating to think that some may think this only happens on the left, when the right has as many heroes who are held up for emulation (and in fact, one of the biggest complaints against history as it is now done seems to be that either the ‘heroes’ such as Robert E. Lee are either ignored or are subject to such critical scrutiny that they are undermined) Brad suggests that no one thinks of Achilles as a hero, but is that really true? Petulant, sulking, bullying, yes, but look at any larger than life sports figure and you see the same mix of qualities. (Botham? Maradonna? Michael Jordan?) Coupled with that peerless ability and that childish temperament, what Achilles has is an understanding of his fate that colors all his actions. Here’s the last bit from Logue’s War Music The chariot’s basket dips. The whip Fires in between the horse’s ears. And as in dreams, or at Cape kennedy, they rise. Slowly it seems, their chests like royals, yet Behind them in a dobule plume the sand curls up, Is barely dented by their flying hooves, And wheels that barely touch the world, And the wind slams shut behind them. “Fast as you are,” Achilles says, “When twilight makes the armistice, Take care you don’t leave me behind As you left my Patroclus.” And as it ran the white horse turned its tall face back And said “Prince. This time we will, this time we can, but this time cannot last. And when we leave you, not for dead, but dead, God will not call us negligent as you have done” And Achilles, shaken, says: “I know I will not make old bones.” And laid his scorge against their racing flanks. Someone has left a spear stuck in the sand.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:00:51 +0000

“In other words, the very specific argument here is a waste of time.” Well, is it. As Doug cites Renault, have we internalized the lesson of the Greeks and the solution provided in universal morality? 1) Hobbes took a look around him, translated Thucydides, and said nope, internalization didn’t work. 2) Strikes me that much of the argument about Che is that both DeLong and Lapiote are saying don’t be messing with that internalization process. Anything that fragile after 2500 years of effort ain’t all that internalized. And of course the people making the movie have an ultimate purpose not so different than the ones who criticize it. 3) Slap me down hard if I need it. But I look at Bush saying the Iraq war is ok because me and mine (Bush & his allies) have internalized the good stuff of Christianity and Islam and our opponents haven’t and I have my doubts about the whole internalization project.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:47:40 +0000

Can someone tell me that this whole argument isn’t (mostly) a bunch of misunderstandings surrounding an unintentional equivocation? And can someone tell me how a group of professors got themselves into this mess? Because this isn’t the sort of error I would expect from this crowd. On De Long’s blog and here I’ve seen a variety of correct definitions assumed for hero. Since we’re writing English, what would happen if someone pulled from the OED the various definitions and connotations of the word “hero” and, for each, guessed at how we suspect Homer/Greeks would evaluate Achilles and Hector in its regard and then contrast with the similar modern evaluation? I suspect there’d be a lot less argument and a lot more agreement; and, in most particular cases, the ancients and moderns would also probably be in accord. In other words, the very specific argument here is a waste of time. On the other hand, as I wrote in Brad’s blog, it’s not a waste of time to argue about what’s more admirable: being, to a fault, an idealistic dreamer who aspires to some lofty goal; or being someone who practically improves the lives of others? Or, hell, many other ideas for “admirable” are possible, of course. And then the argument: is Che Guevera admirable? Should he be? See previous question, of course. But, please, especially let’s leave Homer out of it unless we are willing to be very disciplined about our use of language.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:00:44 +0000

This misses the sense in which Chris (and others) might very fairly regard Achilles (and Guevara) as heroes, despite their very evident personality flaws, or indeed because of them. Isn’t this something of a red herring, though? At least WRT Che? In the case of Achilles, okay, our modern problem with him is indeed “personality flaws”—he’s an arrogant, hot-tempered, stubborn, selfish brute. Quite different from Hector, the (relatively) decent and mild-mannered family man. In the case of Che, though, the issue is not—or not just—his personality. It’s the cause he served. Not trying to start a right vs. left punchup, just saying. Consider: suppose Che had been born 20 years earlier and had followed a similar career arc, but as an anti-fascist resistance fighter in Occupied Europe? With his last stand coming before a German drumhead firing squad in 1945? We’d call him a hero without a moment’s reservation, just as we call Schindler and Wallenberg heroes without dwelling long on their (large and obvious) personality flaws. On t’other hand, you could amend Che’s personality, make him a saint complete in every particular, but if he was still a violent Communist who went about fomenting revolution, a lot of us would still view him rather askance. So I think the analogy to Achilles is a bit misleading, or at least incomplete. That’s a fairly large difference between us and the Greeks—we place a much larger value on the morality, or lack therof, of a cause. As Mary Renault observed a while back, Christianity and Islam have permanently changed the moral reflexes of the world; to some extent, we’ve all internalized the doctrine of a just war, even if we explicitly reject it. Doug M.

By: Dick Fitzgerald

Dick Fitzgerald — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:23:23 +0000

Brad De Long, on the historical 20th cen. left, is such a mindless anticommunist we’d all be better off if he’d just avoid the whole general subject. When Paul Sweezy died, De Long’s obit. was nothing but a screed, like something Carl Rove would cook up.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:39:46 +0000

I expect Thucidydes’s Melian Dialog to stay with me until my dying day. Or at least until my memory goes.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:00:04 +0000

“The fate of the hero is bound up in tragedy – he (and it is usually a ‘he’ of course in early Greek thought)” Nah. Electra, Antigone, terrible Medea…not just a token representation. Far, far better than Rome I think. Probably better than Shakespeare. Maybe not til Chekhov and Ibsen are such strong women seen. Read the Pirsig chapter(again, of course). Always thought of Pirsig as just a good pop philosopher. Reminded me of a joke I once made, that Western Civilization has been in decline since Socrates. I gave due, if misplaced, credit to Nietzsche. Plato and Aristotle are the Greeks after they destroyed themselves, the Greeks in decadence. Still reading Thucydides. Horrible. Affects me much worse than “Sorrow and the Pity” or whatever. There is a recognition, an empathy, even an admiration. These people, the Greeks, were trying to do their best, trying for excellence in the first full flush of self-concious freedom. And devoured themselves, and their children. “there’s something about the hero that is a little monstrous” Freedom. Not brutish submission to instincts, but unbounded choice. Oedipus in the play is warned not to investigate. All kinds of hubris. Achilles and Guevara frighten us cause we don’t like to be reminded how free we really are.

By: Henry

Henry — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:18:33 +0000

Abiola – consider yourself barred from commenting on any future posts of mine until you learn how to behave yourself in public. Any future comments that you make on my posts will be deleted as soon as I see them.