Parties and How They Define Heroes

I love partying. I love hanging out with my friends and dancing and having a wild time. I enjoy meeting new people as well, because you never know what connection you might make with a stranger at a party. In fact, I went to a party at my friend’s house and while there, I struck up a conversation with a boy in my grade, but from a different high school, named Tom. And it turned out that Tom and I both had an incredible passion for science, and both of our future college majors were types of engineering. His biomedical and mine chemical. I guess I am pretty different from J. Alfred Prufrock. The man could hardly ascend the stairs to knock on the door to the party he was invited to. 

I do not understand what makes a middle-aged man with social anxiety a hero, even a “technical literary” hero. 

This is the largest issue I have seen in our Hero Unit. Where are the boundaries for what makes a hero a hero? For example, if Prufrock is a hero just for feeling anxious about a party, I must be quite a hero for having actually attended one, and having conversed with Tom while I was there. This issue is not an issue within literature; I believe the problem exists within literature analysis. And it is an issue because when we analyze works like The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and qualify Prufrock as hero, does that not take away from the heroic nature of more fantastic heroes, such as Beowulf? I mean at that rate, any literary character is a hero. So is it even a distinctive title to be a literary hero anymore? No, it is not. 

I believe there were several characters in this Unit that were analyzed as heroes and should not have been, and among them stands Prufrock. Simply experiencing social anxiety is not heroic feat on its own. We all face it Prufrock. Some of us attend the party anyways, and I guess some of us write a poem about it instead.

Society's Existence Creates its Foundation

The issue of Cultural Relativism is presented by James Rachels in his article entitled "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism". An interesting part of his argument was that there are some codes adopted by all societies because without them a society would not exist. An example of one of these such codes is a rule against murder. Rachels explains that in a society where all members agree murder is allowed, the people would be fearful and untrusting, because they could be killed at any time. This would make societal growth nearly impossible, as the members of society would try to be as self sustainable as possible. And then Rachels makes the point that people would likely break off into groups of those they trust, agreeing not to murder one another, and therefore establishing a rule against murder.
However, there was one part of this argument I would call into question. Rachels says "There are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist." He describes the rules as "moral" implying they have something to do with ethics. But it was previously proven that the only reason that this code against murder exists in all societies is because a society cannot exist without it. Therefore, morals are not at all fueling this code.
In the novel Things Fall Apart, the main character Okonkwo accidentally commits a murder. He is resultantly exiled for seven years, as it it is a crime against the earth goddess. In this society, their reasoning behind punishment for murder is religious belief.
In our society, modern day United States, if you commit murder you are locked in prison. I would say our reasoning behind this punishment, as most Americans would, is ethics. It is morally and ethically wrong to prematurely end the life of another human being.
There seem to be several reasons and explanations for this code against murder. And I do agree, murder is a wrongdoing. One of the worst. But my question is, what is the main actually cause of the existence of a code against murder? I would like to think it is because we live in a ethical society. That is why we cannot murder anyone. Because it is wrong, everyone agrees it is wrong, and the government enforces our moral code. Rachels seemed to want to implicate morals were involved in this decision as well
I do not believe that entirely. I think there are many reasonings behind the a law against murder. But I now believe, after considering the idea of Cultural Relativism, that the main reason we have this rule is simply because society could not exist without it. This is not to say that for many people, including myself, morals are also an important reason for a rule against murder. But this is to say that the underlying and foundational reason is and always will be society's reliance on this code for existence.

Heroes: The Exception to the Rule

     What is the point of being a hero in literature? Initially that may be seen as a silly question, because we think "who does not want to be a hero?" The hero is loved, the hero receieves glory and recognition and the hero is always victorious. However, considering the terrors a hero must face to receive recognition, is it worth it to be a hero?

     Beowulf is a story centered on a hero and his heroic feats. And there is no doubt through the entire poem that every time our literature hero, Beowulf, completes something his society deems heroic, he is showered with love and other rewards. Now, if we take into account what Beowulf had to do in order to be appreciated, would it be considered a fair trade?

     Beowulf faced two demons straight out of hell, and an angered dragon. That's three menacing terrors too many in my opinion. 

     Most story tellers would agree that a successful story will have a main character that is likable and relatable. And while there is no doubt that a hero will usually be a likable character-- are they relatable?  Oftentimes, the accomplishments of a hero in literature are so outlandishly impressive that a reader can no longer find that character relatable. Once the reader cannot put themselves into the shoes of a main character, a story drastically loses it's appeal. This is an issue of literature; that heroes are less relatable because they are so fantastic. 

     To contradict this point is the fact that stories about heroes are immensely popular among all readers. In fact, heroes seem to be one of the only exceptions to the rule that readers enjoy reading about a relatable main character. Why is this?

     Perhaps another way to look at it is through real life instead of literature. In the real world there are heroes, just as there are in literature. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero. He fought for equal rights for people of color, and he lead large groups of people to do good in the world. He greatly impacted his era and many eras to come. This is a heroic and outstanding feat. However, just because this feat is so amazing does not mean people of the world are discouraged by his actions. One would not say "MLK did such amazing things, and I have no chance of completing anything as impactful as he did." In fact, the opposite occurs; people are inspired by him. People aim to work harder for equal rights of all mankind because he proved change can be made. 

     My proposition is that literature heroes work the same way-- and that is why they find themselves to be an exception to the rule. Yes, most reader's enjoy a story in which the main character is likable and relatable. But it is also true that readers enjoy the passion of feeling inspired. And that is exactly what a hero as a main character does: inspires the reader. It gives them hope that maybe, the hero is not so unrelatable after all. 

-Liv Cannon