Philanthropy and the Heroism(?) of the Ultra-Rich

Giving what you have to people who don't have enough is a form of heroism because most people don't necessarily do it and it can be very helpful. In his small act of philanthropy guided by Grandma, Jack gave a quarter to the "street person" they passed while walking. A quarter does not do very much, but it may help just a little. The problem is, Jack had another quarter that he did not give away. Does that diminish his tiny act of heroism?

George Soros

As we move into the "season of giving", donations and philanthropy are on the minds of many Americans, whether rich, poor, or in between. By some estimates, 40% of personal donations are given during December. This brought to mind the many famous, ultra-wealthy philanthropists that we see in the news so often: Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, and Angelina Jolie have all given varying amounts to charity. In general an ultra-high net worth philanthropist gives about $25 million over the course of his or her lifetime, which is usually about 10% of their net worth. Some of the "ultra-ulta-high" net worth philanthropists have given much more. For example, the net worth of Bill and Melinda Gates is $74 billion, and their lifetime giving has come to the staggering total of $28 billion, nearly 40% of their net worth.

The question is, are these philathropists, no matter how much they have given, heroes? Or does that fact that they could give much, much more, and still live with very high standards of luxury, somehow diminish their heroism? And what does that mean for the rest of us?

Bill and Melinda Gates

I'm not trying to blame these philanthropists for being rich, or to suggest that they should have to spend their hard-earned money on charitable causes. Of course, if you worked hard for your own money, you have the right to spend it on whatever you want. But some people are so incredibly rich that they could live very comfortably on a fraction of their wealth, and the rest of the money is essentially useless. To be honest, I think it is impossible for someone to spend $74 billion. Granted, Bill Gates' house cost $63 million to build, and has a 2500 square foot gym, 24 bathrooms, a 23 car garage, a 1000 square foot dining room, and a pool with an underwater music system. His house also holds Leonardo da Vinci's notebook, the Codex Leicester, which cost Gates $30.8 million. So essentially Gates can have whatever he wants. But the thing is, he could have had whatever he wanted even if his net worth was only, say, $25 billion, or even $15 billion. Maybe Gates should consider giving a little more, since he has so much. That would make him even more of a hero.

As philanthropists (for we are all philanthropists in small ways), are obligated to give all that we do not need? Most people would say no. There are no obligations. Any giving is great. But I would say yes. That is an obligation. An excess of money doesn't do us any good, and it could help someone else. Most of us don't have the kind of excess that ultra-high net worth philanthropists do, but it's something to consider.

The Trap of Voyeurism: Did Donoghue Manage to Escape?

Tabloid reportage of the Fritzl case

Emma Donoghue's Room undoubtedly has its basis in the real cases of abduction and imprisonment that are reported in the news every so often. But Donoghue claims that the Fritzl case served merely as inspiration for her book, not as a guiding influence over the story: "To say Room is based on the Fritzl case is too strong. I'd say it was triggered by it. The newspaper reports of Felix Fritzl [Elisabeth's son], aged five, emerging into a world he didn't know about, put the idea into my head. That notion of the wide-eyed child emerging into the world like a Martian coming to Earth: it seized
me."

This made me feel better about the book. Thinking that it was based off one particular story, whether it was the case of Elisabeth Fritzl, the Ariel Castro kidnappings (three women were victims in this case: Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight), or one of the other well publicized kidnappings that have occured over the last fifty years, was somehow not right. It seemed to go against the main message of the book.

From the portrayal of the vulture-like press in Room, coming to take candid shots of Jack and Ma while they were not expecting it at the clinic or sending a helicopter to get photos, it is clear that the press has no right to sensationalize Ma and Jack's story. People read about the case rabidly, so interested that Jack cannot be called loudly by his own name in public places. When he is recognized by the workers in the mall, they ask for his autograph--Jack becomes famous.

Had Donoghue's book been about the Fritzl case, or about any other real-life case, she would have faced several problems. First, it is incredibly difficult to write any real person's story accurately, and such a touchy and emotional topic would have been even harder to handle. More importantly, Donoghue would have become very much like the overly-curious, somewhat morbid readers of the news stories about Ma and Jack. She would have been like the press, scurrying to capitalize on another person's miserable situation, understanding how fascinating the story would be to the public. By writing about it, she would have been sensationalizing it, and the story would not have been as powerful as it is now. Donoghue recognizes this: "I was aware that my novel, by commenting on such situations, would run the risk of falling into those traps of voyeurism, sensationalism and sentimentality...I thought it was rather honester to include discussion of media representation in the novel itself than to cling to the high moral ground by merely avoiding scenes of voyeurism, for instance." For my part, I believe that while Donoghue may not have avoided voyeurism entirely, she did, in the end, do an excellent job of 'protectiong' Ma and Jack's story, of making it more than a tabloid-like thriller.

So, a question: Would it have ruined the story to make it explicitly about the Fritzl case (specifically about the five year old son of Elisabeth Fritzl, Felix) or could that story have been told just as gracefully?

The Infinite Gamut of Female Protagonists

Kari wrote a post about female heroines a while back and mentioned how the characters we have been reading about are not really strong or heroic except for Juliet. I disagreed--I think most of the women we have seen have been strong in many different ways. Not all of them are agressive, and some of them deal with their problems in unconventional ways. But Juliet, Penelope, Addie, and Dewy Dell all have similarities in that they are living in a man's world and are carving out places for themselves. I decided to discuss a few different stories with female protagonists because there are many different kinds, and they do not all have to be like Juliet to be powerful.

Hua Mulan: Mulan is the stereotypical powerful heroine, and she is, like Juliet, a "bad-ass" girl who will fight for what she wants. Like Juliet, she has good motives for what she is doing and is pretty selfless, choosing to sacrifice her own life for her father's much as Juliet sacrificed her life for knowledge. Ballad of Mulan. She is working out of a sense of duty, not out of a dream for freedom.
Strength as a female protagonist: selflessly courageous and willing to fight with men
Weakness: not really doing it because she is following her own dream

Katniss Everdeen: Katniss Everdeen is also very similar to Juliet and Mulan, since she can use a bow and arrow and is willing to fight anyone to protect her family and her people. She does not like violence, but she is willing to do what she has to and ultimately becomes the leader of the rebellion that frees the people under the capitol rule. She is similarly clever and cunning, but her story is complicated by the love triangle between Peeta, Gale, and herself
Stength: strong fighter with courage and love for her family that drives her to save them
Weakness: indecisiveness that interferes with her strength, doesn't really even want to lead the rebellion

Scheherazade: Scheherazade is brave because she volunteers to marry the king who kills maidens after spending only one night with them. She is clever. telling the kings stories that are so interesting that he falls in love with her. She is standing up to the king, saving other women, and eventually earning a place in the king's heart and a role as his queen.
Strength: uses her cleverness and skills to make the best of a bad situation
Weakness: life is driven by the king's decision, eventually becomes his queen (story ends in marriage and love)

Jo March: Lives a fairly typical life for a girl in America in the 1800s, but breaks boundaries by becoming an author, acting in family plays as a boy, and eventually pursuing a life as the owner of a home for boys. She marries the man she loves. She is determined, persistent, unrepressable, and kind.
Strength: carves out her success as an author with hard work and is unwilling to sacrifice her own personality to fit in better in the time in which she lives
Weakness: life is focused around domesticity and eventually marrying and setting up house, worries about things like whether her dresses are nice or not

Clearly, there are many different types of strong women in literature, and all of them have different strengths and flaws. Because the number of women in literature has historically been low, we now seem to want to see heroines who are strong in every single way, who reject love and concerns with appearance, and who are able to make decisions and to jump into physical or metaphorical battle immediately. But male characters are complex and there are many different types of male heroes. We should embrace the variety of female protagonists, understanding that they are going to have flaws and that those flaws are not necessarily a comment on female strength.

The Many Facets of Love in A Memory of Running

Today in class, Isaak made a very interesting comment about love and its complications. It is true that the English language has only one word for love while  some other languages have many, many different ways of expressing love. In terms of sheer number of terms, the ancient languages are the winners: Sanskrit has 96 different terms for love, and ancient Persian has 80. From Sanskrit, bhakti is related to divine love, while karuna refers to compassion, mitrasneha and mihr refer to friendship, and kama refers to sexual attraction. Apparently, English speakers have boiled down the infinite variety of feelings related to love into one confusing word that does nothing to tell us about the relationships between people.

Smithy and his sister do seem to have an intimate relationship. Bethany seems to be Smithy's only real friend and companion, and Bethany does not seem to have that much of a social life either (the only social situation we see her in does not end particularly well. Smithy and Bethany share the kind of understanding that occurs only between siblings because they are about the same age and are living and growing up together. Additionally, Smithy knows just about everything about his sister--even if he doesn't entirely understand the voice, he has seen what it makes her do and understands her situation much better than the doctor. It seems like he might understand Bethany better even than their parents because he has often been the one to find her.

Thinking that the love that exists between Smithy and Bethany is "creepy" or semi-incestuous would sort of ruin the book for me, because I want to like Smithy and I do like him for allowing himself to change. I think that Smithy is innately good at heart, and the whole journey in the book hinges on that assumption. If that assumption is false, it kind of ruins the journey. Additionally, I think many of the ways that people used to act towards one another are now branded as "creepy" by the younger generation; many people are very quick to use negative labels to describe things. We should let Smithy love Bethany however he wants to, and Donna should love Carl however she wants to even if he is gay, and we should be careful not to judge their love with limiting terms.


For fun--more words related to love that we don't have in English:

• Forelsket: Norwegian word for the feeling you have while falling in love, opposed to the feeling of actually being in love
• Tokimeki: Japanese word for the bubbly feeling of falling in love
• Gezelligheid: Dutch word for the feeling of comfort felt when at home and among loved ones
• Kilig: Filipino for the feeling of butterflies in the stomach in response to something romantic
• Razlubit: Romanized Russian for the bittersweet feeling of falling out of love
• Mamihlapinatapei: Yagan word for the feeling between two people who are interested in one another but who are afraid to start anything

When Heroic Acts Go Wrong

What happens when a heroic act goes wrong? Is the person who attempted the act still a hero?

I am reading a book called Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why by Laurence Gonzales. Per the title, he is examining various accidents and survival situations--both those that have ended positively and those that have resulted in fatalities--and trying to figure out why some people get into dangerous situations and survive them while others do not.

Above the Hogsback, the ridge where the accident occurred

One of the situations he describes is an accident on Mt. Hood that occurred in 2002. Four friends, all in their forties, had reached the summit of Mt. Hood and were descending roped together. They had chosen not to belay, which is a safer method of descending, to save time, but that meant that they had no fixed protection and that under no circumstances could the top man fall. Of course, you can see where this is going--the top man fell. Seeing their friend falling, the other three men threw themselves to the ground and dug in their ice axes, but the top man had to fall 100 ft before he was
caught by the slack line. Humans are heavy, and they accelerate quickly down mountains. By the time the first man reached the end of the rope, he was going too fast, and one by one the ice axes of the other men were wrenched out of the ground and they too began hurtling down the mountain.

Below them, there were two other climbers. The group of four knocked the first off his feet, but one of the falling men hooked his rope over the rope of the second man. This man threw himself to the ground and prepared to arrest all five climbers. They were going too fast though, and he too failed to arrest the fall, joining them in their descent.

Stopping five falling men from hurtling into a crevasse would be a heroic act, and the man who had stopped them would be a hero, but what about the man who tried to do so and failed? Afterwards, the man who had attempted it said that he had never considered cutting his rope so that he wouldn't be pulled down because he was loyal to his fellow climbers, and that is undoubtedly a heroic sentiment.
But his decision not to cut the rope--while made in a split-second--was somewhat foolish. Obviously, he did not really have time to think, but it is clear from a common sense standpoint that a group of 5 men that has been falling down a mountain will have too much energy for one man to stop all five with an ice ax. So is he a hero even though his attempt to help was, to an outside, clearly useless? Which brings us to another question: are you a hero if your intentions are heroic? Is that enough? He ended up being another casualty of the accident, but he did his best to stop the damage. Personally, I think it is a difficult question, but overall I  think that though what he did was heroic, I would not call him a hero because he did not end up helping the situation. Other opinions?

Real-Life Superheroes

Superheroes are undoubtably extremely popular at the moment. Since 2000, there have been over 80 superhero films produced by large producing companies. The Avengers, which made $1,518,594,910 worldwide, has been topped only by Avatar and Titanic. Personally, I don't like superhero movies, but I still knew that they were very popular. However, this popularity seems to go even further. While there have always been vigilantes who try to deal with crime outside the law, there are now some people who are so into superheroes that they dress up like superheroes to do good works and vigilantism.

Called, understandably, real-life superheroes, they are people who wear masks and other costume pieces to disguise their identities while doing their good works. These "superheroes" have appeared all over the world . Some examples:

• "Anujan Panchadcharam the Polarman" lives in Iqaluit, Nunavut (Canada), and is known for shoveling people's sidewalks and deterring crime 
• "Superbarrio" from Mexico wears red tights and a red and yellow wrestler's mask to "organize labour rallies, protest, and file petitions to prevent families from being evicted." 
• "Knight Warrior" is a British 19-year-old who wears a costume an breaks up fights in Salford, a city in the borough of Greater Manchester in England. 

A project called "The Real Life Superhero Project" has met with many of these "superheroes" to photograph them as a way of celebrating their work. They have primarily photographed American superheroes--most of the the "superheroes" are American because superhero films and comics are much more popular here than anywhere else--and they are very supportive of the superhero project. I would recommend visiting their website; they have lots of portraits of the superheroes and more information on what they are actually doing: http://reallifesuperheroes.com. On their website, they give this description of the superheroes:

Indeed, there is a real subculture of genuine heroes, that bridge the gap between the fantastic and the practical. Anonymous and selfless, they choose every day, to make a difference in the world around them. Whether it be feeding the hungry, comforting the sick, or cleaning up their neighborhoods, they save real lives in very real ways. These are not “kooks in costumes,” as they may seem at first glance. They are, simply put, a radical response… to a radical problem.

Obviously, the Real Life Superhero Project is going to be complementary. But this vigilantism rubs me the wrong way. It reminds me too much of the Batman and Bernard Goetz article we read earlier in the year. These people are working outside the law for whatever cause they feel is most important. Some things, like shoveling snow, are pretty innocuous, but others, like breaking up fights, have the potential to put more people in danger, including the superhero him/herself. The examples that The Real Life Superhero Project gives are all simple, charitable things that many people do without costumes--why do the superheroes need to run around in masks and tights then? I think the only explanation is that many of them do not want to be limited to feeding and comforting people. Instead, they want the freedom to do whatever they think is necessary, even if it is against the law, even if it will harm others.

I am not entirely against the real life superheroes. I understand that most of them have good intentions. But I shy away from the fact that they are masked so that they can remain anonymous. If they want to wear a costume to look ridiculous and make people smile, that's fine. But they need to stand up and take responsibility for their actions if they truly believe they are right.

Jewel: Man of the Wild West?

The main opinion I heard about Jewel and the horse he was breaking was that there was a kind of enmity between them, and that Jewel was somewhat violent. I did not see it tis way. Instead, I considered Jewel's depiction positive; the description seems to combine the "Wild West" and the "American dream" in a way that would, at least at the time, have reflected quite well on Jewel's character and abilities.

The "Wild West" has always held great allure for Americans, ever since Lewis and Clark came back from their adventures and settlers began to move west. This allure seems to stem from the idea of the American dream that has always been present in American culture and began to be articulated clearly as "the American dream" in the 1930s. The wild west and the frontiersmen embody the rugged ideals of American ingenuity, the ability to be self-sufficient and to create the life you want, and the idea that success is achieved through hard work. In the west it is man against nature, and we see some of this in the depiction of Jewel breaking a horse.

Breaking a wild horse

Breaking a horse is very difficult and requires great skill and determination. Because horses are heavy, strong, and intelligent, they can be very dangerous. But once tamed, they also have the most potential and there is often more kinship between a horse and its owner than for other domesticated animals. Thus, the breaking of wild horses has always been one of the most mythical elements of the wild west and the American Dream. The fact that Faulkner introduces the character of Jewel by showing him breaking the horse (or by having Darl narrate how he thought the breaking of the horse must have been like) seems to make Jewel a more heroic character from the very beginning.

Many of the descriptions Faulkner uses seem to back up this idea. Jewel is calm and composed as the horse "makes another short curvetting rush and stops again, feet bunched, watching Jewel". He "walks steadily toward him, his hands at his sides. Save for Jewel's legs they are like two figures carved for a tableau savage in the sun". His courage does not abandon him when "the horse stands on his hind legs and slashes down at Jewel. Then Jewel is enclosed by a glittering maze of hooves as by an illusion of wings". Not only does Jewel face this frightening situation with steadfastness, the depiction is also somewhat mythical, using language that conjures up an idealized view of the Wild West. While he does seem somewhat violent, "shutting off the horse's wind with one hand, with the other patting the horse's neck in short strokes myriad and caressing, cursing the horse with obscene ferocity," the caressing also seems to suggest tenderness. Jewel seems to love the horse he is trying to break, even though he is difficult to deal with and extremely powerful. He also seems to understand horses deep down, as Darl knows from his comment that "Jewel's mother is a horse". Jewel is able to maove with the horse, flowing "upward in a stooping swirl like the lash of a whip, his body in midair shaped to the horse". He seems to understand it.

Overall, I would argue that while not all portrayals of Jewel have been positive, this one is. He is capable of both tenderness and ferocity, he has the ability to understand animals (a very highly respected ability in the "Wild West"), and he is graceful and courageous. Jewel seems to fit the ideal of the Wild West frontiersman/cowboy perfectly.

Why Everett Is More Likeable than Odysseus

None of us really liked Odysseus when we talked about him in class. He didn't seem like a real hero. He is courageous, yes, but he gets all of his crew members killed because of his pride. He is clever, but he is also a bit sneaky and seems somewhat untrustworthy. He often uses his cleverness to get him (and not always his crew members) out of sticky situations that they wouldn't have been in if his pride hadn't convinced him to do something foolish (like taunt the cyclops). He also uses his cleverness to test people: he tests Penelope's loyalty to him very seriously, supposedly planning to kill her along with the suitors if she had been unfaithful, yet he himself had been unfaithful to Penelope numerous times. Clearly, Odysseus's negative qualities are many, and it seems from our discussions in class that those traits made him unlikeable.

However, Ulysses Everett McGill is not unlikeable, even though he possesses many of the same traits that Odysseus does. Everett, Pete, and Delmar are all protagonists, but Everett is undoubtedly "the leader of this outfit". What makes him more sympathtic, or at least easier to hear about, than Odysseus?

Everett is clever--he uses big words too, and can talk himself out of many bad situations, but he is also somewhat silly. With lines like "Well, there are all manner of lesser imps and demons, Pete, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork," and "Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?" we see that Everett has "the gift of gab" but also that he is funny. He makes errors in pronunciation of the long words he uses, and his general tone of fake knowledgeable amiably discredits most of the things in says. Odysseus seriously fools people--people don't know who he is or are tripped up by his trickery. No one really falls for Everett's trickery.

Everett is also not all powerful. Odysseus sweeps into the hall and murders everyone, deciding himself whether they should live or die even though he has not been at the house watching their conduct for twenty years. Everett gets beaten soundly by Vernon T Waldrip even through Waldrip is ridiculous prig. He is continually rejected by his wife, even when he swims through a vast lake to get her her ring, and his daughters greet him not with awe and respect but with:
Wharvey gal 1: Mama says you got hit by a train.

Wharvey gal 2: Blooey! Nothin’ left.

Wharvey gal 1: Just a grease spot on the L & N.

Everett does not inspire the same awe in the people around him, nor is he obviously backed by some supernatural force. He triumphs by luck and tenacity, and does not really take anyone down with him, except Waldrip. I don't think he manages to do anything particularly violent to anyone the entire movie.

Everett may fool people sometimes, and he is not exactly trustworthy, but overall he is honorable. Odysseus is honorable overall too. What he lacks is Everett's funniness. Odysseus is not slapstick funny; Everett is. Everett blatantly says stupid things--"We're in a tight spot!" x 4--while Odysseus is described as calculating and cunning. We like Everett better because his Odysseus-like traits come across as a character quirk, while Odysseus's come across as a character flaw.

Case Study: Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson

In Race, Class, Gender, we are currently discussing Jack Johnson. Jack Johnson was a black boxer who won the Heavyweight championship in the early 1900s (around 1910), taking a title that black boxers were not originally allowed to have. His defeat of white favorite Jim Jeffries caused widespread racial tension and race riots broke out in cities across the country. He definitely broke a barrier and proved that African Americans were just as strong, clever, and talented as white Americans. Arguably, his defeat of Jeffries and his unwillingness to conform to white standards could have made him a hero, but things were much murkier. Despite his victory, his personal life and behavior made him an enemy of the majority of white people and many African Americans. So is the potential hero's personal life more important than their heroic acts in making them a hero? And is this fair to the "hero"?

Johnson fought many white boxers at lower levels of the sport, and he eventually fought a white boxer, Tommy Burns, to win the Heavyweight Champion title. However, white people across America were angry that Johnson was a black man, and white boxers challenged him again and again to no avail. Finally, the retired favorite Jim Jeffries came out of retirement to become the "Great White Hope". Clearly, in this fight, Johnson symbolized the African American man's hope for advancement and greatness, while Jeffries symbolized the white man's fear that they would not remain dominant over minorities. Johnson won. This could be considered a heroic act on Johnson's part; he had proven that African Americans were just as good as whites. Of course, this gave white racists even more reason to hate him. However, it seems like African Americans would have made a hero out of him. Many did, but many did not, and that relates to his personal conduct.

Johnson with first wife Etta Duryea

Johnson was not submissive at all. He wasn't really even respectful. He knew his own mind and he was going to do what he wanted to even if it was not considered appropriate for a black man. He slept with numerous women, both white a black, drove fast cars, and flaunted his wealth. He had his front teeth gold plated. He bought houses in solely white neighborhoods. This alienated many black people (not to mention white people), and his fight caused the deaths of many African Americans and a few white people in the weeks following the match (that is not directly his fault).

In a time when Booker T. Washington was considered a guide on how African Americans should behave in order to gain status and economic prosperity, Johnson was not conducting himself particularly well. He was not following the accepted rules of white people or black people, and some African Americans believed he was betraying his own people by being with white women. In general, his heroism, while still present, was murky and questionable.

During a time when obviously breaking social codes was more acceptable, like during the 60s and the 70s, Johnson might have been indisputably a hero. But because he boxed during the 1910s and his behavior was not considered the best way for African Americans to better themselves, he was somewhat less of a hero. This is true of all heroes, I think. Regardless of the heroism of your act, your status as a "hero" will always be tenuous, and it will depend not only on your own personal conduct but on how said personal conduct is viewed during the specific time in which you live.

Case Study: The Fabrication of Heroes

Everything is subjective. Everyone sees colors differently. Everyone hears sounds differently. We may agree that these colors and sounds are similar, but we are not hearing precisely the same thing. Similarly, people have different ideas about the ethics surrounding certain acts, meaning that a person who is widely considered a "hero" may also be widely considered a "villain" by an entirely different group of people. Therefore, going back to our conversation on the second day of class, I would argue that there are no heroes at all.

The topic I am going to use to describe this ambiguity is abortion. I realize that this is extremely controversial, and I do not personally want to take sides in this post. However, I bring it up for three reasons: it is a major topic of debate in our country and around the world, there was a recent New York Times article pertaining to it, and in this territory someone's hero can be someone else's villain.

Rebecca Gomperts

In the 31 August New York Times magazine they featured a physician from Amsterdam named Rebecca Gomperts. Gomperts is not just a general-practice physician; she is also a pro-choice activist who runs an organization called Women on Web. The organization provides two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, via mail order to all women who contact their organization and meet their medical criteria for eligibility (except for those in the United States, since women in the United States are supposed to have access to safe abortion facilities). The drugs are 95 to 98% effective and have few negative side effects. To some, Gomperts is a hero. Many of the women she has helped have been quite poor. One of the women who emailed the organization said "I live in the United States and have no health insurance. I have two children and I am currently out of work, there's no way I can afford another child. Please help. I'm desperate." Because this woman lived in the United States, they could not help her, but her desperation and poverty is typical of their patients. On their website they have posted the stories of women who have had abortions. Many have very complicated feelings towards their abortions--sadness, guilt, and doubt are common. But others report that they felt trapped in a life that they didn't want when they were pregnant, and that they finally felt free when they had their abortion. Others mentioned how much they still wanted to do in their lives, and they were not ready for children. For these women, Gomperts was a hero.

The New York Times article was very positive about Gompers (unsurprising for a liberal magazine), but this same issue is seen in a very different light  by another group of activists. For pro-life activists, Gomperts is akin to a villain. To summarize the pro-life stance for those who may not be keeping up with the debate, pro-lifers (in general) believe that :

• Fetuses are humans, and since life begins at conception, killing a fetus is murder and is thus inherently wrong
• Women should be responsible for using safe birth control, and, if a child is unwanted, should use adoption services
• Abortion is dangerous to the mother both physically and psychologically

To those who are pro-life, what Gomperts is doing is wrong. First and foremost in their eyes, the act of killing the fetus is immoral. Second, she is providing an easy way for mothers to get rid of unwanted pregnancy, and therefore theoretically these women can treat the abortion as lightly as they might treat birth control and do not have to consider their responsibility or the option of adoption. Finally,  since she works remotely, she does not actually know whether it is safe to abort the fetus, nor can she provide medical assistance to these mothers if something goes wrong. Therefore there is more danger to the mother.

Both sides make compelling arguments. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person's opinion on whether Gomperts is a hero or a villain depends entirely on that person's own views and experiences and that this is the same with any "hero" or "villain". Any hero can be disparaged, and any villain can be glorified. This applies whether our heroes are people who are living now, historical figures, or fictional characters. If we use our imaginations when considering a hero or a villain, and we consider all sides of the story, it becomes clear that they are simply fabrications made up of opinions. T
here are no heroes and no villains at all.

On the Insufferability of Perfection and the Comfort of Flaws

I did not love Wool. It seems like most everyone else liked it quite a lot. I don't think it was bad; it was a page-turner, a quick summer read, interesting enough to draw your attention but not complex enough to force you to stop and think. However, when we discussed the archetypal roles of Juliette and Bernard, the characters seemed startlingly flat, and this made me consider the different varities of heroes portrayed in popular culture. What really struck me was Juliette's lack of complexity as a hero.
To recap, here are some of the ways that we described Juliette:

• beautiful despite a complete lack of attention to her appearance
•  tough, competent, hardworking and resourceful
• rose up through her own hard work and a little bit of luck
• solitary
• humble and proletarian
• compassionate with a strong moral compass
• open-minded, wise, and maternal with a strong sense of community
• has a Romeo-Juliet style love affair that actually ends up happily

When a person appears to embody every quality that our culture values, and also appears to have no substantial flaws, it is very difficult to like them. I did not dislike Juliette while I was reading the novel because I got caught up in her heroism. But with all her qualities laid out like that, I realized that the reason I never thought she was particularly unusual or interesting is because she wasn't.

I came to the conclusion that the deeply flawed heroes are the most interesting and the most human. In order to portray a human realistically, authors must have all their characters experience the "infinite gamut of emotions" (What French Women Know, Debra Ollivier). People in real life experience joy, rage, annoyance, fear, love, despair, melancholy, confusion, loneliness. Therefore fictional characters should experience all these emotions too (or at least seem capable of experiencing these emotions--I understand the constraints of plot and space), even the villains. Heroes should have serious flaws, villains should have redeeming qualities. The hero and the villain must be as similar to each other as possible without being indistinguishable. This is a fine line for an author to walk. You don't want a hero so flawed that all of your readers dislike them. But if your characters have no serious flaws or complexes, they risk becoming one-dimensional like cartoon superheroes.

We have a tendency to believe that perfection is best. That if characters are perfectly put together (if they have a surplus of good qualities and only a few easily excusable bad qualities), we will love them and become absorbed in their stories, rooting for them all the way. Authors should worry less about whether serious flaws in their characters will make them unlikeable--the quickest way to make a character unlikeable is to make them too perfect.