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.