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.