We expect heroes to be someone who will go above and beyond the call of duty and to be the first to react at the face of danger. But a hero to one may be an enemy to another. Is there a way to differentiate these heroes so that there is a clear divide that qualifies a person to be a hero? In the following epics, Njal’s Saga and The Nibelugenlied, Gunnar and Siegfried respectively, are portrayed as protagonist characters who display acts of heroism to settle arguments. Because of their glorified heroic feats, they both become blind-sided, unaware that their acts subsequently level them to what one would consider an enemy. A hero is not supposed to be selfish in the least bit. These books fabricate these men as heroes, convincing readers that they use their superhuman abilities to protect society from violence; ultimately, they do this to protect their reputation and masculinity.
Gunnar and Siegfried have all the physical attributes that lead readers to believe that they have the insurmountable ability to use them to better society; such is the definition of a hero. Heroes are thought to be more extreme and braver than the average human being. They fight for what they see as wrong when no one else will. Heroes understand the sacrifices civilians make to overcome adversity and have experienced the hardships and fought through troubles, thus can relate to the less-fortunate of society. We expect a hero to protect people from harm while maintaining their character and are idolized for their bravery to fight for what they think is right. But does fighting for what is right make ones actions justifiable to correct that wrong or does it inflict more harm than good?
In Njal’s Saga, Gunnar Hamundarson, a handso...
... middle of paper ...
...easons. His powerful repertoire symbolizes ammunition and for his masculinity, contributing to his arrogant character. This type of honor is not reputable, it is shameful. Civilian lives are lost to preserve one’s identity from being shattered.
Gunnar and Siegfried are represented in such a way that readers view them in a positive light. In these stories, we assume that characters are heroic when they are portrayed through physical characteristics or interactions within their community. Truth be told, they are far from the definition of what a hero should be. Beneath the pretentious appearance lies a selfish character whose flaw is shielded solely through violent acts. Fighting in combat is one of the many ways to exhibit masculinity. These novels illustrate heroes as extraordinary, but in retrospect, they force readers to reconsider what a hero truly entails.
What is a hero? The book Mythology by Edith Hamilton has a lot of heroes and most of them have 2 things in common. The heroes are in their own ways superior whether it be strength, intelligence, and/or courage. The second thing they have in common is a quest that establishes their greatness and proving that they are good enough to be called heroes. The catch is that even though they may have the characteristics of a hero, not all of them are epic heroes.
The dictionary defines hero in mythology and legend as, "a man who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and born of divine or royal blood. He is a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life." In addition, I believe a hero is one to be looked up to and emulated. What is interesting about epic heroes is that their great deeds and exploits all have to do with defeating themselves, so with help from the gods they can truly become heroic. They can only defeat themselves with the help of the gods.
Humanity has created this “universal story” of what a hero is, or at least the myth of it, time and again. Different tasks and encounters with a variety of villains all lead the hero to the prize, to a new life (Seger). This person deemed the hero is as ordinary as the next but what makes them different is the drastic test that they must face. Individuals admire this character because the hero stands for something, something bigger than themselves. Whether it be the compassionate act of Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games or the death of the oldest brother in Brother Bear, as an outsider, an individual sees the human side of these heroes and relates. Connor Lassiter from Unwind by Neal Shusterman is an ideal example of the myth due to the
Varying from time, location and person, what it takes to be considered a hero has remained for the most part unanimous and throughout time has been represented in multiple ways. Most present in dated writing, a hero 's image and pride make up a big portion of most heroes. Their heroes aren’t so humble and they aspire to keep their title of "hero". On the contrary, most heroes in literature today are quite modest and don 't expect to be viewed as or considered heroes (more often than not they themselves do not classify with being heroes). As is the case for Beowulf and Katniss Everdeen, both different and yet also similar in terms of action, motives and thought (their personality being what really separates the two). Perhaps the biggest part of how a hero is treated and acts depends on what their society is like. Throughout time, the overall qualities of a hero have remained very similar. What has changed, is
A hero is defined as "someone admired for his bravery, great deeds or noble qualities". There are three categories to which all heroes can be classified into, one of which is the anti-hero genre.
Who is a hero? In contemporary times, usage of the term has become somewhat of a cliché. Over the years, the term “hero” has become representative of a wide variety of individuals, each possessing differing traits. Some of the answers put forth by my colleagues (during our in-class discussion on heroism) as to whom they consider heroes pointed to celebrities, athletes, teachers and family members. Although the occupations differed, each of their heroes bore qualities that my classmates perceived as extraordinary, whether morally or physically. Nonetheless, Webster’s defines “hero” as “a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities.” Thus, it is worth considering that individuals become heroes relative to the situation with which they’re faced.
What makes a hero or a villain? A hero is defined as a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. By this definition, there existed countless heroes in America during the 1800’s in relation to slavery. There were many abolitionists, particularly from the North, that exhibited courageous attitudes. It was these heroes that taught the southerners, who believed their lives could only prevail if slavery survived and expanded westward, what they knew was morally right (3, 92).
War has been a mainstay of human civilization since its inception thousands of years ago, and throughout this long and colorful history, warriors have almost exclusively been male. By repeatedly taking on the fundamentally aggressive and violent role of soldier, Man has slowly come to define Himself through these violent experiences. Although modern American society regulates the experiences associated with engaging in warfare to a select group of individuals, leaving the majority of the American public emotionally and personally distant from war, mainstream American masculinity still draws heavily upon the characteristically male experience of going to war. In modern American society, masculinity is still defined and expressed through analogy with the behavior and experiences of men at war; however, such a simplistic masculinity cannot account for the depth of human experience embraced by a modern man.
A hero is defined as a person who is admired for courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities. A hero is strong in mind and body, courageous in spirit, and selfless where others are involved. Superman and Beowulf both exhibit these characteristics. The differences between Beowulf and Superman are as obvious as their similarities.
All in all, heroism is a vague word that could be defined as many of things. Such as bravery, courage, honesty, morality, trusts...etc. If Beowulf was defined as a hero then the knight should be defined as one also seeing as he gave the old women the choice to be old and good or pretty and bad. Or if the Author of The Art of Courtly love cannot be heroic and then write in a way of being heroic how can one decide what heroism is. All three of these studies show different forms and fashions of heroic people, feelings, and attitudes. Overall heroism is and always will be based on personal opinion, what one person defines as a hero can be completely different from what another person sees it as.
From the beginning of time, mythology has appeared to be one key method of understanding life’s confusions and battles. Within these myths lies a hero. From myth to myth and story to story, heroes experience what may be called a struggle or a journey, which lays down their plot line. Bearing tremendous strength, talent, and significant admiration, a hero holds what is precious to their audience, heroism. Over time however, no matter the hero, the hero’s role remains indistinguishable and identical to the position of every other hero.
Wilhelm, Jeffrey D., et al. A Brief History of Heroes. 2004. Glencoe Literature. New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill, 2009. 69-72. Print.
Hero is a word used to describe individuals who profoundly impact those around them. Usually heroic acts receive praise and become valued throughout the town, but certain individuals who possess characteristics of heroism misuse them, those are the people who prove themselves to be questionable. Though Beowulf’s heroism can be argued, Beowulf proves to be more self-gratuitous than genuine.
When I think of a hero I immediately think of someone who is strong, intelligent, handsome, and daring. Upon closer examination, many different qualities than these become apparent. Courage, honesty, bravery, selflessness, and the will to try are just a few of the overlooked qualities of a hero. The definition of heroism changes with the context and time. Heroes of the past are not necessarily heroes of present time and vise versa.
The only similarity between Beowulf and Siegfried is the letter e—that is until you actually start reading the stories. Within the early moments of Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied significant amounts of correlations steadfastly intertwined a web of parallelism between the two heroic characters. Both glory-seeking and nigh invincible warriors from noble origins, the two warriors blasted through adversities in pursuit of their ultimate goals. While both eventually fulfilled their desires, Siegfried’s satisfaction was cut short by an untimely death. Although Beowulf also eventually met his end whilst in combat with a dragon, evidence suggests that this played well into Beowulf’s plans and as such only Siegfried truly met a downfall. The question then, is: “What had distinguishes the two men’s fates?” The answer comes in the manner our heroes achieve their goals. Beowulf of the Geats and Siegfried of the Netherlands were both nearly omnipotent warriors, but the different methods that they utilized in their pursuits carved out significantly different fates. Whilst both were primarily driven personal gain, the effects of Beowulf’s actions coincided with public want whereas Siegfried’s’ deeds bought him many enemies.