First, we have to consider who the poster is; in regards to world location.
Now some are going to disagree we me, which of course if your prerogative. But I am going to define the reasons for his/her words based from modern world upbringing; not a historical definition of what makes a 'hero'.
This person is from France. While some define the country as a socialist regime, they are in fact a social democracy, just as England, yet a bit more to the left. And in a modern day social democracy, just as stated in the French Le Monde,"Today's generation has been taught to look downward towards society's heroes, looking at those who seek the roll as individualists, compared to the generation following the second war".
This of course I agree with, because individualists are those who stand alone, depending on no one. A person who meets these qualities has little to no place in a society where the government plays such a crucial roll in the daily lives of its citizens.
So this person, in my opinion, has been taught in his/her upbringing that heroism/individualism is a bad thing. Which of course they would be annoyed by American culture, where most forms of entertainment revolve around these types of rolls.
Josh
Okay, this part I don't get. Are you under the impression that the best soldier in the worst army in the Middle Ages or a pre-industrial fantasy story can't die just because there aren't guns? Or that the war is always won by one guy in fantasy stories? You say you like Martin's series, which doesn't meet this preference at all.
Kat, it depends on what you define as war, and what you define as 'backstabbing', 'evil deeds', etc etc.
In Martin's series, you do see many of the greatest soldiers winning the battles, past and present. Many of the deaths of main characters are due to the latter I named; beheading, ambushes, assassinations.
Josh
And a large chunk of the world still lives like that, without electricity, running water, beating their laundry against a rock, etc. We have a fundamentally more uneven, more populous world now with less slavery over all. But people were not radically different back in history from what they are now just because the wealthy had minstrels instead of iPods and ornate litters instead of Lexuses. They were not more brave. They were not more interested in glory. They did not have grand adventures. They abused power just as much if they had it and were just as generous and greedy. They had the equivalent of office workers in cubicles. While their world was deeply different than ours, it was mainly different in that more people had fewer opportunities to do anything extraordinary or interesting.
Have a look at aSoFaI - Jamie Lannister, Robb Stark, John Snow, every Knight, Arya, Bran, Cersei - all have interests in war and glory. I do believe their was glory to be had in war, for people like Alexander and Ghengis Kahn. It was their life goal.
They all have different interests from each other and the characters you're likely to be most sympathetic towards don't want war -- war destroys their lives. There is nothing glorious about war. It is sometimes necessary, it is a tool of state, but it is devastating for generations. War is often romanticized and mythicated to justify it, and there is certainly no reason to discount the sacrifices and the bravery of those who have to go fight it, but what's interesting is how many SFF stories strip war down of myth and show its horribleness. Martin is one of those authors who does that. He doesn't romanticized war or the suffering caused by it.
I am saying that a true hero really did make a difference back then. Like Sun Tzu(not Middle Ages), William Wallace and Timberlane to name a few.
I think you're again confusing the myth with the men here. The Middle Ages had a very good PR agency for its noble leaders -- it was called feudalism. You could order people to sing your praises. It's true that in modern times we don't turn our effective military leaders into celebrities very often. This is because 1) they don't want to be; 2) things like news camera has revealed truths of war and the difficulty of it; and 3) we've transferred most of that sort of hero worship to sports figures.
But the reality is that one guy did not make a difference except as a good strategist general. (Very little in the way of explosives back then.) In which case, his peasants did all the work. He had to have an army. To use your technique:
Hero: I have come to fight you and protect my people and save the world!
Enemy: Dude, where are the rest of your guys? I've got 5,000 men here.
Hero: I alone will defeat you. I have killed 12 men in a single strike. I challenge you to single combat to decide who wins.
Enemy: Uh-huh, somebody put an arrow into this guy already.
Peasant: Fthwwt!
Hero: Errgwp. (Falls over dead.)
Some of the most renowned military figures are that way not because of their personal ability with a sword, but because of their ability with words -- William Wallace persuaded his fellows to rebel, etc. War owes a great deal to its orators and orators owe a lot of their successes to their ability to talk others into allying with them. And not to put too fine a point on it but Ghandi again was a man of peace whose efforts made an enormous difference and scored the huge victory of finally convincing the British that they should concede control of India -- after decades of protests and arrests and violence from the British -- to go lick their wounds after WWII. What we usually give glorious fame to a military figure for is dying gloriously in battle which may not be particularly productive in accomplishing anything but a cool poem like the Illiad or The Charge of the Light Brigade.
And need we look any further than the one Hero more powerful than anyone else-- Jesus? He held power at his fingertips,
Yeah, you're supporting the essay writer's argument more than your own with Jesus as an example, I'd suggest. Jesus did not use his magical powers to smite his enemies while telling his followers to put them to the sword. The closest he got was throwing the moneylenders out of the temple. He used words and he preached peace, forgiveness, non-violence, humility, charity and love. He did not preach the glory of the individual over all to be the sole person to save the world, but how we're all one and brothers and all important in saving the world. He used his magical powers to heal the sick, resurrect the dead, feed people and dance around on water. When captured, he allowed them to kill him without protest. The essay writer is saying that Americans have ignored that side of the magical powers idea and it's infecting everybody else.
Fantasy stories will often take the fairy tale route of a hero on an important quest or transfers the modern war story to a fantasy set-up, and SF stories can be very militaristic. But many other SFF stories -- American ones spread all over the world, don't follow the idea of a super-powerful person who wins by hacking off people's heads with a sword. And when they do have a super-powerful person, that person isn't a kick-ass who glories in the hacking usually, of if is, often ends up regretting their action. Or is just an unsympathetic gritty jerk.
And that's why the essay writer's argument is weird. She is basically mostly decrying against the American action movie where the hero kicks butt while making snarky remarks. It's not solely our culture's idea, but Hollywood dominates the film world and Hollywood definitely makes a lot of them. And then she complains that these films don't offer unsympathetic heroes. But quite a lot of them have the heroes screw up and act in very unsympathetic ways. And in written SFFH, unsympathetic, noir, main characters are quite common -- but they're also likely to be violent. An unsympathetic main character seldom does non-violent protests for peace. Basically, she's just saying she doesn't like big budget action films.
But personal opinions alone are weak. Which is why instead of saying "I like stories that do this," you said "good stories do this." But as was mentioned, that's basically a story preference. And she's talking about story preferences but then puts in terms of here are American tropes that are unsatisfying in any kind of storytelling, rather than I don't like loud American action stars.
JT Billow said:
In Martin's series, you do see many of the greatest soldiers winning the battles, past and present.
You see good strategists winning battles, not good soldiers. Tyrion is a lousy soldier, but he was a very good strategist and then tried his best as a soldier and got lucky while other much more effective soldiers got killed Ned Stark was a good strategist and a good soldier but then was outflanked and betrayed, imprisoned and executed on a whim by a teenage boy king. That's my point -- whether it's sword level or bullet level, unless the great soldier has a magic ring or something that renders him impervious to weapons, a good solider can be easily killed by a random act on the battlefield or by choking on a chicken bone, a crossbolt in the toilet, an infected wound or the magic spell of a sorceress.
This is a deep and complex issue that I think would take too much time to get into, but I agree with KatG in that people of ancient times had as varied and complex set of motivations as people today. I wrote a graduate paper on the Battle of Thermopylae, which people know from the film 300, and it is true that the Ancient Greeks were great PR men. So great, in fact, that many of them believed their own hype. So there is this odd mix of PR, hype, and true events mixed together that even the very best historians have an impossible time telling apart. What precisely happened at Thermopylae is very hard to determine, but we do know that much of Spartan courage had to do with a culture very different from our own. In the mountains of Afghanistan or in parts of the world very remote, I am certain this kind of cultural conditioning still exists. But as global information spreads, cultural diversity begins to thin out. It is doubtful any Greek city state of today would fight to the death for independence, in part because of foreign influence---TV, Internet, books and magazines, immigrants, etc., eroding its culture (for better or worse).
I agree with much of what she says, just as long as you remove the word "American". I, too, am sick of the modern notion that "tradition" is a bad word, or that "gods" are evil and must be destroyed. But like many people have already posted here, these are not uniquely American values, and many of these most definitely derive from Greece.
Don't let the real world limit your imagination for fantasy stories. I never suggested that a man could beat a whole army, and yes, I was referring to strategy more than actual battles (if we are referring to someone of an un-magical nature).
I don't believe their is a place for snobbery amongst any genre of popular culture; music, movies, books etc., what people like is up to them. For anyone to say that their educated opinions, and blatantly snobby opinions are more valued than anyone else's is really annoying, because yes all your preference is; is an opinion and nothing more.
Honestly, if you'd rather read about peace and tranquility than Fantasy really isn't the right genre for you. Most of us like to read about war, because we don't know what it's like and escaping to another world is something we read Fantasy for.
Kat- I'm keen to show you what i mean by war in a fantasy world. Do you have an email? I'd like to send you the first chapter in my book.
What always strikes me as ironic about these sorts of things are the two fallback positions of the western argument:
1) Look at all these classic books that were famous! They're just like the books today!
2) Ha! What a totally predictable thing for a person from X country to say!
For 1), consider that the stories we champion in our societies reflect our values, not merely their literary merits. Which is to say, mentioning Sun Tzu, Beowulf, or the other ample examples of war-minded, violent, heroistic, etc. tales only serves to indicate the values of the person from a culture mentioning that specific selection of titles. In effect you're saying that your culture does, in fact, value those things. You're proving her point.
And to then go on and point out how worldly the mentioning of these various titles is only shows the melting pot at work -- the accumulation of stories into a culture to craft its tropes. Again, proving her point.
"We're not violent! Look at all these violent stories from all over the world that we value!" Irony, irony...
For 2), consider that polarizing the argument by summarizing an entire culture into a few small talking points is an act of pot-kettle-black. Then dismiss the expression based on the person's culture of origin to champion one's own culture over another...
But as global information spreads, cultural diversity begins to thin out. It is doubtful any Greek city state of today would fight to the death for independence, in part because of foreign influence---TV, Internet, books and magazines, immigrants, etc., eroding its culture (for better or worse).
I've got to disagree there. Thanks to global information, I am way more aware of people whose art is appreciated all over the globe by thousands, even millions of people, whom I would never have heard of in my youth, and those voices are quite diverse because they are much freer to be diverse. The big problem in America is one that the essay writer touches on -- we've been very isolated culturally. Some pockets are still very isolated from the rest of America, living in the same area their whole lives with people just like them. There's not a lot of diversity there, and some of them hate the idea. But exposure to their kids of different cultures has greatly increased. The more I learn, the more I see how very giant and full of niches -- niches being playing to millions of people again -- the music field is globally. The more I learn, the more I find out really interesting things people are doing with film and video -- and with books. And yes, a lot of that is blending of cultures, fusion, but maintaining purity doesn't create a lot of communication and it doesn't really maintain and sustain the culture either.
And there are massive groups of people fighting for their independence at the moment, both violently (Libya) and peacefully (Egypt.) There is a massive protest movement for peace going on among young people in Israel. I don't think we're watered down just because explosion movies are widely popular (and don't need much translation.)
Speak for yourself, I love Audrey Tautou in Amelie.
She was luminous, wasn't she? But she wasn't really thrilled with the attention for that and Da Vinci Code. You get that a lot with the European actors -- they think the Hollywood machine is nuts and they are right. But that doesn't mean that the Hollywood machine is destroying everything either. If Amelie had come out twenty years earlier, not only would I never have seen it, but I wouldn't have ever known of its or her existence. And she wouldn't have ended up doing commercials for Channel and playing her in a miniseries. So it works both ways -- if American culture is big and taking in a lot of money, then more stuff from global, other cultures is peddled to Americans to provide more fodder. Right now, a transition is going on -- American audiences are fracturing in their attention in a hundred different directions, so the monopolies in entertainment are faced with declines while lots of experiments go on. Domestic box office is down in the U.S., maintained by higher ticket prices -- they rely on global revenue now. The domestic video sales and rental market is also kaput. We can't go rent at Blockbuster now because Blockbuster is closed out. We're moving on to t.v. streaming, merging the t.v. and computer, which is going to be even more global, outside content going both ways. So yeah, it seems like American culture is invading because they're seeking global markets. But tons of non-American culture is also coming in to an increasingly non-white America. And the monopolies still support a lot of the non-loud action hero films out there -- I think there may be more movies being produced now than ever.
JT Billow said:
Btw Kat, I hate spoiler blackouts, especially when someone is using them to make a point...grrrrr
Yeah, I know, but it's Martin. Some folk may be watching the t.v. series and not have read the books yet, so me presenting major plot points without a spoiler box might have been unfair. So I thought I should be on the safe side.
Cononomous said:
Don't let the real world limit your imagination for fantasy stories.
We are in agreement. But the essay writer was in a sense making the argument that American cultural mores were causing limited imagination in set grooves, rather than supporting more experimentation.
Honestly, if you'd rather read about peace and tranquility than Fantasy really isn't the right genre for you.
Peace and tranquility are very seldom in any type of story, and I don't think that's what she was asking for exactly. She seemed rather conflicted. She wanted unsympathetic main characters, but less violence and stories about very sympathetic peace mongerers, but less individualism so no leaders, but no this, but no that, which rather contradicted each other. Again, I think her main point was, "I don't like loud American action movies about kick ass heroes who save the day." Which given the number of old-fashioned superhero flicks we've had lately, you can understand being tired of hearing about them. But some of those flopped, even globally. And other contributions from comics that have been hits have not been those things.
So yes, it's someone ranting at the spectrum, saying it's not a spectrum and objecting to parts of the spectrum that are loud. But fantasy fiction also is a spectrum and so not just about war. And part of the spectrum is that a lot of people have very different reasons why they read fantasy fiction.
Kat- I'm keen to show you what i mean by war in a fantasy world. Do you have an email? I'd like to send you the first chapter in my book.
You don't want to do that. You'll probably never hear from me. I've got four or five online compadres who are still waiting on me to get to read stuff. I am useless. You have a better shot if you put an excerpt up in the Stories section here, and then maybe I can bop over and try to read it quick at some point.
KatG, being exposed to different cultures is a wonderful thing, and there is certainly more of that happening than ever before, but that isn't the same as having a culture. Just because you are exposed to different ideas doesn't make those ideas yours. Everyday I see the diluting effect American culture has on Greek youth in this country; they speak the language less and less, they don't learn the dances, they don't partake in the Church, and they certainly do not memorize Ancient Greek verse like my father did.
The Ancient Greeks fought for life and death because they believed their culture was so special and unique that it was worth dying for; at least that was the propaganda espoused by the earliest of Spartan poets like Alcman and Tyrteaus. By World War II, the Spartans found surrender to the Nazis much preferable to death. But by that time, the spread of other cultures had diluted the "brainwashing effect" (for lack of a better word) of an extremely isolated culture. In our modern world, dying for a cause seems more common in places isolated like Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf. It is no coincidence that Morocco is the most liberal of Muslim countries (and less likely to breed fanaticism) when you consider it's a stone's throw from Spain.
Well that's a bit of a toss up, isn't it? Have the culture and have wonderful ancient Greek verse and dances, but also have fanatical religious and social oppression, illiteracy and isolation. (Although on the other hand, no international bankers to bankrupt your country.)
Culture never stays the same. And if America's reign as the leading superpower is over, as many feel, then its culture is hardly likely to take over everything anymore as the essay writer asserts it's doing. I don't think we're losing all of our distinct cultures, not counting small tribes in the jungles. We're just losing parts of them -- in practice but not in historical preservation -- and some of what we're losing may be worth losing, such as the idea of women as property. And although we may be adopting parts of other cultures, which makes us more similar to each other, we are also learning about each other's cultures much more, which eventually makes us less likely to want to destroy the other culture and country just because it's other. Younger people are much more comfortable with a myriad of cultures than their parents, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
But yeah, that's part of the essay writer's rant too. But that's the problem -- everything is part of the essay writer's rant. She's all over the place, it seems to me.
Everyday I see the diluting effect American culture has on Greek youth in this country; they speak the language less and less, they don't learn the dances, they don't partake in the Church, and they certainly do not memorize Ancient Greek verse like my father did.
The Ancient Greeks fought for life and death because they believed their culture was so special and unique that it was worth dying for; at least that was the propaganda espoused by the earliest of Spartan poets like Alcman and Tyrteaus. By World War II, the Spartans found surrender to the Nazis much preferable to death. But by that time, the spread of other cultures had diluted the "brainwashing effect" (for lack of a better word) of an extremely isolated culture. In our modern world, dying for a cause seems more common in places isolated like Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf. It is no coincidence that Morocco is the most liberal of Muslim countries (and less likely to breed fanaticism) when you consider it's a stone's throw from Spain.
Emmaxis, I do hope that you understand that this is primarily a pandemic of youth in general. The "rotten kids" of any generation seem to have trouble appreciating the toils and roots of their generations previous, and through this strife of old versus young, there are ALWAYS, ALWAYS exceptions to the rule.
I am one of them.
I am 25, and despite the so-called "diluting" effect of America I myself made a choice to search the family tree and to understand just what it meant to be a proud member of Clan Ferguson (or Clan Fergushill if you want specifics). I've been searching since my teenage years. Nobody asked me to do it. It is most certainly not a trend of my glam-enthused peer group to find out family history. But I did it anyways and feel united with my ancestors because of this. Does this coincide with the "dilution" process you believe is going on? I think you'll find it is quite the opposite.
America has a very loud and obnoxious sub-culture at the moment that knows more about who won American Idol last year than the historical relevance of the person on the back of say, the ten dollar bill (Hamilton). Furthermore, they really could care less since True Blood is on (This is NOT to say True Blood or American Idol is evil). It goes down to personal choice, and despite what you may think, the world nor the culture are going down the drain. Nope... there are a quiet group of young people like myself who do not bother with TV, who want to know about cultures before us so we can understand where we are going, and are quite enthusiastic about leaving a piece of our world and culture behind.
But we happen to be a lot more quiet obnoxious than the group I spoke on previous.
So to sum it all up, KatG is right. Cultures are in a constant state of flux between two extremes (the isolationist groups and the globalized groups) and in America you'll find every group that sit in between the two extremes.
This is not right, this is not wrong. It simply is.
As for the French essayist: I hear her. She wants to know more about realistic human drama because she can better relate with that than she can to seeing Optimus Prime on the big screen blowing things up. Great! Black Swan, or The Kings Speech, as these focus less on action and more on drama and the fabric of the human soul. Where I drew my heavy disagreements with the essayist was that she was blaming the wrong people for the egotistical glory-bound hero. That was the Greek Hero first, and America is currently banking on this trope. Give or take a few more years something else will take it's place as this is an ADD nation and the current buying power of America will mature and begin asking for different things as they progress. Perhaps we'll soon switch from Greek Heroes to Greek Tragedies such as the Oresteia, which banks on social justice and shows the downfall of what it means to be a Greek Hero (eventually, you die , unless your Odysseus).
Just saw the movie Priest because 1) I like vampire stories, and 2) I love Paul Bettany even when I have no high hopes for a movie he's in. The story has an amusing still capture cartoon in its opening to give you the lowdown -- it's a secondary world fantasy tale where vampires -- eyeless, nocturnal, cave dwelling, hive-structured, photosensitive albino creatures -- were at continual war with humans -- and can infect them, which are then called familiars. The humans used swords and guns and flame throwers and missiles and the advantage of the sun, but the world was destroyed into a radioactive wasteland, with most humans retreating into walled cities run by the Church. (One suspects Jesus was a vampire killer though his name is not mentioned, just his crosses everywhere -- perhaps they got it from something else.)
The Church finally beat the vampires by finding special young people with superpowers and training them into the Priests who fought the vampires without bothering with guns. The remaining few vampires were not killed but shoved into prisons, the threat declared gone, those out on the wasteland frontier blasphemous, and the surviving Priests disbanded as too dangerous to keep around. Bettany plays a Priest who disobeys his vows to go rescue his niece from a vampire attack/kidnapping.
This idea of course reminded me of the French essay writer hippokrene brought up. Because the idea that it's a bunch of superpowered, gunless monks who are the only ones who stopped the vampires, as opposed to nuclear missiles and the joint efforts of humanity, is pretty much what she was complaining about and labeling as an American approach -- the lone warrior who defies all and saves the world through violent action.
And Priest was doing the western, steampunk style, with homage to The Searchers, along with many other things such as the aftereffects of the Vietnam War. And there was the dystopian SF post-apoc wasteland thing that is not unique to American SF but was heavily shaped over the years by it. But it was also doing the Asian martial arts story, and was based on a Korean manga series of the same name, and it seemed to me that the seed of the story was not American at all, but in the Asian ideal of the wise, sacrificial warrior -- the samurai, the spirit warriors of China, the Shaolin monks, the tales of the Monkey King who defies to win, etc. Asian culture is centered on the group, on social role, honorable behavior, etc., and yet they do have this tradition of myth of special warriors who stand independently against corruption and fight against evil. And the Asian martial arts films have had an enormous effect on action movies over the last forty years, and definitely have had an impact on SFF fiction as well.
So again, do we own the concept culturally? I don't think that America claims it. But it is prevalent in the 3D, special effects spectaculars of film and those are still American dominated, so it seems to me that this is the aspect that the essay writer is responding to, rather than the archetype idea. It's rooted in the concept of a savior, of resistance to that savior and what it costs the savior to save. There is the peaceful speaker side of that idea and the warrior avenger side of that idea and there are connections between them.
The myth of the hero does seem to be universal. Gilgamesh predated Christ 2500 years, for instance.
Heroes don't have to be warlike, as witness Christ and Buddha. Mohammed engaged in war toward the end of his life, but he was first a religious leader.
Americans and other immigrant nations such as Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and others may have an especially weakness for the lone hero. Many of their early settler were individuals who made a life for themselves, then brought over others in their families.
Europeans, on the other hand, seem to have more often had heroes who were part of a group. Witness Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, and the Fellowship of the Ring.
Americans may be more willing to accept "foreign" heroes, or heroes with a "foreign" streak in their nature. Natty Bumppo of The Last of the Mohicans was almost an Indian himself. Charlie Chan from the 1920s was Chinese, but a Hawaiian American. Bruce Lee and Green Hornet's Kato were American. And who can forget Mr. Miyagi of "The Karate Kid"?
Often Anglo Americans benefited from a foreign association. One example is the character played by Spencer Tracy in 1955's "Bad Day at Black Rock." He comes to the town to pay back a debt of honor. Some local baddies try to beat him up. Despite having only one hand, he has Judo or Kung Fu or something and readily turns the tables.
The Lone Hero, however, may exist for reasons other than historic influence. In film especially there is only a little time to establish him or her, and to tell hi/r story. As those of us who struggle to create such stories know only too well.
The question isn't whether or not the "hero story" archetype has existed for a long time in many cultures -- it's a question of which current, modern cultures hold that particular archetype at the apex amidst all the others in their values and their arts. Then it's a question of cultural export.
America champions the champion, no question. Other cultures do as well, but no one does it as much, as often, nor as deeply embedded as the American entertainment arts industries. Fair enough, it's an important part of America's story, and its importance to the culture domestically can't be understated. No other industry in the world has nearly the export value America enjoys -- nor, one might argue, the opportunity to increase its export share due to America's dominance.
We are what we consume. And the whole world is consuming enormous portions of American entertainment.
Rightly or wrongly, the sentiment of other cultures that may resist the dominance of American entertainment media is no less off base than a "Buy America" economic clause. People within a culture want to protect and support it, and like the economy a culture is supported by the strong domestic production of arts and entertainment media. Being xenophobic about foreign media is normal and healthy.
So, sure. The hero archetype exists. But in a multi-national entertainment system, local culture will come into play, and will rightly find fault and take issue with the offerings of any other culture. Being at the top of the pile simply makes you target number one.
-----
Along the lines of this topic, here's an interesting TED video about trends in popular TV in the US:
But the essay writer was in a sense making the argument that American cultural mores were causing limited imagination in set grooves, rather than supporting more experimentation. 
