Author: Warclam (---.cgocable.net)
Date: 09-11-2005 08:12
A hero could also be interpreted as someone who puts personal safety below some great and noble thing. To take the example that was, I think, in the first column, that soldier who attacks overwhelming odds single-handedly is just a maniac. However, if (s)he manages to stall the onslaught of the enemy enough that the rest of the troops can organize an effective defence, then this maniac is now a hero. The tricky part is, of course, if this person TRIES to do the heroic stall-tactic, and it fails, is (s)he still a hero, or back to being a nut? Thoughts on that would be appreciated.
I agree, though, that when YOU have the overwhelming force, you're not a hero; virtuous, perhaps, but not heroic. There's no danger in running over enemy troops in a tank (assuming they don't have any rocket launchers or something), then you're no more heroic than an exterminator (Delbert from Arachnophobia excluded, of course). There's a reason that the most clichéd group of heroes possible is the "ragtag band".
|
|
