Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

I think you and the author are using different definitions of “hero”.

When I read your comment I think of the classic Campbell hero, a presumed universal archetype also familiar, if slightly different from the ancient Greek or Mahabarata heroes. Luke Skywalker was consciously modeled on this definition.

I think the author, despite referring to Yoda, is referring to the American archetype of hero: the lone white gunman on the frontier. The argument against this is that teams are more effective for large projects and teams done work with such a “hero” (NBA teams are great examples of this).

My comment is not about the coherency, or lack thereof, of the post.

View on HN

You know what, you mention something that has pissed me off with a recent evolution of American culture by citing two examples I find relevant, so I'll expand.

Star Wars is a 1977 movie. It actually consciously uses the codes (and copies some scenes!) of WWII war movies. What are the heroes doing in it? They are helping a big organization (the rebellion) fight a formidable enemy. Just managing to flee from such an enemy is a heroic endeavor.

Compare it to today. In most, if not all, blockbuster movies, organizations that the heroes belong to are either incompetent, corrupt, are a hindrance when they are not the main antagonist. There is a total loss of the idea that belonging to an organization can make sense and can help a personal journey.

Sheriffs, policemen, journalists, they used to be the heroes of various fictions. Now we seem to refuse to believe that these can be heroes. We refuse to believe that collaboration with a team can be effective. Actually, now it is a trope that if the hero has a trustworthy associate, treason will happen some time in the storyline.

And somehow I understand what it is about: people are disgruntled with their work. They realize the company they are working in is not helping their personal hero's journey and hindering it. But really, the reaction that "therefore I shall do it all alone" is really bad.

Agreed. There are are far too many stories nowadays which say we are living in times where the courage of men fails and we should break our bonds of fellowship.

But today is not that day!

You're bothered that movies don't seem as authoritarian as they used to be. Do you realize that's what you've said?

There is a difference between authoritarianism and believing it is worth seeking out a trustworthy team.

Someone telling you what to do is not inherently authoritarian. Your claim is over the top.

For example, roads have enforced speed limits. Those are typically set in a technocratic way: traffic engineers look at surrounding conditions, design constraints of the road itself etc and set a number. That process is subject to oversight (which can be wrong or right) that provides some democratic accountability. Building codes are another good example.

It’s generally better to go along with such rules as a form of delegated decision making and expertise. And when you are freed from having to make a decision on every little thing (do I believe the label of the provenance of these eggs?) you can go forward to, you know, live your life.

When you consider that the opposite to individualism is authoritarianism, there has been a cultural failure in society.

Yes, I am using a different definition of hero. It comes straight out of Campbell, who surveyed a huge corpus of world literature to come to it.

My view of hero is the more interesting one. One that helps us make sense of our lives and to live better. But it’s not just different, it still does everything that the people who use the dopey definition need it to do.

Why even bother to analyze or discuss the human experience if we are just going to reduce it to flat cartoon psychology? That’s why I advocate for a better definition of hero. It allows me to heroically (in all senses of the word) navigate my social world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com