what makes a hero?

[B Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 80566

It's always interesting and instructive sharpening my wits for a match 
with Laura, especially when venturing into the abstract.

Laura:

He may not have known his parents but he has a very clear idea of
what it is LV deprived him of. Harry lives in the world, so he knows
what parents are supposed to do-love, protect and care for you. He
even has a somewhat warped example in the Dursleys. They may be
pretty pitiful as parents and as human beings, but they unarguably
care for Dudley.

Kneasy:

Hmm. Arguable, I'll agree. But warped is the right word, without a 
doubt. And he was transferred straight from this to Hogwarts. He has a 
not-so-secret contempt for the Dursleys, but any alternative family 
behaviour is largely theoretical. It's not until later in the series, 
when he visits the Burrow, that the truth of what a real home with a 
real family can be, is revealed.

Laura:

So does that mean that when teenagers do things like rescuing
drowning friends or family, or something along those lines (it
doesn't happen all the time but it does happen), it's only heroic if
the kid has a full understanding that s/he is risking her/his life?


Kneasy:

It's amazing  that humanity is fortunate enough to have a surprising 
number of people (including children) who perform the most astonishing 
acts. Without denigrating them, the vast majority performed by 
individuals are instinctive, a reaction to circumstances rather than 
the result of thought. It's almost as if there's an inbuilt altruistic 
drive that kicks in during emergencies. Usually it is only in 
retrospect that the dangers are evaluated. For example, compare a boy 
who rushes out on to thin ice to rescue his little dog with the Firemen 
at the Twin Towers. I'd personally class the former as 'reaction' and 
the latter as 'thought'. Both are laudable, but the boy will get a good 
talking to from his parents, despite what the local newspapers say. But 
at the time, to the boy, there was no contest. The dog  must be saved!
Now!

Bravery, heroes and heroics. This is where we probably  really start 
splitting hairs. It's rare to come across examples that all can view 
objectively and agree. I'm also very much afraid that the terms have 
been devalued, rather as the word 'star' has been (don't get me started 
on that one!). Indeed 'heroics'  is so often used ironically or 
slightingly that it's better to put that one aside.

OK. Bravery. To my mind this would be defined as fortitude, stoicism 
and resistance in the face of adversity or danger.
As a rough rule of thumb, while admitting  that the man or woman in the 
street are capable of it, I think it is best exemplified by those such 
as trained personnel who regularly face dangerous situations. Being a 
member of a cave rescue team, for example. I know I couldn't crawl 
through narrow openings, in the dark, in rising water, 300 ft 
underground to free someone trapped down there. They volunteer for this 
-  no  pay. They know the risks, they know what has to be done. They do 
  it. That's bravery in my book.

A hero is a class apart. Heroism requires a specific act or acts in an 
unfamiliar situation that includes putting your own life on the line 
and even though you see the dangers, the safety  of others is 
considered paramount. The difference to the rescue team is that they 
(the team) do not put the recovery of the trapped person above  the  
safety of the team members.
Prime example of heroism: Grace Darling [1]

IMO in the final part of PS/SS there is one act of bravery and  one of 
heroism.

For bravery - Stand up Neville! Confronting the only  friends he has, 
certain that resistance to their escapade was right and risking 
ostracism and loneliness by doing so.

For heroism - a big hand for Ron! Having seen what  happened to chess 
pieces that were  taken, he deliberately sacrifices himself, resigned 
to injury or worse, so that his friends can go on.

By contrast, once Harry encounters Quirrell!Voldy, the whole thing runs 
on rails. Harry  has no choices; it all has an inevitability. Retreat 
is impossible, he has no means of attack. All he can do is  lie, 
prevaricate, hoping some deus ex machina will intervene. A species of 
bravery, maybe. But the action of a hero? I don't think so.


Laura:

Can you be a hero if you do something that doesn't risk your life?
What about the people who refused to testify during the McCarthy
hearings here in the 1950's? Their physical lives weren't in danger, 
but their reputations and livelihoods were.


Kneasy:

Fascinating example. As someone with strong libertarian [2] leanings I 
find McCarthy despicable [3], but most of his victims I would class 
with Harry as above.


Laura:

So would you say that in PoA Hermione is a hero? She seems to have a
full understanding of the dangers involved in using the time-turner,
and she makes sure she and Harry operate within its constraints.
They don't exactly have a plan, but they can't really have one in
advance, because they have to see how events unfold from their new
perspective.

Kneasy:

Probably not. Hermione makes a judgement, based on experience, that so 
long as the rules of time-turning are obeyed, then the risk is low. Of 
course, she can't be absolutely sure that Harry will behave himself. 
But she probably calculates that Harry can be restrained through his 
ignorance of the possibilities.

I may be strict in my judgements, but I reckon he'll make the grade 
before it all ends.



[1] For those that are not familiar with the story, Grace Darling was 
the daughter of the lighthouse keeper at Bamburgh, in Northumberland. 
In 1838, when Grace was 23, the S.S. Forfarshire ran aground on the 
rocks in a severe  storm and was slowly being  pounded to pieces. Grace 
and her father put out in  an open rowboat to negotiate  a  mile of  
mountainous seas and rocks to effect the rescue of the survivors on 
board. They succeeded and got them all off. She died three years later 
of T.B.

[2] Mostly  drawn from Locke and Rand, but with saltings of Edmund 
Burke. If that seems slightly  contradictory, libertarianism does not 
require you to accept whole cloth from anyone. It's also  very 
comforting to be able to treat left and right with equal suspicion 
and/or scorn. Neither are to be  trusted.

[3] McCarthy engenders a sort of hypnotic revulsion. These days he's 
used as the stereotype of the archetypal right wing monster.
He seems a bit more (or less!) than that. He was  considered a radical 
Republican. Robert Kennedy, (JFKs brother), who worked for him, denied 
he was evil. His biographer considered he was "...incapable of true 
rancour, spite and animosity as a eunuch is of marriage...He faked it 
all and could not understand anyone who didn't." In my opinion more 
damning  than, however mistakenly, truly held beliefs. He was another 
of those opportunist demagogues who does great damage by espousing a 
'cause' he doesn't believe in. IMO his victims emboldened him by not 
taking him on. He was not part of the legal process and if they'd got 
him out of his hearings and  into a courtroom he'd soon have desisted. 
But 'taking the 5th' just encouraged him. He could then rant to  his 
hearts content. Moral cowardice in Hollywood and Washington didn't help.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]