|
|
By Susan Williams
 Ken Gros Louis Photo by Heather Hill |
Home Pages: So that we all start on the same page, would you define the "tragic hero?"
Gros Louis: The phrase "tragic hero" has been interpreted differently at different times of history; indeed, the definition often depends on one's interpretation of what history is.
Thus, in classical times, the tragic hero was one who had a tragic flaw that inevitably led to his downfall. But in medieval times, bad things happened to good people, and in a sense, because of the deep belief in resurrection and the afterlife, things that happened in this world didn't matter that much. For Shakespeare and his contemporaries, the tragic hero, like Hamlet or MacBeth or Othello, was one whose passions often overruled reason--or, put another way, one whose three parts of the soul were not in harmony. I could go on and on because the definition has really not been constant. Think of Job, for example--I'm not sure he would have been considered a tragic hero.
Home Pages: The class you teach on the topic of heroes traces tragic heroes through the ages. Do the criteria for being a hero change as social mores of various cultures do?
Gros Louis: Absolutely. A couple of examples. Brutus and Cassius are in the lowest circle of Dante's Inferno, being chewed eternally in the mouth of Lucifer. But in Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Brutus, while not a hero, comes close to being one.
For Ovid, Icarus foolishly did not follow his father's advice and take the middle way. For medieval culture, Icarus was thus not a hero. In the Renaissance, however, Icarus's daring exploit is held up as a mark of respect.
Another figure is Ulysses who, while placed in Dante's Inferno, is clearly then seen negatively, but hundreds of years later in a poem by Tennyson, seems to be portrayed as someone we should admire.
When I ask my class who are our contemporary heroes, they mention people like Gandhi, Mother Therese, perhaps the Pope, but certainly no living political figure. Clearly, many factors, including religious and social, economic, even peace and war, affect the same figure in the same story over the ages.
Home Pages: We don't get a lot of heroines in traditional heroic literature. What was their role?
Gros Louis: There are some heroines--Antigone, Joan of Arc, for medieval culture the Virgin Mary, and then figures like Mother Therese in contemporary culture. The heroic epics of various cultures are usually about males, and sometimes we hear about their spouses, sometimes not. Penelope is probably one of the best known of these, as are the wives of the heroes in the Song of the Nibelung.
Home Pages: Does the classical definition of a hero still work in today's world?
Gros Louis: The classical definition may work in certain circumstances, although I don't think the phrase "tragic hero" would necessarily apply. Thus, Bill Clinton may have a tragic flaw, but I doubt if most people would put him in the same category as the classical tragic heroes.
Home Pages: Many people believe there is something heroic in the most common of people--those who try to do the right thing, be the best person they can be, sacrifice for their families or for something bigger than themselves. Yet, they don't fit the classic definition. Can there be "everyday heroes"?
Gros Louis: This is an issue that I get into in the class--changing definitions and interpretations of heroic traits. We read King Lear, for example, and the class gradually comes to the conclusion that if there are any heroes in the play, at least those that did not have something that irritates us, they are really the servant who is outraged when Gloucester's eyes are gouged out and loses his life for it, the old man who leads Gloucester to the cliffs of Dover and other minor characters who do acts of kindness in the midst of intense harshness and cruelties.
But then, the class wonders whether a hero needs to have some kind of major impact on more than one person or one family. There are varying views on that, but I guess the general conclusion has been that the everyday heroes don't impact society enough to really rise to the level of the kind of hero that various cultures admire.
Home Pages: Who do you think should be considered heroes of the 20th century?
Gros Louis: As I mentioned earlier, students tend not to think of political figures or military figures as heroes; rather, they look to those who have devoted their lives to others, but in such a way that they become known and respected internationally. They are doing major work that does not impact a culture necessarily, but that does touch a meaningful chord in large numbers of people. The students really can't think of any current American that they would identify as a hero, which sometimes surprises me.
Home Pages: What kind of hero do we need today to move ahead?
Gros Louis: I believe the hero we need is one who inspires our confidence and trust, who represents the highest values of civilization and who can communicate those values to others, and one who has a good sense of self and of his or her responsibility to others. Frankly, I don't see anyone quite like that in contemporary American life--some people may have aspects of what I suggest, but they are either not in a position to impact us as a nation and/or choose not to accept leadership roles.
Return to Table of Contents