So, an interesting panel that I got to attend during Dragon*Con'12 was taking a look at the False Heroes of the Whedon-'Verse. (Titled "Captain Hammer will Save Us! - A look at the False Heros of Whedon")
At some point, when discussing anti-heros vs. false heros**,
someone raised the question:
"Is Malcolm Reynolds actually a true hero?
Because, you know, he gave up and ran off to be a criminal..."
The
response from the panel was that, naturally, he's a Big Damn Hero. No one really disagreed on that point, and after a bit of almost political banter, we moved on.
I like the query though, and all of the places it can lead. Why would
you call a man who gave up fighting a hero? Or someone who continues to
be on the loose as a low level criminal, instead of joining society and
trying to fix it legally? Or wouldn't losing his faith [in his cause]
make him less of a hero?
All of these questions have been buzzing about in my head, and I
want to try and tackle them. Forgive my bad formulation of ideas, but
here goes.
In my mind, Malcom is a Big Damn Hero. No ifs, ands, or buts (though definitely butts, if you've seen the series). The point that I'd like to make, however, is that he is our hero because he lost. Let me explain.
In
losing the war, having his men slaughtered in what turned out to be a
hopeless battle, Malcolm lost his verve. He was beaten and sent packing
by the powers that he couldn't abide, and was forced to see them become
the power for 'good' in his universe. As a friend brilliantly reminded
me, he is an example of Kant's highest level of morality - someone who
does what is right, even though it will end up hurting them (i.e., The
Train Job, sheltering River and Simon, going to Miranda, etc). Prior to
the battle of Serenity Valley, Malcolm firmly believed in the cause of
the Browncoats, just as he firmly believed in God, and that everything
would turn out right in the Verse.
When the cause he knew was right crashed and burned, he was
disheartened. The man didn't lose his faith in the Almighty - he just
didn't like him any more. He didn't believe that God could be good and
let something like that happen. He didn't believe his cause was wrong,
and did believe that the Alliance was evil. So instead of joining with
the government he morally opposed, and realizing that there wasn't any
way for him to continue fighting as a soldier, he 'turned tail and lit
out' of society. Though this was, in a sense, running away, Mal chose to
step out of the system rather than giving up his ideals. True, he gave
up on "legal society" and God - but when called upon, he made the right
decisions when it really mattered.
Insofar as I'm concerned, Malcolm experienced a true hero's defeat;
heroes can fight for what is right and good, and still lose. In fact,
the majority of the time, when there is a cause worth fighting or
advocating for, the person who loses the most in a battle is the hero -
the person stepping up and doing what is right. They sacrifice so that
others may reap the benefits. We see this all over the place today,
whether in the physical front-lines of battle, or with civil servants
working for a pittance in the poorest corners of society.
Let me take it a step further though - this is where I expect people to disagree with me.
I think that it is because of
Mal's defeat that he became our hero. I believe that, had he not
experienced the most crushing defeat possible, his character would have become no
more of a hero than anyone else around him.
If you've read 'Serenity' (book based on film, not vice versa), you'll know that Mal was described as an incredibly charismatic man (quote coming once I can track it down). He was a sergeant in the military, and I'd say that he sounded like a man who would rise through the ranks
quickly. Had the war gone on longer, or (let's just go mad with
assumptions here) had the Browncoats won, I could definitely see Malcolm
as a leader in that infrastructure.
Now, imagine his counterpart on the side of the Alliance; an extremely
charismatic, driven, faithful man, whose cause was victorious. Sounds
like the makings of an amazing politician, don't you think? It sounds
like someone who, upon being proven right about their cause being
correct, would always stick to the books - who would be less likely to
question their orders, and more likely to make the wrong moral
decisions, justified by furthering the right cause. Had the
Browncoats won - had Mal's cause been victorious - I believe that he
would have been just another successful man who fought on the winning
side of the war.
It was his defeat - his senseless and wrong failure, and knowledge that
even in the midst of his loss, he was right - that showed him that doing what's
right will not always make you successful. Oftentimes, if you stick to a high
moral code, you will lose the battle.
Malcolm lost everything he cared about in the war for independence -
short of life and some short-lived wealth, he had little else to lose
by sticking it to the Alliance every once in a while. He could snub his
nose, do what was right while spiting them, and then get the heck
out of dodge. While he knew that he had the ability to make a choice about doing what
was right, he didn't believe it was his place to make that decision.
Through a lot of dogged determination, hard-work, and a good dash of
stupidity, he stuck to his cause, even without the backing of a military
and his God.
What makes Malcolm my hero is that he'll lose again and again, and
will continually choose to do the right thing. He continually loses the
bigger battle for himself while winning it for those who need help.
In normal
life, we hear about those heroes and role models that build themselves out of successes - my biggest hero, however, was forged in the fires of defeat and
failure.
"May have been the losing side. Still not
convinced it was the wrong one."- Malcolm Reynolds
**There are lots of variances in defining an antihero and a false hero - here are a couple of definitions that I've copy/pasted straight from various websites. As you've no doubt seen, I don't really discuss them in this, though it'll be coming up in a future post.
Antihero:
- a protagonist who lacks the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or purpose, and the like.
- a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities - In fiction, an antihero (sometimes antiheroine as the feminine) is generally considered to be a protagonist
whose personality can be perceived as being villainous and heroic at
the same time, in contrast to the more perpetually noble characteristics
of an archetypal hero or the perpetually immoral characteristics of an archetypal villain. The term dates to 1714, although literary criticism identifies the term in earlier literature.
False Hero:
- The false hero is a stock character in fairy tales, and sometimes also in ballads.
The character appears near the end of a story in order to claim to be
the hero or heroine and is, therefore, always of the same sex as the
hero or heroine. The false hero presents some claim to the position. By
testing, it is revealed that the claims are false, and the hero's true.
The false hero is usually punished, and the true hero put in his place.
Perfect example: Captain Hammer
