A He's a sore loser and a bit stupid sometimes, but he's our Big Damn Hero

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