clex_monkie89 | Heroic Motivation

Current Mood: thinky
Current Location: Dad's

Entry tags:

meta,
supernatural

Heroic Motivation

I was watching Monk a night or two ago and there was this actor who was shadowing Monk and trying to get his "motivation" when suddenly he said this line: "This is why you do this. You can't catch Trudy's killer so you do the next best thing, you catch all the other criminals." Monk solves crimes because he can't solve his wife's murder.

And so that got me thinking about how often revenge and revenge-deterrence is the main motive for our heroes in television and other forms of entertainment.

Batman saves people because Bruce couldn't save his parents. Batman's motive is revenge-deterrence, something bad happened to him and he doesn't want it to happen to anyone else.

John and Dean and Sam kill demons and ghosts and monsters because they couldn't save Mary from one. John's motive is revenge, something killed his wife and he wants to kill it back to avenge her. Dean's motive is avenge-deterrence, he is Batman. Sam's motive shifts between revenge, for his girlfriend who was killed by The Demon, and revenge-deterrence, upping his karma points by saving other people from the same fate as he and/or his girlfriend.

Why do all our heroes have the same motive? Are we not strong enough to handle someone who takes on bad guys just because they're bad guys? Do we have to justify it to ourselves? Why do the bad guys have to commit a bad act on the hero first? We know that people who kill people are bad, we don't need proof of it.

There is a saying I'm sure many of you have heard, "evil flourishes when good men sit idly by and do nothing." So why is it that all of our heroes must first sit by and let evil flourish before we can find ourselves comfortable cheering for them?

If Mary died during childbirth, or of a purely human sickness or in a car accident and then John raised Sam and Dean to hunt monsters and kill demons not because or revenge but just because he knew they existed would you feel different about the show? If there was no revenge plot, if Jess just broke up with Sam or was killed in a robbery or still lived, would you think differently of him?

Picture it.

Trudy, alive and well, Monk OCD as he is on the show, using his idiosyncrasies to catch criminals just because he's a cop and that's what he does. Still interesting, but maybe a little less.

Bruce Wayne, with parents alive and well, grows up, becomes a man and don's a Bat suit to punish criminals. No one he knows has ever been killed or hurt by them really badly so he has no personal stake in it, he just thinks that crime is overrunning his city. Yes, he's still putting The Joker away and still nabbing muggers, but now we probably think he's more insane than he is in the comics. In fact, we probably like him only a little more than the GCPD does, now.

John, Sam and Dean Winchester who go around stealing people's identities and lying to cops and the families of the dead because they're hunting demons. Just that. No one did anything to them, they have no reason personally, they're just doing it for other people.

John Winchester, widow to a wife who died of natural causes, grabs his kids and takes them cross-country for their childhoods to kill demons he knows for a fact exist. Maybe his Dad told him about them or he knew other hunters or whatever. He has no "personal" stake in it, he's just doing it for the good of mankind. You like him a little less now, don't you?

Or what about Dean? Dean Winchester, whose mother died of pneumonia when he was four, whose father raised him to hunt and kill monsters and demons and ghosts. Nothing tore his mother from his clutches violently except for a human illness. None of these things has ever tried to harm him or his family in any way unless they've tried to harm it first. He has no reason hunt down and kill these things other than that his Dad tells him to do it. How much do you love him now?

And then there's Sam. Sam Winchester, whose mother didn't die in a fire above his crib. Sam Winchester who has been trained to hunt and kill things that have done nothing to anyone he cares about. Sam Winchester who ran away and went to college and then ran away from college four years later when his brother appeared. Sam Winchester who left his girlfriend or whose girlfriend left him. Sam Winchester who might have psychic powers but has no one specific demon out for him personally. How does he make you feel?

And what if Mary doesn't die? What if John and her pick up their boys up early on and go on a preemptive war against all things supernatural? Maybe Missouri is a friend of Mary's and tells her about the demons and she tells John. Maybe Pastor Jim is an old marine buddy of John's and he passes on the word. Doesn't matter how, somehow they find out the existence of these things and decide to go kill them all.

Mary, John, Dean and Sam have never lost anyone they know to any kind of supernatural thing. They still hunt all things supernatural though.

It's still demons that they're killing. They're still saving people's lives and protecting the innocent. But you probably fell a little different about them, don't you?

Why is that?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Maybe the not losing Mary and Jess would have them being a little less emo and broken into a million little pieces, because honestly it's starting to get a little old.

It's like fictional characters are supposed to be avenging angels on some sort of quest. I mean if they didn't have this whole thing driving them... well then they would just enjoy killing things. *beats a bunny with a stick* They would still be saving people, but their reasons would be a lot more altruistic. Maybe?

Also it would make John a whole lot more of a freak to raise his boys like that without really having to.

I don't make sense. My brain is tired.

The common code seems to be that doing it out of revenge rather out of conviction makes characters more relatable because it means that they don't have to be noble.

Personally, I actually often prefer characters who do it because it is their conviction because to many tragic/lost someone characters rub me in the "stop hunting/fighting and get a shrink" way.

The common code seems to be that doing it out of revenge rather out of conviction makes characters more relatable because it means that they don't have to be noble.

That makes sense. Because everyone can understand, in theory, losing someone they love and then wanting to do something about it. It's much easier to empathize with than someone who just doesn't want people to hurt, period.

See, I never really got that. Maybe it's because I have never lost somebody that way or maybe it's because there's less of a culture of vigilantism in my country.

I always "got" somebody like Mulder more. At least with him he still had some hope that he could find his sister again. An option that you don't have when somebody dies.

I don't make sense. My brain is tired.

Sh, sweetie, get some sleep and come back in the morning.

Those are some good thinky thoughts. And I'm not sure about any of it. If I'd feel the same. Different. What if John had died and Mary became the vigilante.

However. I did have this image and it made me giggle.

(Mary died. Maybe from natural causes, maybe from supernatural ones. I don't think it much matters.)

John's up late. Flicking channels. Drinking whiskey. He pauses on one channel. He stares and his heart pounds in his chest. A commercial comes on and he bounds up the stairs to Dean and Sam's room. He flicks on the switch. "Boys." They don't move. He tries again, this time louder. Sam mumbles. Dean asks what. John steps closer to their beds. "I've figured it out. What we need to do. The family business." Dean sits up a bit. "We have a business?" John smiles. "Not yet, son. Not yet. But listen. I was watching this documentary about this demon hunter - a girl for some unknown reason - and that's what we need to do. America is huge and she can't do this alone. We need to help her."

I realize the timeline doesn't work but I don't really care about that.

Timelines don't matter!

That is good to know.

XD

ZMOG! JOHN STARTED HUNTING THINGS BECAUSE OF BUFFY!

You win times a bazillion!

I like that he thought Buffy was a documentary.

So do I, because you know he would totally think it was.

Personally I have always loved characters who don't fight for reasons like that. Even though they are harder to like I'm told.

Buffy didn't have a reason originally other than she had to and was told she had to. She eventually lost people, but only later.

Superman is another who does is because he is good. As a result many people don't find him as relatable as Batman. Personally, it makes me like him more.

I think a lot of cop shows like CSI or even doctor shows like House, are built around people doing the things they do without a big tragic backstory all the time.

There are also more lightweight shows like Psych where the heroes don't have any particular reasons to do the things they do.

I don't think that doing things just because they are good people makes people less likable and less angsty. In the end they usually always angst at least about the fact that they can't save everybody or that the fight will never be over or that the fight takes some of their friends.

See with CSI and House it's a little different because it's the people's jobs. It's a conscious choice but not the kind of conscious choice you take when you say, chose to become a vigilante.

For me it would be even more poingant that these people, who have no reason to, do this job. Revenge gives us an insight into the psyche of the Winchesters - our society is filled by people whose motivation is revenge mixed in with this should never happen again.

But take Heroes. The two people I respect the most are Ando and Simone. They have no powers (I'll use present tense), but still they do what they can to help the cause. That's a hero and it would make me love the Winchesters even more, doing it because they want to, not because they have to.

(Can't comment on Batman, can't read comics)

See, now I never really liked Simone (Couldn't understand why both Peter and Isaac were so madly in love with her) but Ando just completely pwns my heart, man.

Interesting point. Now I'm sitting here ticking off all the movies I've ever seen where the hero is motivated to revenge by some Tragic Past...like in "Lethal Weapon 2"..."A Man Apart"..."Collateral Damage"..."The Last Boy Scout"...(my husband is spouting these off, he's an action movie buff). Contrast someone like John McClane in "Die Hard" or Keanu in "Speed" - your typical wrong place, wrong time hero, who just does what he has to do.

So do we like Mel Gibson or Ah-nold more than Bruce Willis because they're avenging their family? I really don't feel that way. I can see how it makes for a compelling story, but I don't NEED that revenge motivation to connect with/approve of a hero.

Then again, do they make so many movies like that because it's cathartic for us to watch someone kick the crap out of/take down someone who's done their family wrong (which is something that people in the real world can't really do and get away with)?

Wow, you made me think on a Sunday night.

Aw, I'm sorry I made you think!

Action movies definitely seem to have a pretty even split. Either the Hero is doing everything out of revenge (More often than not actually, now that I think of it) or their heroics come in the course of their job.

Interestingly Superheroes seem to be much more on the "just because" side. Batman is actually the exception (I'm guessing because his story is so famous that anybody else doing it, it would feel like a rip off).

Superman, Wonderwoman, Green Arrow, Black Canary, all of the X-Men I can think of, Tim Drake, Flash, Green Lantern... all started out without a revenge story.

On the revenge side I can think of Batman and Nightwing even though the revenge aspect doesn't play a big part for Nightwing anymore. Green Lantern got his girlfriend in a freezer added rather early on, so maybe he does count as a revenge story.

Wait, Spiderman is another one for the sorta revenge side (and another vote for "tragic revenge heroes are more popular" side).

I might love them even more!

It's one thing to give up having a normal life, home, family, security and so on when you're all anguished, driven and wouldn't be able to appreciate it anyway (not that I’m ignoring the courage it takes to face the darkness). It's quite another thing to choose to pursue justice or compassion for other's because you are just that selfless.

I can think of four examples: Jesus, Siddhartha, Gandhi and Superman. We view most of these people are enlightened beings.

Superman didn't have a reason beyond his inherent goodness and he is both an exception by virtue of being an alien and by his having a normal live as with loving, supportive parents, a job he wanted and companionship.

In terms of plausibility, it seems to me that ‘ordinary’ heroes have to have a reason to want to save people or they are just too good to be true.

This saddens me.

In terms of plausibility, it seems to me that ‘ordinary’ heroes have to have a reason to want to save people or they are just too good to be true.

This saddens me.

And that's it right there. Because more people know Superman but more people like Batman better. They can relate to him better than someone who just does good for the sake of doing good.

This is making me think sad things about bystander apathy and the human race in general.

It is sad, but there's also another tale being told here I think and that tale is about the human capacity for kindness and compassion in the face of suffering.

Batman manages to find ways to overcome or alleviate the suffering in his own life and think of others.

The Winchesters between the three of them walk that fine line between being utterly obsessed with their own pain and looking outwards to others in need as well.

We humans seem to be compelled by stories about redemption, about overcoming suffering and becoming or creating something better.

The story that pisses me off the most is where suffering heroes are offered chances to transcend their own suffering and don’t take them because they like being dark, emo and twisted.

I don't know whether it is connected, but there is probably a feeling that people who change the world have, historically, often meant trouble.

So yeah, it's a powerful thought in theory to want to make the world a better place, but so many people have gone so wrong with it.

Maybe that's why so many people have this kind of anti reaction to Superman. I see it with Wonderwoman too at times. That people perceive them as fascist and preachy.

Wanting something more and bigger has culturally, again, often spelled trouble. At least with somebody who does it for revenge their goals appear to be more limited (though I'm not convinced myself).

I'm not really sure how I feel about that.

There's a strong Australian trend called 'tall poppy' syndrome where it's considered bad to stand out and be remarkably good at something. It can result in being hated just for being 'good'. I wouldn't call Jesus, Siddhartha, Gandhi or Superman fascist or preachy, although what other people have done with their... err.. teaching for want of a better word has been disastrous at times.

I think you're absolutely right that people with Great Vision are often thinly disguised megalomaniacs and that there's a very fine line between doing things for the GOOD OF ALL and the GOOD OF ME.

On a happier note, Battlestar Galactica has been exploring that very theme in the forms of Commander Adama and President Roslin and for the most part has been doing it very well. Whee!

My worry with revenge oriented heroes is that they are all about the GOOD OF ME. How, after they have achieved their vengeance, does a person live? Do they have happy lives? Do they have the ability to form honest, loving relationships? Do they have poor impulse control?

Here via the newsletter (which really provides links to interesting topics) and this is my first meta so I don't really know what I'm doing here. *carefully throws her 2 cents in*

Why do all our heroes have the same motive? Are we not strong enough to handle someone who takes on bad guys just because they're bad guys? Do we have to justify it to ourselves? Why do the bad guys have to commit a bad act on the hero first? We know that people who kill people are bad, we don't need proof of it.

I personally think that we aren't strong enough. I mean, everyone reading this knows that there are evil and bad things happening in the world and probably very few of us suddenly decides to do something about it proactively. People have a tendency to hide their heads in the sand and hope that evil never catches them that way. But if it does, then it's a lot easier to do something about it. Plus there are the mandatory sympathy points in there. And you can go a little further with the revenge because it's personal (and you can have more drama slipped in between the plot points ;).

It would require a very black-and-white view of the world just to get up now, turn your life around and go fight evil. Maybe that's the reason revenge is often brought into the mix. It expands the spectrum with all the shades of gray, and more often than not, the tragedy has already messed up the hero's life so that the lifestyle change is easier to imagine.

With gray areas you ponder whether it is right to kill something just because you _know_ it is --or has been-- evil; you obviously have morality left, want real proof that you're actually chasing something evil that isn't trying to change and are thus more relatable than the black-and-white vigilantes. And this reminds me of Dean in the end of Bloodlust where he wonders what if they had killed things that hadn't deserved to be killed. Actually, the whole episode seems quite relevant in this discussion. Would you rather have the heroes in Supernatural be like the Winchesters or like Gordon (who indeed sees everything in black and white)?

So why is it that all of our heroes must first sit by and let evil flourish before we can find ourselves comfortable cheering for them?

To sum it up: because we all do it. Not necessary when face to face with evil and bad things, but if we can avoid getting involved, then we usually opt to do just that. Having John take the boys without any supernatural reasons and raising them as he did gives out more oh-man-he's-just-nuts vibes than what-a-great-and-unselfish-man vibes. Because humans have a tendency for empathy, the avenging hero picture makes the characters more interesting and relatable. It is what you would --or would want to-- do when faced with a personal tragedy that turns your life upside down. Probably :)

I think I'm with hugemind(did I spell that right?) on this one. (here via spnnewsletter as well)

To take up a cause this big, people have got to be personally involved somehow. Motivated. There are few people that will go for a cause without anything else urging them other than what's right, and we find it harder to identify with them, I think.

Someone mentioned something about Superman being known, but Batman being liked best. It's not just pity factor (oh poor Bruce lost his parents etc). I think it's the fact that even if he may not be the best of persons, or be just as regular as anyone, he'll fight against his own darkness, his own nature and the darkness around him.

Superman is portrayed better and nicer and shinier than all, so fighting the good fight comes natural to him. Batman is not as shiny. He's darker, and he still fights the good fight.

(one of the reasons, I think, why watching Angel's quest was more interesting than Buffy's as far as I'm concerned.)

So hey. Shiny people are expected to be shiny. Normal people pushed over the edge are more fun to watch.

(In my mind there it sounded a lot more coherent really. *shrugs*)

Hmm, late responding I know but I found this intriguing. I don't necessarily think the revenge/avenger scenario says as much about us as watchers as it does about us as participants.

We're supposed to identify with our heroes to a certain extent and well, for the majority of us, it take something lifechanging, or earth shattering to make us give up what we know and devote our lives to something like that. Even in real life terms-eg activists, et al.

Even Buffy had to have something to motivate her-fortunately nothing as bad as the others, but we all know there are bad things out there-just most of us aren't gonna wake up one day, sell our belongings and go hunting them. Even Clark Kent at this point of Smallville isn't ready to give up his chance at a normal life to be a superhero.

In a way, most of these characters do this because they don't think they have anything left to lose. The chance for a 'normal' life has already been taken away from them.

Monk did do what he does before Trudy's death-he was a cop, we just never got to see it. Now, though it has become the lifeline that Trudy was.

In the Winchesters case, I have enough issues with John raising the boys the way he did. The only saving grace is that he was grief stricken. So yeah, I'd have major problems with someone that uprooted their children and raised them in a violent lifestyle unnecessarily.

I'm actually trying to think of heroes that do what they do just because, and the closest I can come probably would be either cop shows, or in the Whedonverse. On BTVS, it was Buffy's calling, but the others were there because of the bad guys. Watcher's and Slayers lives were devoted to fighting evil just because it was out there. The initiative as well. (Oh and most of the justice league)

This is not nearly as coherent as I'd like it to be, and I'm going to be pondering this for a while now.

Ah and now I see that everybody else said what I said, except better.

The only comment I would make is that even 'selfless' people do what they do for a reason. That reason may be the good of all mankind, because they feel man deserves it, because they feel they owe it, whatever but there is a reason.

I think it was a Friends episode in which Joey told Phoebe it was impossible to commit a truly selfless act.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Heroic Motivation

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

ps

Re: ps

Re: ps

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject