How should a warrior or a hero act? Is there a right way or a wrong way? The movie Hancock (hopefully you all have seen it) is a perfect representation of how modern society views how heroes should act. Will Smith, Hancock, is a drunken hero who is very reckless, but nevertheless a crime stopper and life saver. He is influenced to change his ways and does so. He becomes more polite, cautious and selfless. The world ends up loving him.
Now, as for Achilles... Many people (the readers, of course) view Achilles as selfish and stubborn. They see him as just a necessity, not someone who deserves honor and fame for defeating the Trojans. We understand his justifications for his actions, but he still seems like he could have gone about everything in a much better manner.
But is the way Achilles behaved actually wrong? Who are we to judge someone with "holy" power and terrific skill? I personally believe that there isn't a warrior/hero "etiquette" at all. The most important thing I need to distinguish before I continue writing is that I am talking about heroes and warriors, not leaders. Though that can be leaders as well, I am talking about well skilled soldiers and ones who save lives for the betterment of their own society, in this case. I feel that heroes such as Achilles don't have to act a certain way because trying to live up to what everyone else thinks about them can distract them from their true heroic beings. Why give up certain traits such as aggression and disrespect just so that one person or a group of people will like you? Why not just get the job done and go home? Is it okay for a warrior to be selfish? Is it even possible to become a warrior without being selfless? Heroes have already done enough, why ask more of them?
Dwell on these questions and respond back to them,
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
While I think your comparison with the movie Hancock is a really good one, I do see one inconsistency with it. In the movie, Hancock changes because he realizes that the rest of the world needs his powers and strength. However, Achilles seems to change once Patroclus dies. While Achilles does reconcile with Agamemnon, this comparison brings into question whether or not Achilles actually fights to help his own people.
i love the comparison.
The last part of your post made me think of a question that (i think?) Dr. Colvin challenged us with freshman year. Do the motives behind an action change whether it is good or not? if Achilles joins the war for a selfish reason (revenge against Patroclus), does that make him any less heroic than if he joins to help the Acheans? The effect is the same, isn't it? He's still a hero...?
I believe that if Achilles motives are changed from how we see them (such as Tess' example) then we would see Achilles in a completely different mindset. While he would still be remembered as a great warrior and going back to battle knowing he would die, it would still change the reason why he went to battle. The motives behind our decisions can lead to certain perceptions as to how we see a others, even if in the end results are the same.
well Phil, I have dwelled on your questions and I will respond. I agree that with you that maybe we, as a people, we hold "heroes" up to too high of a standard. We expect athletes and entertainers to lead perfect lives and when they don't, their imperfections are on the cover of every newspaper and magazine in the country. However, I'm not so sure I can completely forgive Achilles. I really want to, considering I understand his motive for not wanting to return to battle. If I knew that I was fated to die, then I wouldn't go back to the war either. But, for some reason, I can't forgive him entirely. Maybe it's just because it's hard for me, someone who has never been anywhere close to a near-death situation (everyone knock on wood please) it is hard for me to fully comprehend his situation. I don't know, I want to defend Achilles but it's proving to be difficult.
If you let Achilles do whatever he wants, then who's to say that he wouldn't just sit out the whole war. He is still at the war, but not getting the job done. If you let people like him act however they want, you won't be able to control them at all. Is it worth it to let a hero act any way he wants if you can't even utilize him in battle?
I have to agree with nick. If we were to hold every hero and person up to a certain standard and they fail, we perceive them a different way afterwards. I think that Achilles has his reasons for the actions that he did wither or not we agree with him, we have to consider what we would do if we were in his situation. How would we respond?
Philly Cheeeese cut the sleeves, I want to agree with you on some things, but I cant. When you said that warriors and heroes are what you were reffering to, not leaders-I ask you how in the world a hero cannot be expected to lead? Can you call a person a hero if he is not a leader? Personally i think you cannot. Also, Achilles is venerated and talked about all the time not because of the lack-of-heroic-qualities he has in the beginning of the poem, these qualities which you referenced, but because of the way he transforms and is able to mature and become the epic hero we all love and admire.
With what Paul said about how Achilles would have sat out the whole war if he was allowed to do what he wanted seems a little naive. Isn't Patroclus' death the whole reasons Achilles reenters the war. Its not because he suddenly felt that he needed to help Agamemnon, it was that he was so filled with rage and anger towards Hector. I agree with you PHL with most of your assertion, but in order to be heroic I would say you have to have at least some good traits.
I think you are right in your assertion that heroes don't necessarily have to do anything simply because they are heroes. However, I would also say that most heroes or extremely skilled warriors tend to become leaders because of their power and influence.
On the other hand, in the Iliad, Achilles is the leader of his people, but does not have the responsibility of fighting. Why? Because he would not be fighting for HIS people. He would be fight for this compilation of people called the Archaeans, to whom he hold no loyalty.
Achilles may be a loyal friend, but I have a hard time calling him a hero. Achilles becomes a different person once Patroclus dies yes, but he does not become a hero overnight. Achilles seeks revenge against Hector for killing his friend. He does not become a great leader who cares about the well being of his country and his people. Where were Achilles' leadership skills when his people were being killed and he refused to fight. Where were his leadership skills when he let Patroclus leave with his armor. Achilles' motivation to fight do not make his a leader or hero by any means.
I agree with Cheese that warriors should be on a mission to get the job done and get back with as few losses as possible. Problem is, Achilles' selfishness gets his soldiers killed. While he's whining in his tent, the Acheans are out there dying. Had he been a bit more selfless and fought, more people would be alive.
Achilles motives do kind of change the perception of his actions a bit. While yes he is leading the Achaens to victory, he is also fighting for his own reason rather than fighting for the whole army. Still though, fighting to avenge his closest friend doesn't seem to make him any less heroic, it's pretty amiable in my opinion.
Post a Comment