|
In Praise of Antiheroes Rating: 9 on a scale of 10 Review This is a wonderful book. As I was reading Arthur Kleinman's book, What Really Matters, I discovered some comments about being an anti-hero which were referenced to this book. He quoted Brombert about anti-heroes being "perturbers and disturbers". This resonated with me personally to a degree and I decided this book would be worth reading. This is a book about the presence of anti-heroes and anti-hero themes in the writing's of selected European author's from around 1836 to the 1990's or so. It is a series of nine essays dealing with the anti-hero themes in the works of Georg Buchner, Gogol, Dostoeyevsky, Flaubert, Italo Svevo, Jaroslav Hasek, Max Frisch, Albert Camus, and Primo Levi. There is an introduction followed by the nine essays on each author's work. Sometimes he discusses primarily one work of an author, but in some cases the entire body of the author's work is discussed. The western world has been saturated with the concept of the hero and there are many definitions of the hero common to our experience. There is the war hero who in the face of withering fire and combat, puts his life on the line unselfishly, fights against the enemy and prevails. We who here and observe such events consider this person to be a hero, but most of these people, when you hear them speak about the situation, don't really consider themselves to be heroes. There is of course the action hero from television, movies and books. These figures usually get caught up by fate and accident in a situation requiring bravery and initiative to overcome what seems to be an impossible situation, often saving the world or at the very least their comrades in arms. There is of course the tragic hero of literature as described by Aristotle and taught in high school English and college literature and literary criticism courses. We see a person who we can watch fall into a difficult situation, most often related a flaw within themselves, where we can foresee what is going to befall them, then as they fall into the scenario and resolve it we identify with their need to follow through with their action despite it leading to their downfall. This experience is cathartic as we walk through it with them. Then there is also the heroic motif of psychology where we are in some sense all (at least males I should say) working through a mythic story to work out our psychological needs. Many believe modern western males are all working through the Fisher King story. This may seem a bit bizarre, but this story or its variants are the stuff of many movies, books, legends and myths. Whether we believe we are doing this, we actually do work through it one way or another. Some heroes may be seen a spiritual role models guiding humanity down the proper path into something bigger than themselves. The antihero is another sort of character. As Brombert describes the antihero, the antihero is a "subversion" of the usual heroic model. He explains that authors have taken to creating "heroes" who do not meet up to our expectations of heroes. The antihero is not made of "the right stuff". They have heroic "courage" of a different sort than the usual hero. They may be more in harmony with their generation. They may be more like us. They challenge the image of the "ideal" hero. The antihero is of this world, a human being by all measures. The antihero is not a strong spiritual character. There are no illusions with the antihero, they are raw and earthy. The antihero is not on a pedestal as someone to attain to be like entirely. They are not an illusion or "false-god" sort of character. They can only really be in opposition to the traditional heroes illuminated persona, and as such they represent a sort of "moral void", a sort of darkness, when the traditional model no longer works well. The void is presented because there is a need for something to fill its space. This void is noticeable because we all carry around an image of what the hero should be. But, times and conditions arise where the traditional hero is not enough, and the antihero arises to inform us of our need for something else, our need for a higher level of consciousness. Sometimes we need the raw, tenacious, feet firmly planted here on earth sort of character. Sometimes we become so "heavenly minded" we lose track of our physicality, we get lost in spiritual realms, and we have to be drawn back to earth and reality, we have to reset the balance to a different place. We are ever of the earth and of heaven, where is the balance to be maintained? The antihero is sometimes the character that calls us back to a more "real" place, a place where values and reality are much more complex than the seemingly simple role of the traditional hero. What are our values? What happens when strength is found in weakness? How do we renew and reinvent ourselves as individuals and as a people when in the natural course of things we have degenerated significantly, all of us? Perhaps we are in just such a time now in our collective experience as Americans and as world citizens. It seems like we are headed rapidly toward a "date with destiny" as we as a culture have degenerated in the past 70 years. Suddenly, all that we took for granted seems to be changing, the value of a house, the value of our retirement account, the shape of governments, the excess spending of governments and everyone, medical care, the stability of collective bargaining, unions, money, family structure, etc. We are suddenly in a time of great change where the new heroes may indeed be antiheroes, those who will call us back to a solid reality, not the false dreams of money and power. But, right now this process is just beginning and it looks to be very painful. The works he has chosen to review are all about our moral choices and realities. The discussions are quite moving and engaging. I have read some of the works of these writers, but I would not consider myself an expert on any of them. Having read this book, I would love to read more of what they have written. The books reviewed were fascinating. Yes, this is a book of literary criticism. It was engaging and I would love to discuss with this fellow the psychological ramifications of what he and these authors have to say. At the very least the book is very thought provoking. I especially enjoyed his discussion The Underground Man by Dostoevsky. He makes states, "Herein lies this novel's first paradox. It is expresses in the first person, yet it speaks to us of the other." Well, I was hooked right there for sure. Anything that talks about "the other" is right where I am living these days in mid-life. We all need to know more about the other. The depth of his discussion is very good. He discusses the underground and the underground is within the protagonist, he carries the underground in his soul. At this point I sort of want to stand up and shout because I know exactly what he is talking about. The ideas and feelings just keep flowing. I also especially enjoyed the discussion of Max Frisch's work. I felt a great empathy for this poor fellow. Some people have seen and experienced to much in life, yet we are compelled to make some sense of it all. Sometimes this "working it all out" is very hard to do. There seems to be a lot about paradox in the conception of the antihero. Once again, I was struck by a comment of Brombert's regarding language, "The paradox of language is that it not only fails to tell the 'truth' (immediately always being betrayed), but that, aware of its own emptiness ("Leere"), it is committed to expressing the inexpressible." This is a very deep and meaningful expression, for me, looking at it from the perspective of mid-life. In the course of my own Jungian analysis I have become aware of just this issue within me; deep within me, the underground man if you like, there is a part of me that has no voice. This part of me lies below this part of me that is writing at this very moment. The part of me which has no voice is "the other" within me. There is this "other" for which words have no real meaning. My very act of writing at this moment is in some sense a transgression of that part of me. The part, the other, who has no voice never speaks with words. My very existence seems somehow predicated on words and meanings, yet, there is an "other" who uses no words. And this "other" is just as authentically me as the one who babbles on with words. To let the other "speak" is a great paradox, but the other can "speak", with a harmonica, fingers on a piano, with strings, with paint, water color, crayons, and charcoal. This other is my personal antihero. I am working at being at peace with this other. Don't be afraid of this book. Take your time reading it. Enjoy the depth and nuance it describes and explores. It is all about us. For me, it helped me delve even deeper into the depths of my soul. Enjoy. All opinions are those of Curtis Climer, MD Copyright 2011 |
|
[botom.htm] |