OOC;
The Myth of the Hero, by Bill Butler. Published by Hutchinson Publishing Group, 1979
The measurement of a hero, his definition, is in his confrontation with an antagonist. Without that meeting of what is both opposite and identical the good guy would consist of no more than human flesh and bone with the addition of a few superlatives: greatest, biggest, strongest, smartest. And so the hero's life is one of test after test, imposed by the author, Fate, the gods, demonic power, or potential fathers-in-law. In conflict is his delineation. In the eyes of his antagonist he can see his own reflection. The ideal enemy for a hero is himself, someone who can match every strength which he possesses. Strategically this is an impossibility. A struggle between absolute equals would lead to endless stalemate; so the character of one champion or the other is always weighted, if ever so slightly. The closest that one can come to the 'ideal' hero situation is where he confronts some part of himself, usually where the antagonist is a ghost within his own mind. pg. 18
One of the classic methods of having the hero confront himself, and thus equalize the struggle, is by making him a twin. The most familiar pattern to such pairs may be that of the light/creative/civilizing brother and his dark/destructive/anarchic complement. When such twins appear...they are usually not thought of as equals. The battle is shaded always, however slightly, in favour of 'good'. pg. 20
It would seem that in myths it was recognized long ago that the likeliest source of antagonism...is within the bosom of love, the family... The likeliest suspects in any murder or crime of violence are the loved ones. Such mythic confrontations as those between Oedipus and Laius, Joseph and his brothers, Maui and his brothers, Cronos and Uranus, and Zeus and Cronos, all deal with the same primeval nightmare, that we may sleep beside one who carries an axe for us. A corollary of this is that we may be our own worst enemy. ...
To avoid forcing all mythic heroes and their followers to go through that horrendous knowledge it is conventional to express the enemy as an external personality. And it is more comfortable. The distinctions between us... and them... is emphasized[.] pg. 21
In our myths and even in our literature we weigh the fabric of our dreams, we measure nightmare and its horrors in vain attempts to rationalize, make sane, that which forever changes. If only we could make frontiers between 'reality' and 'vision' then we would feel safer; but it will not stay still, remain the same, long enough for us to finish calculating. When we think ourselves done the borders have moved again. Here the conflict is between what is and what is not. Which of us can say, sure and certain, where it is that we live? pg. 22
In other versions, however, Satan deliberately chooses evil and enmity to the Lord, believing that it is 'better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven'. The attitude may be one of arrogant pride; but it is also one of some courage. Satan's pose is a noble one, his character--heroic. pg. 24
Remnants of [ideas of holiness], however confusing they may appear together, are found in all religions; and in the tradition of the hero they explain some of the mistrust which heroes generate. For they are a bridge between the parts of each equation, they do not fit comfortably into categories. And to us (clean and common and human) a cuckoo in the nest who is partially as we are, partially holy and therefore godlike, and finally unclean and therefore diabolical as well as intolerable. Yet, though he scares the wits out of us, we need heroes and our society continues to generate them. pg. 31
In folklore this is probably literally true; for names are generally believed to possess great power and the knowledge of names is often strictly controlled. Conversely, the terror of namelessness is, in many cultures, a real thing. To be without a name is to be without a family (particularly but not universally a father), ancestors, social position, and possibly even a soul. And anyone who is nameless is a wild card, in myth he could be anything from a demon to a deity and, whenever it form an important part of a myth it is an indication that the subject is likely to be a god or the messenger of a god or at the very least a disruptive influence in a society. pg. 45
Each of these also possesses another kind of freedom, however, that of being an orphan. There is no one to tell Dick Grayson (Robin) that he really should stay home tonight and study his homework when he wants to go out and fight crime; no one to recognize in the worm Clark Kent the mighty Man of Steel and make his life hell by chasing him for autographs, and no one who will see in the wealthy socialite, Bruce Wayne, the nemesis of crime and attempt somehow to use that information against him. It is a freedom that would have been envied by Elvis Presley and Howard Hughes. pg. 51
A common form of mythic hyperbole states, for example, that the god Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs was born in a cloud and dropped from Heaven on a spider's web. ... In each of these stories the intention of the mythmaker is to say, 'Watch out. The person who is about to happen is something else.' pg. 53
Twinship, multiple births and reincarnatory births are identical in their implications, differing from each other only in their time structure. Reincarnatory births or, as they are sometimes termed, avatars, are sequential as events; and multiple births as we usually conceive them to be are simultaneous. If, however, the results of these births are heroes (semi-divine people) or gods, then it can make no difference to their myths whether they are born at once or in a straight line. pg. 57
Metamorphosis, from human to semi-divine, implies that within each of us is a hero sleeping who waits only for the catastrophic act that will free him, allowing the psychopath or the saviour to emerge like a butterfly from a pupa. pg. 62
One of the curious features of the entire cycle of Quetzalcoatl myths is the fact that Tezcatlipoca (Smoking Mirror) is at one and the same time the antagonist, teacher, twin, and alter-ego of the hero. When he opposes Quetzalcoatl it is for the purpose of teaching him, when he destroys him it is for the purpose of giving him life. pg. 70
Heroes, then, are marked men. In some instances they may be distinguished by their virtue, just as often it will be their vices; but more frequently it will simply be the magnitude of what they do, the sheer size of it. ...
The acts of such a one, no matter how trivial, are special, larger than life. His physical characteristics become matters of wonder. He is often thought to be, in some sense, 'larger' than the rest of mankind, either in the sense of literal mass or as possessing a numinous charisma, a halo, a mandorla [sic], the power; whatever 'it' is, the hero has it. Something of him rubs off on the fabric of every ordinary day he passes through. The lives of those who meet him, see him, touch him, are transformed miraculously just by proximity to him. pg. 98
The hero's antagonists are those animals, humans, or other beings who interrupt his progress toward the goal of his quest. Heroes are, heroes have to be, single-minded in the pursuit of a prize. Anything which gets it in [sic] the way must be disposed of as quickly as possible as an encumbrance, usually by killing it. pg. 122
The notion that a hero fights fairly is almost certainly of comparatively modern origin. It would not have occurred, for example, to Sargon I, king of Akkad in about 2500 BC to treat his enemies fairly in battle or his prisoners honorably. Sargon's objective would have been solely to win, for he would have believed that he had a god-given right to win. pg. 131
To fulfil [sic] his quest, the hero has to be pretty single-minded about it. Nothing can be allowed to stand in his way. No antagonist may be permitted to thwart him. He becomes obsessed with the journey and its goal. The hero is a man possessed by a vision, of gold or salvation, it does not matter which. Thus, the location of the quest can either be in the external world or it can be contained within the hero's mind. pg. 138
Socially, the hero is a loser. But that is not the point of his existence. When he chose the hero's life he opted out of the crowd and its vicarious pastimes. His experience at least is first hand. And in that alone he wins--every time. It may be that all heroes believe themselves to be invulnerable, invincible. ... And when, for whatever reason, they lose this belief in their own immortality they lose their nerve and, faced with the knowledge that they too are mortal, either scramble back in fear to the safety of a riskless life, merely mortal, or turn to face death itself, clinging to their own heroic vision. A death in life or a life in death? pg. 166
If one takes this eccentric view for just a moment and then considers the events of Ragnarok in its light, then the end of the world is not seen so much as a simple resolution of all that is evil and the triumph of goodness as it is the cancelling out of an entire world structure, good and evil alike, a motif that is repeated so many times that it is difficult to miss. ... There is, in this myth of Ragnarok, a whole lot of swallowing going on and such mutual extermination that what results is a new equilibrium, a new world. The final picture that one is left with is of ordained necessity that Thor and Loki alike, along with almost all the rest, must die. Out of their collective deaths will come birth, a new world, a new day. And another chance. ... It tells of a phoenix rising from the ashes of its parent. It will be no better, no worse in the long run than the one before. pg. 174
The measurement of a hero, his definition, is in his confrontation with an antagonist. Without that meeting of what is both opposite and identical the good guy would consist of no more than human flesh and bone with the addition of a few superlatives: greatest, biggest, strongest, smartest. And so the hero's life is one of test after test, imposed by the author, Fate, the gods, demonic power, or potential fathers-in-law. In conflict is his delineation. In the eyes of his antagonist he can see his own reflection. The ideal enemy for a hero is himself, someone who can match every strength which he possesses. Strategically this is an impossibility. A struggle between absolute equals would lead to endless stalemate; so the character of one champion or the other is always weighted, if ever so slightly. The closest that one can come to the 'ideal' hero situation is where he confronts some part of himself, usually where the antagonist is a ghost within his own mind. pg. 18
One of the classic methods of having the hero confront himself, and thus equalize the struggle, is by making him a twin. The most familiar pattern to such pairs may be that of the light/creative/civilizing brother and his dark/destructive/anarchic complement. When such twins appear...they are usually not thought of as equals. The battle is shaded always, however slightly, in favour of 'good'. pg. 20
It would seem that in myths it was recognized long ago that the likeliest source of antagonism...is within the bosom of love, the family... The likeliest suspects in any murder or crime of violence are the loved ones. Such mythic confrontations as those between Oedipus and Laius, Joseph and his brothers, Maui and his brothers, Cronos and Uranus, and Zeus and Cronos, all deal with the same primeval nightmare, that we may sleep beside one who carries an axe for us. A corollary of this is that we may be our own worst enemy. ...
To avoid forcing all mythic heroes and their followers to go through that horrendous knowledge it is conventional to express the enemy as an external personality. And it is more comfortable. The distinctions between us... and them... is emphasized[.] pg. 21
In our myths and even in our literature we weigh the fabric of our dreams, we measure nightmare and its horrors in vain attempts to rationalize, make sane, that which forever changes. If only we could make frontiers between 'reality' and 'vision' then we would feel safer; but it will not stay still, remain the same, long enough for us to finish calculating. When we think ourselves done the borders have moved again. Here the conflict is between what is and what is not. Which of us can say, sure and certain, where it is that we live? pg. 22
In other versions, however, Satan deliberately chooses evil and enmity to the Lord, believing that it is 'better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven'. The attitude may be one of arrogant pride; but it is also one of some courage. Satan's pose is a noble one, his character--heroic. pg. 24
Remnants of [ideas of holiness], however confusing they may appear together, are found in all religions; and in the tradition of the hero they explain some of the mistrust which heroes generate. For they are a bridge between the parts of each equation, they do not fit comfortably into categories. And to us (clean and common and human) a cuckoo in the nest who is partially as we are, partially holy and therefore godlike, and finally unclean and therefore diabolical as well as intolerable. Yet, though he scares the wits out of us, we need heroes and our society continues to generate them. pg. 31
In folklore this is probably literally true; for names are generally believed to possess great power and the knowledge of names is often strictly controlled. Conversely, the terror of namelessness is, in many cultures, a real thing. To be without a name is to be without a family (particularly but not universally a father), ancestors, social position, and possibly even a soul. And anyone who is nameless is a wild card, in myth he could be anything from a demon to a deity and, whenever it form an important part of a myth it is an indication that the subject is likely to be a god or the messenger of a god or at the very least a disruptive influence in a society. pg. 45
Each of these also possesses another kind of freedom, however, that of being an orphan. There is no one to tell Dick Grayson (Robin) that he really should stay home tonight and study his homework when he wants to go out and fight crime; no one to recognize in the worm Clark Kent the mighty Man of Steel and make his life hell by chasing him for autographs, and no one who will see in the wealthy socialite, Bruce Wayne, the nemesis of crime and attempt somehow to use that information against him. It is a freedom that would have been envied by Elvis Presley and Howard Hughes. pg. 51
A common form of mythic hyperbole states, for example, that the god Tezcatlipoca of the Aztecs was born in a cloud and dropped from Heaven on a spider's web. ... In each of these stories the intention of the mythmaker is to say, 'Watch out. The person who is about to happen is something else.' pg. 53
Twinship, multiple births and reincarnatory births are identical in their implications, differing from each other only in their time structure. Reincarnatory births or, as they are sometimes termed, avatars, are sequential as events; and multiple births as we usually conceive them to be are simultaneous. If, however, the results of these births are heroes (semi-divine people) or gods, then it can make no difference to their myths whether they are born at once or in a straight line. pg. 57
Metamorphosis, from human to semi-divine, implies that within each of us is a hero sleeping who waits only for the catastrophic act that will free him, allowing the psychopath or the saviour to emerge like a butterfly from a pupa. pg. 62
One of the curious features of the entire cycle of Quetzalcoatl myths is the fact that Tezcatlipoca (Smoking Mirror) is at one and the same time the antagonist, teacher, twin, and alter-ego of the hero. When he opposes Quetzalcoatl it is for the purpose of teaching him, when he destroys him it is for the purpose of giving him life. pg. 70
Heroes, then, are marked men. In some instances they may be distinguished by their virtue, just as often it will be their vices; but more frequently it will simply be the magnitude of what they do, the sheer size of it. ...
The acts of such a one, no matter how trivial, are special, larger than life. His physical characteristics become matters of wonder. He is often thought to be, in some sense, 'larger' than the rest of mankind, either in the sense of literal mass or as possessing a numinous charisma, a halo, a mandorla [sic], the power; whatever 'it' is, the hero has it. Something of him rubs off on the fabric of every ordinary day he passes through. The lives of those who meet him, see him, touch him, are transformed miraculously just by proximity to him. pg. 98
The hero's antagonists are those animals, humans, or other beings who interrupt his progress toward the goal of his quest. Heroes are, heroes have to be, single-minded in the pursuit of a prize. Anything which gets it in [sic] the way must be disposed of as quickly as possible as an encumbrance, usually by killing it. pg. 122
The notion that a hero fights fairly is almost certainly of comparatively modern origin. It would not have occurred, for example, to Sargon I, king of Akkad in about 2500 BC to treat his enemies fairly in battle or his prisoners honorably. Sargon's objective would have been solely to win, for he would have believed that he had a god-given right to win. pg. 131
To fulfil [sic] his quest, the hero has to be pretty single-minded about it. Nothing can be allowed to stand in his way. No antagonist may be permitted to thwart him. He becomes obsessed with the journey and its goal. The hero is a man possessed by a vision, of gold or salvation, it does not matter which. Thus, the location of the quest can either be in the external world or it can be contained within the hero's mind. pg. 138
Socially, the hero is a loser. But that is not the point of his existence. When he chose the hero's life he opted out of the crowd and its vicarious pastimes. His experience at least is first hand. And in that alone he wins--every time. It may be that all heroes believe themselves to be invulnerable, invincible. ... And when, for whatever reason, they lose this belief in their own immortality they lose their nerve and, faced with the knowledge that they too are mortal, either scramble back in fear to the safety of a riskless life, merely mortal, or turn to face death itself, clinging to their own heroic vision. A death in life or a life in death? pg. 166
If one takes this eccentric view for just a moment and then considers the events of Ragnarok in its light, then the end of the world is not seen so much as a simple resolution of all that is evil and the triumph of goodness as it is the cancelling out of an entire world structure, good and evil alike, a motif that is repeated so many times that it is difficult to miss. ... There is, in this myth of Ragnarok, a whole lot of swallowing going on and such mutual extermination that what results is a new equilibrium, a new world. The final picture that one is left with is of ordained necessity that Thor and Loki alike, along with almost all the rest, must die. Out of their collective deaths will come birth, a new world, a new day. And another chance. ... It tells of a phoenix rising from the ashes of its parent. It will be no better, no worse in the long run than the one before. pg. 174