Faulks on Fiction - The Hero

In a new BBC series, author Sebastian Faulks examines various recurring character types in British fictional novels. The series contains four episodes detailing the character types of hero, lover, villain, and snob. Faulks begins with the hero. Like society in modern political philosophy, heroism in fiction usually takes the form of radical individualism.

Faulks begins with Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe, the hero, is a radically isolated individual. Interestingly, this isolation begins as a geographic isolation. Crusoe shares much the same morals and mentality of the “good” people of his time; indeed, unlike heroes in earlier literature, Crusoe is a very normal human being – he is not set apart by anything other than his isolation. His individualism is based in his ability to provide for himself. Crusoe provides both the physical and the emotional sustenance that he needs. His emotional struggle with his isolation is the conflict that defines him as a hero. While Friday improves his life, one is left thinking that Crusoe would have been fine had he lived alone to the end of his days. Crusoe is the master of his destiny.

What would this radically individualistic hero look like if placed in society? For that, Faulks turns to Tom Jones. Tom is not bound by the religion or morality of the time, but from his own moral compass usually acts in a commendable and generous fashion. His actions are based on feeling rather than thought and analysis. His heroicism comes from his common roguishness ratherthan from some moral or physical prowess. Tom realizes that he is in charge of his life and his misfortunes. He is viewed as a hero because he does what he wishes; in typical enlightenment optimism, this lifestyle is tempered with kindness toward the less fortunate. In Tom Jones, the hero is defined by his individual morality and control of his life. Jones displays the hypocrisy of the morally upright who would not recognize the plight of the poor. One can only say, “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:42)”

This hypocrisy is again touched on in Vanity Fair. The conflict of rich and poor is the conflict that defines Becky Sharp as a hero. She struggles against her social position in an effort to become wealthy, popular, and societally advanced Her ambition is, of course, focused on herself as an individual. She uses everyone around her in an attempt to better herself. “Vitality is more important than virtue.” This explains with Becky. She is utterly morally reprehensible, yet so interesting. She exchanges intelligence for Tom Jones benevolence.

In Sherlock Holmes, we return to the Tom Jones idea of a hero who benefits those around them. Holmes fights crime, but like Tom Jones is bound only by his individual morality. This morality has him work independently of the police, hide facts and evidence from them, and occasionally allow a criminal to escape. Faulks labels Holmes the novel’s first superhero. Holmes rises to heroism also in his mastery of science; it is this mastery that takes the place of Tom’s benevolence and Becky’s practical intelligence. Like both Tom and Becky, Holmes has his moral failings as well – particularly his drug addiction. More disturbing, however, is Holmes’ inability to be emotionally close to anyone. This radical isolation becomes a key part of the role of hero in modern literature. Holmes captured the public’s attention in a way few characters have ever managed; when Holmes died, large numbers of the British public went into mourning and Doyle was forced to resurrect him.

The grime, evil, and sadness of life seen in the London of Sherlock Holmes was mirrored in post-World War I and II fiction. Even the idea of the individual was shaken – man became merely a number, a statistic. This view of man fit well with the rise of totalitarian regimes. No longer is the hero an overcomer, one who flaunts the conventions of society; the hero becomes the subversive, the prisoner. The struggle is between the isolated individual and the overwhelming state. Rather than the glorification of individualism, the struggle to maintain one’s individualism becomes the defining conflict. This can be seen clearly in 1984 and the character of Winston Smith. The hero becomes the rebel. Though Winston Smith engages in immorality, it is not his flaunting of morality but his defiance of the state that makes him a hero. Eventually Winston is caught and forced to comply with the state. He is faced with his fears, but cannot overcome; he turns on his lover and compatriot. Heroism is no longer viewed as overcoming, but as struggling.

Though it eventually became clear that totalitarianism was not going to take over the world (at least not in a 1984 or Soviet Union sense), the disillusionment that began with World War I continued and manifested itself as boredom in the lives of everyday individuals. In the 1950s, this frustration was given vent in Lucky Jim and its hero Jim Dixon. Jim Dixon is a professor who is utterly bored with his life, with his job, and with the people he works and interacts with. Heroism is found in the struggle against this societal anomie through humor and sarcasm. Heroism is again subversive, but this subversiveness is of a humorous and childish type. What Jim is seeking for is authenticity in the sense that Heidegger or Sartre discusses it; his struggle is against fake or inauthentic existence. Jim seeks for this in the isolation and individualism of existential angst; his frustrations are best expressed as he talks to himself.

By the time we reach the 1984 novel, Money (the only novel discussed that I have not read), the hero is almost unrecognizable. John Self lives life completely subject to the passions of food, alcohol, sex, and entertainment. Unlike Tom Jones, he is not struggling against the morals of society – indeed there seems to be no struggle at all; unlike Tom Jones, he is neither gallant nor good hearted. This conception of the hero seems to follow on the heels of Jim Dixon. His heroism is his refusal to be bored with life; the excitement and activity of his life, his uninhibitedness, is what separates him from those around him. Even he cannot truly overcome; eventually he loses his money, his father, and even his own identity.

The character of the hero, at least in so-called literary novels, seems to follow the progression of man in philosophy. The hero as overcomer first struggled against his environment; in Tom Jones and Becky Sharp we see the hero’s struggle against economic conditions and social standing. In Sherlock Holmes the hero begins rejects societal standards. By the time we reach 1984, and reinforced in the character of Jim Dixon, the hero becomes a subversive; this subversive struggles against morality, society, and the government and usually loses. This dismal view of the hero reaches its culmination in John Self from Money who surrenders to all his lusts and eventually loses everything. The only thing that makes John self a hero is that he does what most of us are too inhibited (and rightly so) to do.

Faulks makes the dismal prediction that the hero in the literary novel is dead. He points to the rise of hero in genre and children’s novels, specifically mentioning Harry Potter. This re-emergence of the hero in other forms of the novel seems to hold out hope for the literary novel. If the writers of these literary novels can leave behind the failed philosophy of existentialism, perhaps the hero can live again. But when man is unsure of anything and his main struggle is his struggle for authentic existence, he is incapable of performing the hero’s part.