We Can T Have Heroes Without Monsters
The phrase “We can’t have heroes without monsters” resonates firmly with my own beliefs. I believe that heroes (good) and monsters (evil) are not always easily differentiated. They sometimes are, but usually they have motivations for what they are trying to do. Even if both parties were to be considered good or evil, if they still had different goals or motivations, then they would perceive the other party as evil, or at least an opposing party, to them. This leads to “heroes” popping up trying to obtain their parties goals. They aren’t necessarily “heroes”, but they do participate in positive endeavors to their own cause. These “heroes” have to battle opposing forces “monsters” in their attempts to achieve their goals. Therefore, they need
…show more content…
Take The Odyssey for instance. At one point Odysseus has to retrieve his friends from the thrall of Lotus fruit. He was definitely acting as a hero would, by saving his companions from the clutches of the intoxication of the fruit. There was no monster so this is a fine example of heroes being somewhere without monsters. Nevertheless, were there truly no monsters to be seen as he dragged his compatriots back on their ship? Can the Lotus fruit not be considered a monster for controlling these men if not physically, then mentally. It may not be sentient, but it is still alive. How about natural disasters? If people are saving other people from a forest fire or a tornado, then they can be considered heroes. There are no monsters, just natural disasters. However, could these disasters not be considered monsters? They bring pain and destruction even if they don’t purposely do it. It’s just in their nature, such as it just in a monsters nature to do the same thing. It’s all about perception. Consider the anti-smoking commercials that have cigarettes personified as some kind of horribly disgusting monster. Some people don’t see cigarettes as monsters, but the creators of those commercials certainly do. They also probably consider themselves as heroes for spreading awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco. Thus, even if there is no knight in shining armor and no grotesque creature, there is still a hero and a monster
Take The Odyssey for instance. At one point Odysseus has to retrieve his friends from the thrall of Lotus fruit. He was definitely acting as a hero would, by saving his companions from the clutches of the intoxication of the fruit. There was no monster so this is a fine example of heroes being somewhere without monsters. Nevertheless, were there truly no monsters to be seen as he dragged his compatriots back on their ship? Can the Lotus fruit not be considered a monster for controlling these men if not physically, then mentally. It may not be sentient, but it is still alive. How about natural disasters? If people are saving other people from a forest fire or a tornado, then they can be considered heroes. There are no monsters, just natural disasters. However, could these disasters not be considered monsters? They bring pain and destruction even if they don’t purposely do it. It’s just in their nature, such as it just in a monsters nature to do the same thing. It’s all about perception. Consider the anti-smoking commercials that have cigarettes personified as some kind of horribly disgusting monster. Some people don’t see cigarettes as monsters, but the creators of those commercials certainly do. They also probably consider themselves as heroes for spreading awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco. Thus, even if there is no knight in shining armor and no grotesque creature, there is still a hero and a monster