Heroics and Anti-Heroics

I like heroes.  You probably like heroes.  Anti-Heroes have even become an iconic fad of late.  Somehow their flaws make them much more appealing to us, but I have to ask, is that such a good thing?

We all have an idea in our head of what makes a someone heroic.  It's the person running into the burning building while everyone else is running out.  The man who stands alone as the enemy horde attacks at full force allowing his companions to leave.

So what's the core of Heroics?  Well the man who rushes into the burning building, the knight lunging forward at the tyrant dragon, the woman who shields a child with her on body -- all have a commonality that makes them heroes to us.

What are these people all doing?  They are sacrificing themselves for another.

"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic.  It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost."  - Arthur Ashe

Is there an air of something else that makes a hero?  Of course.  An occasion must present itself that requires a person to take a stand, but that occasion can be something simple as helping a transient person outside Wal-Mart.

"Start where you are.  Use what you have.  Do what you can." - Arthur Ashe

So back to the anti-heroes to finish off this little note.  Should we look to anti-heroes as role models? Should we accept evil if the ends are good?  We're no longer looking at a core of sacrifice, but a core of selfishness, lust, violence.  Dexter kills bad people because he enjoys the killing, but his father's code is why he selects bad people (of course bad could still be argued as relative).  What is truly gained by accepting evil even if the outcome is good?

Pilfered from USAToday, with a rather nifty
presentation on antiheroes found at:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/graphics/2011/anti-hero/anti-hero.htm

One of my favorite anti-heroes is Han Solo, also likely the first anti-hero I encountered in my youth.  Han Solo was made a cinematic icon due to his rakish charm and, I'd be willing to bet, his willingness to shoot first.  Though, I wondered, as I got older, why Han became a bit more tame in the movies.  Of course, he was exposed to heroes and he was trying to win the affections of a princess, though he would never admit it even when she has willingly admitted her feelings, so it could be argued that his character found comfort and insight.  Though, I did become curious if maybe Lucas chose to make the nerf-herder less of a BA to keep from creating a following that might be negatively influenced by a smuggler.  I, honestly, never much liked Luke, he seemed too naive and too bent on his father to be a solid hero.

But what does Han teach us as a role model?

Or, perhaps, consider James Bond.  A hard-drinking, womanizing, unstable secret agent.  All characteristics we now know have thick binders on as dissociative and destructive behaviors.  Still, there is that "pathetic love of country" (Skyfall), patriotism, a hamartia?  Yet, men want to be him.  Is it for the adventure or the sheer lack of emotional attachment and destruction?

Hmm, points for a deeper and greater conversation, no doubt.  What do you think?