Why the rogue?
May. 8th, 2009 08:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrilI was directed to an interesting article thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ladyaeryn about Shatner's inimitable portrayal of Kirk, and while I could write an entire entry about my feelings regarding the new Star Trek movie, I'm going to write about something different.
The article writer mentioned that while Shatner drew his inspiration from Alexander the Great (heh), the new actor playing Kirk was inspired by Han Solo and Indiana Jones. This had me thinking, not for the first time, of the enormous attraction we have nowadays to the rogue figure. It's the reason Han is often more liked than Luke, the true hero of Star Wars; it's the reason people whined about the prequels lacking such a character (though I could argue that Qui-Gon is the quintessential rogue Jedi) and it's probably the reason Batman has more of the coolness factor than Superman. We like people who don't play by the rules.
Why? Is rule-breaking enough, for its own sake? I'm going to be a crotchety old lady and say no, it's not enough. Most rules were made for a good reason, and breaking them can run the range from being rude to putting lives in danger. Frankly, I'm the sort who's more attracted to the goody-two-shoes, the Cyclopses and the Supermen rather than the Wolverines and the Batmen. I like people who recognize the value of principles and the honorable nature of law-abiding citizens. Still, I can appreciate the attractiveness of someone like Indy, the humor of him just shooting that darn sword-wielding show-off. I'm more leery of the attraction founded on a rogue's dangerous qualities. I could, again, write an entire entry on women who put themselves in ruinous relationships with bad boys while the decent guys are left in the dust. But anyway.
In college, when I took my course on the epic fantasy novel, we were required to write a paper about a particular convention that showed up in all of the novels we had read. I chose the "dark ally," as I called it, a sort of sub-set of the rogue grouping. They're characters who are morally gray, who the hero is wary of allying with, but because of the nature of the quest and the particular abilities of the dark ally, the hero must rely upon them. Often the very thing that makes the hero wary of them is the thing that is most useful in the quest. (Yes, my fantasy series does have a dark ally in the first book. I didn't put her in deliberately; she insisted and I had to oblige before she kicked me in gut).
Interestingly, I found that every one of the books we read had a dark ally except one: the original epic fantasy novel. Lord of the Rings does have some characters with possibly shady motives to start with, such as Strider or Saruman, but they are rather quickly revealed to be either entirely good or entirely evil. Is this because the rogue figure is more of an American thing than a British? Or was it just a function of Tolkien's personal likings? Probably the latter. But I do think the rogue is especially popular in American literature and film. The American Founders were rogues, in a sense. Maybe that's all it is.
I'm all for exploring the areas of moral grayness. Nobody in real life is purely good or evil, so why should it be different in stories? But I question the overuse of the cop who's constantly in danger of being fired because he won't follow regulations; the fantasy stories revolving around noble thieves and their unbelievably high-functioning Guilds; the tendency to think that Han Solo is a better hero than Luke because he shoots first and asks questions never (and are disappointed by what his character becomes in ROTJ). Rogues have their place, but they're not heroic unless they do something more than just flaunt authority and make lawbreaking look cool.
ladyaeryn about Shatner's inimitable portrayal of Kirk, and while I could write an entire entry about my feelings regarding the new Star Trek movie, I'm going to write about something different. The article writer mentioned that while Shatner drew his inspiration from Alexander the Great (heh), the new actor playing Kirk was inspired by Han Solo and Indiana Jones. This had me thinking, not for the first time, of the enormous attraction we have nowadays to the rogue figure. It's the reason Han is often more liked than Luke, the true hero of Star Wars; it's the reason people whined about the prequels lacking such a character (though I could argue that Qui-Gon is the quintessential rogue Jedi) and it's probably the reason Batman has more of the coolness factor than Superman. We like people who don't play by the rules.
Why? Is rule-breaking enough, for its own sake? I'm going to be a crotchety old lady and say no, it's not enough. Most rules were made for a good reason, and breaking them can run the range from being rude to putting lives in danger. Frankly, I'm the sort who's more attracted to the goody-two-shoes, the Cyclopses and the Supermen rather than the Wolverines and the Batmen. I like people who recognize the value of principles and the honorable nature of law-abiding citizens. Still, I can appreciate the attractiveness of someone like Indy, the humor of him just shooting that darn sword-wielding show-off. I'm more leery of the attraction founded on a rogue's dangerous qualities. I could, again, write an entire entry on women who put themselves in ruinous relationships with bad boys while the decent guys are left in the dust. But anyway.
In college, when I took my course on the epic fantasy novel, we were required to write a paper about a particular convention that showed up in all of the novels we had read. I chose the "dark ally," as I called it, a sort of sub-set of the rogue grouping. They're characters who are morally gray, who the hero is wary of allying with, but because of the nature of the quest and the particular abilities of the dark ally, the hero must rely upon them. Often the very thing that makes the hero wary of them is the thing that is most useful in the quest. (Yes, my fantasy series does have a dark ally in the first book. I didn't put her in deliberately; she insisted and I had to oblige before she kicked me in gut).
Interestingly, I found that every one of the books we read had a dark ally except one: the original epic fantasy novel. Lord of the Rings does have some characters with possibly shady motives to start with, such as Strider or Saruman, but they are rather quickly revealed to be either entirely good or entirely evil. Is this because the rogue figure is more of an American thing than a British? Or was it just a function of Tolkien's personal likings? Probably the latter. But I do think the rogue is especially popular in American literature and film. The American Founders were rogues, in a sense. Maybe that's all it is.
I'm all for exploring the areas of moral grayness. Nobody in real life is purely good or evil, so why should it be different in stories? But I question the overuse of the cop who's constantly in danger of being fired because he won't follow regulations; the fantasy stories revolving around noble thieves and their unbelievably high-functioning Guilds; the tendency to think that Han Solo is a better hero than Luke because he shoots first and asks questions never (and are disappointed by what his character becomes in ROTJ). Rogues have their place, but they're not heroic unless they do something more than just flaunt authority and make lawbreaking look cool.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 03:19 am (UTC)But as you've pointed out, the concept can be overdone, especially when there's not much redeeming about the character. This is an issue with the "Legacy" series of SW comics. Overall the writing and art are top notch but the protagonist is a rogue with few if any good characteristics. They won't let him change and that's not such a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 09:22 pm (UTC)