Heroes

Hi Folks,

I am slightly jealous of the juicy blog topics this class gets to analyze, so I have decided to answer the hero question for myself. 

This may be just the voices of my undergraduate professors chirping in my head, but I feel that a hero must be a LIMINAL figure. Apart from being a current 'buzz-word' in the humanities, liminality refers to a state of being in-between. In other words, a hero should be a monstrous combination of two categories that we normally perceive as entirely distinct. Think about it - Gilgamesh can be the hero of the people of Uruk because he is both part of the human community and radically distinct from it. He is both divine and human. As a border figure, he exists at the boundary between the group he must protect and that which exists external to this category. In this way, he can protect and maintain these divisive lines. 

This same logic can be applied to one of my favorite fictional heroes: Batman (especially as the character is interpreted in the Christopher Nolan movie adaptations). Take The Dark Knight, for example: this film creates so many parallels between between its hero and its central villain (Heath Ledger's Joker). Ledger even has a line about the Joker and Batman being two sides of the same coin. Batman is a member of the society he must protect, but stands apart from it because of his responsibilities and abilities. In this heroic role, he must partake in much of the same violent action that makes the Joker such a villainous figure. Standing on the edge between insider and outsider, the line between good and evil (for Batman) is blurry. In order to fight the Joker and save Gotham, he must take on the qualities of the maniacal force he stands against. This is heroism - to be willing to become what no one else will for the greater good. Going back a few centuries, this heroic principle is what makes Lancelot such outstanding knight in the Arthurian legend. As a living breathing category-crisis, Lancelot breaks every boundary and defies every taboo. He can go where no one else can (even into bed with the Queen) and often uses this liminal status to do good for the court. 

In a very different way, liminality is what defines one of my real-life heroes as well! Caryl Churchill is my all-time favorite playwright - mostly because she combines my two favorite things: theatre and critical theory. I know, I am a HUGE geek. Churchill's plays are engaging, touching and often hilarious. But, they also make you think hard about the world outside the theatre (politics, gender issues, the theatricality of everyday life, economics, class, race, etc.). This (liminal) combination goes against the traditional conception of art (and theatre, more specifically) as artifice or fakery. Yes, the action onstage is performed into existence - but that is not to say that it doesn't have real-world implications. My favorite Churchill plays are Cloud Nine, Top Girls, A Number and Drunk Enough to Say I Love You. All of them are both so fake (fictionalized onstage) and so real. 

My obsession with Caryl Churchill (border figure between dramatist and social commentator) started when I was cast in her play Cloud Nine - a comical exploration of gender roles in both Victorian colonial Africa and 1970s London. Interestingly enough, the role required me (for the first act of the play) to dress in drag. The point Churchill wants to make is that masculine and feminine roles are not natural - but performative. So, for the audience to see a man struggling (or succeeding) to take on traditionally 'female' behaviors and mannerisms is to separate this 'role' from the sexed body it is usually attributed. So, in this way (as the picture here shows), Churchill's play made me a liminal figure - somewhere between man and woman. It was an eye-opening experience that solidified this writer as one of my real-life heroes.

Is your hero a liminal figure?