What defines a hero? Courage, honor, integrity – all of these could be considered crucial traits of a heroic figure. And then there is loyalty. We expect our heroes to be free from any form of treachery; they would lose our admiration otherwise. However, this attribute is more ambiguous than it might initially appear. Often the hero is called upon to serve a greater good which requires him to sacrifice the safety or well-being of his friends. He is faced with a great conundrum. To ignore the greater good may result in widespread devastation, the fall of all the principles the hero stands for. And yet, if he abandons his friends, he no longer seems heroic in the eyes of the audience. Either choice diminishes his heroism. How the hero resolves the matter, ultimately, reveals the true nature of his character.
Luke Skywalker faces this crisis in The Empire Strikes Back when he sees a vision of his friends in pain and danger. His immediate impulse is to go to their rescue, but Yoda counsels against this, warning that he will endanger everything that he has fought to preserve. Luke cannot be so resigned. "And sacrifice Han and Leia?" he demands. Yoda bluntly tells him, "If you honor what they fight for, yes." Irvin Kershner acknowledged this dilemma: "'This decision…is the element of ambiguity that makes the picture’s content so rich. Whatever Luke decides can be interpreted two ways. His decision can be seen as a character strength or a character weakness, depending on how you look at it. What is more moral: to try to save the world or to attempt to rescue the friends closest to your heart? That is the moral dilemma at the root of the matter'" (Arnold 200). The galaxy, or Han and Leia? Luke, at this time, chooses his friends.
What would we think of Luke if he had chosen otherwise? As it is, he proves himself rash and impulsive, much like his father Anakin, whose behavior provides an all too-clear-example of the ambiguous nature of loyalty. Continually favoring the safety of his loved ones - his mother, Obi-Wan and Padmé - over the more general duties of the Jedi, Anakin's devotion was admirable in many ways, yet, when taken to excess, it ultimately led to his downfall. His attempts to save Padmé resulted in galaxy-wide suffering. Luke's similar devotion is therefore problematic. Still, if Luke had forsaken that devotion and instead remained on Dagobah, we could not help but see him as disloyal, heartless, even treacherous. And so, even while he hangs from the underside of Cloud City, broken and defeated, having endangered the life of the one remaining Jedi and last best hope for the galaxy – still, he is a hero. His loyalty to his friends is what defines him; on Bespin, it is even what rescues him, as he calls on Leia to find him.
This theme recurs in countless incarnations of heroes. For example, the crew of the Starship Enterprise in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock find themselves faced with the dilemma of either obeying the Federation’s laws and abandoning their friend Spock to death on the forbidden planet of Genesis, or becoming lawbreakers, risking lives and starships, to reclaim his body and restore his soul. Spock himself would raise an eyebrow at their decision, stating that by all logic, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" (Trek II). Indeed, it was this belief that led him to sacrifice his life for the rest of the crew. He would expect them to accept his death and go on with their lives. However, Spock’s friendship was too precious to his companions, their loyalty too great for them to abandon him. They, too, make the rash, impulsive choice, and who cannot admire their heroism? They have turned the Vulcan’s truth on its head, as Spock’s human mother wryly points out in Star Trek IV when his companions will shortly return to Earth to face judgment for their serious lawbreaking. "You stand here alive because of a mistake made by your flawed, feeling, human friends. They have sacrificed their futures because they believed that the good of the one - you - was more important to them." Spock notes, "Humans make illogical decisions." Warmly his mother agrees, "They do indeed" (Trek IV). It is this irrational but deep loyalty that defines heroes of real humanity.
In the television show Heroes this dilemma of the greater good versus personal loyalty is a crucial theme, one that plays out most dramatically in the impending atomic explosion that will destroy most of New York City and its inhabitants. When we learn that this explosion is preventable, but certain characters have chosen to let it happen, their characters become repugnant. For example, Mr. Linderman’s declaration that it will only destroy .07% of the population, that it is a necessary evil for the greater good of rallying the nation, is altogether appalling. (Heroes, ".07%") And yet all of this is turned on its head when it is revealed that the source of the explosion is a man, Peter Petrelli, who has proven to be heroic himself and is much beloved by other heroic figures in the series. Now the dilemma is more personal, and hence less clear-cut. Allowing Peter to live will result in the deaths of thousands. Yet Peter’s friend Claire, even as she watches him ignite with atomic power, cannot bear to shoot him. We would think much less of her if she were capable of it, even though her inability to do it implicitly makes her responsible for the destruction of New York. But it is here that the dilemma is resolved by something else altogether: Peter’s brother Nathan, attaining true heroism at last, uses his power of flight to carry Peter into the sky. (Heroes, "Exploding Man") Self-sacrifice saves the world, without diminishing the hero’s loyalty in the slightest.
Finding a third choice – that is true heroism. In the Harry Potter series, the title character faces this dilemma in various forms, but it is Dumbledore who directly describes the hero’s conundrum in The Order of the Phoenix.
"Do you see, Harry? Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now? I had fallen into the trap I had foreseen, that I had told myself I could avoid, that I must avoid...I cared about you too much…I cared more for your happiness
than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might
be lost, if the plan failed…What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were
slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?" (838-9)
We have come to value Dumbledore’s wisdom and foresight throughout the series; to have him admit such a serious error, one that could have dire consequences upon countless lives, is troubling. Yet it is also Dumbledore’s care and concern for Harry that have made us admire him. If he had abandoned those traits, even for a greater good, we could no longer think so highly of him.
Toward the end of the series it appears that Dumbledore has, in fact, chosen the greater good in favor of Harry’s very life. Even Snape, who makes no secret of his deep dislike of Harry, is disgusted by this. "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment...you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter" (DH, 687). Dumbledore’s character appears altogether execrable, until it is revealed that he has found that third choice. Harry will sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort, and yet he does not have to die. Dumbledore has arranged matters to achieve a balance between his loyalty and love for Harry, and the fate of the rest of the world. He remains a hero – flawed, perhaps, but loyal to the end.
Luke’s loyalty to his friends, though greatly admirable, brings him into serious trouble in The Empire Strikes Back. But where does it leave him at the end of the saga? In Return of the Jedi Luke’s loyalty has found a new recipient in the form of his fallen father, Darth Vader. He refuses to fight Vader, though his Jedi masters insist that with the entire galaxy at stake, it is their only hope for freedom. Ironically, both Ben Kenobi and the Emperor condemn Luke’s loyalty; Ben with a resigned, "Then the Emperor has already won" and Palpatine with a snide, "By now you must know he can never be turned." Luke’s behavior, by any logical view, is sheer folly. At best his choice will result in his own death; at worse, it spells doom for the entire galaxy. But how greatly it would diminish Luke’s heroism if he were to strike down Vader, to treat him as an enemy. We love Luke because he is filled with compassion, with unstinting loyalty to those he holds dear. His character would be destroyed by the treachery of patricide.
Instead, Luke pulls back from the brink of anger and qualifies his actions with a warm tribute to Anakin. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me." He has not betrayed his father, but nor has he betrayed the ideals of the Jedi. With such a legacy, his self-sacrifice is the third choice necessary to solve the hero’s conundrum. In the process, Anakin is redeemed, reclaiming his own heroism by protecting his son. The Empire is defeated, and Luke is free to enjoy the companionship of everyone dear to him. The greater good and personal loyalty are no longer at odds, and the hero emerges more heroic than ever before.
Works Cited
".07%" Heroes, Season 1. 2007.
Arnold, Alan. Once Upon a Galaxy: A Journal of the Making of The Empire Strikes Back. New York: Del Rey, 1980.
"How to Stop an Exploding Man." Heroes, Season 1. 2007.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic, 2007.
Rowling. J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Scholastic, 2003.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Dir. Nicholas Meyer. Perf. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy. Paramount, 1982.
Star Tek III: The Search for Spock. Dir. Leonard Nimoy. Perf. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy. Paramount, 1984.
Star Trek IV: The Journey Home. Dir. Leonard Nimoy. Perf. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy. Paramount, 1986.
