In Katherine Blakeney's take on what makes a hero a hero and what makes a villain a villain, she essentially states that how people perceive someone, is what classifies them as what they are. She also goes on to say that if people just think about what people have been through, and try to more or less put themselves in that person’s shoes, they would be able to better understand that person, and where they come from.
Blakeney talks about different heroes and heroine throughout history and what causes these specific people to be thought of as a “hero,” or “heroine.” She came to the conclusion that “When one considers all the factors that go into making a person act or think a certain way, the realization dawns that no one can be defined in one word.” This is supported by details from the earlier periods of the lives of the heroes or heroine.
Blakeney brings up the situation of Dracula. Dracula is perceived by many to be a great villain, which loves nothing more to drink the blood of people and murder people. Nobody thinks about the fact that Dracula is a character that needs blood in order to sustain life. It is an inner desire to drink blood that causes him to, not some personal want; but a genetic desire that is acquired at birth. Dracula is no more of a villain for drinking blood, than a lion is for eating a gazelle.
Another example of the misperception of heroes and heroine is the situation that Blakeney brings up of the past kings of England. These kings are remembered for certain characteristics of their personalities. These characteristics did not embody who they were, or define them as a character. However, when remembered, these characteristics are the only things that influence the common perception of them. These kings were remembered for being murders and tyrants, but all the good that they did does not get remembered. The good they did does not justify the wrong, but it does prove that these men were not solely murdering tyrants.
Napoleon Bonaparte was another example that Blakeney used. She talks about the main points that Napoleon is remembered for. She brushes on the fact that Napoleon was not perfectl; that Napoleon was not always in the right. However, Napoleon believed he was right. Napoleon always fought for what he believed in. When only certain parts of Napoleon’s adventures are remembered, and others are ignored, one can skew Napoleon’s ideals to justify their own methods. Blakeney talks about a man that compares himself to Napoleon, and uses ideals that he learned from studying Napoleon, to justify his own actions in his head. This shows that, when misinterpreted, the actions of heroes and villains can have ill effects on people.
What makes a person a hero, or villain, is all up to which actions of a person are looked upon. The basis of Blakeney’s article is that any person can be viewed as a hero or villain, depending on which aspects of their life that you study. No person can justifiably be called a hero or villain, because people’s perception is subject to change, and it also depends on the past experiences of each individual person.
