What follows was written almost seven** (oops) years ago. It was fiction at the time--but in some ways I've grown to be a part of my writing. Honest.




The Anti-hero


What is a hero? Whatever it is--exposed as Reader’s Digest labels the “monthly example”-- I am sure of only one thing: I fall short. I do not live in the memory of the masses as a pained face of determination carrying a small bloodied body from the ashes and metal of New York City. I have never run the stairs of a burning building, or lifted an overturned car off someone drifting toward the silent beyond. My face has never been splashed across the blue screen, fit for consumption by an obsequious public, as they break bread but never the mold of disinterest.

My mind often filled with bucolic images of what I should want to be until the alarm clock rings flat. I am the son of a hero, the father of no one, and the product of heroes too numerous to mention. My past is blemished with the derision of my attempts to be a hero, my longing to be what I am not, and the vigilante pain that comes from knowing--not thinking--but knowing that some die far short of living.

I am the anti-hero, my life lacking élan, my impact lacking popular importance. I am sometimes scared, nervous, and unimpressive. Pulling up along side of death’s scoreboard totals, I see the freshly dug graves; the rugged and austere graves of those far greater. How I have longed to be them, and oh how I have failed. Those I mention are the ones who gave all, who ignored fear, fire, and reason. I speak of those who knowing they were going to die, did, and did so without the romantic blanket of “fate.” Oh, do not be fooled, cowards die and are labeled heroes--their anechoic whispers never heard. But what are we to make of those in whom rich and redolent poems are crafted? Are we to honor their memory? Perhaps their memory; but history's footprint is a much scarier master.

But what of the anti-hero? I do not want to tell you too much; it is far too personal. I am not generation anything. I understand the pathos of those I can truly see. I see the pogrom, but not the tears. I have no desire to wear the hero’s shoes, yet, I cannot bring myself to polish them either. An honest look inward reflects the pyre of my attempts to become what I am not. Too frightened to be insecure, I feel more than most. I blame when I am hurt, and lash out at the sky. I cannot sustain the magic and peacefulness of the lea, but would be crushed to find it missing. I am two sins away from a state of perdition and one away from caring.

I see the good in others, but not in relation to me. I know that deep down I am a good man, but deep down is a fractured place, and while the good lay there, so do the monsters. The lascivious creatures that tell me all is lost that the darkness will never be broken, that the light is an illusion. You see I believe the monsters, at times. I trust them because they give me excuses, and I understand excuses.

I am the anti-hero. Do you know me? Do you see me? Do you think you might be a little like me? Very well, but it takes honesty. It takes knowing that you may not be able to live a life that would would make the optimistic masses overtly proud. It takes knowing that the answers are not nearly as tough as the questions. It takes giving up your torpid shame, and instead celebrating it. It takes being, and it takes apathy. Apathy, the snooze bar of life is how we de-construct with dignity. Apathy is not nobility, but neither is being a hero. Heroes too often live with our minds, in good company, while their children sleep as orphans. A hero’s credit report is never next to the picture of the drowning victim he saved. A hero is not immortal. If heroes are keeping heaven safe then I want to be with the anti-heroes.

I want to be with those who screamed awake the night, trembling, warm breath melting cold lies. I want to curl up next to one who has felt the pain of loss and the emptiness of gain. I want to sit next to the kid in class with the black eye, earned because he was different. I want to dance with the ugly girl in the corner, because she has the courage to wear her beauty on the inside. I want to walk with the cowards who ran--who did not stay to fight. I owe them a chance to share their side of the story. I want to hug the old man whose wispy white hair bears the age of his anger, as he dies alone, loveless, save for Mistress Morphine. I want to understand the weak, and those who live alone. I want to wipe away the tears with and never let go of the embrace. I want to find the syncopation in the waves of life and crash through them with the person who cannot swim. I want to protect those without a voice and lend a voice to those scared of conviction.

I want to love the loser, the loser who knows he is a loser and yet still displays the courage of his fortune.

I am the anti-hero. I can be found in the back of the room. Quiet, unassuming, full of self. I am not going anywhere. I am the christ without a father, the Cobain without Nirvana, and the artist without desire. Do you know me?

Riiiight--and yet Democratically controlled Congress just sits back and lets him do this--no one draws up impeachment papers? Comparing Bush to the Nazi's is actually not a new line--it was actually more popular a few years ago, but I suppose it will still do to some extent. The problem with it is that it just makes people turn off the channel. Do you think that in Nazi Germany you could have bashed Hitler's policies, even for a moment? You've read your history--go back and look at what happened to people who even dared to speak out against the Reich. Now, if you suddenly disappear and the official story doesn't sound right--I'll be the first to hire Alex Jones to look in to it. Until then, when the coffee is too strong don't be surprised when people look for something to cut it.

-Drew

I watched Zeitgeist, movie linked on this page and while I found Part I dealing with religion to be very well done and interesting the slippery slope in to 9-11 being an inside job is just too much. Not too much as in (gee, I can't handle the truth) but too much as in (wow, please make sure to keep the meds coming--the little blue pill seems to work really nicely.)

Conspiracies make us feel better--and they are always on the scale of the tragedy. From Lee Harvey Oswald (it just couldn't be one guy who took away our President) to 9-11 (there just CAN'T be factions of Islamic extremists who hate you just for being you) it is really about the same.

But a more obvious test (at least as it relates to 9-11) is why such conspiracies seem always to be drawn along political lines. Why didn't the 1993 bombing of the WTC prompt a film like Zeitgeist? Power was in place then, the same culprits (men of Middle East decent) were blamed, and lives were lost. Why? Because Bill Clinton was in the White House in 1993. Political conspiracy theorists talk about opening our eyes to truth about not hiding our heads in the sand and then go on to ignore the 1993 attacks completely. Why is it an inside job when it's GWB in the White House and not when Bill Clinton is in the White House?

For the answer you need not look far--just far enough to gaze down political lines. During Zeitgeist it was Rudy G, the VP and GWB who were quoted using the word "terrorist" over and over. Why not any clips of Democrats back in 93 who were saying the same things?

The truth here doesn't require a film. The men who attacked the WTC in 1993 did not succeed in taking down the towers. They learned and on September 11, 2001 they fixed that mistake. Had the election gone differently, had Al Gore been in office that morning I submit that the towers would have indeed fallen but that he would not have been blamed. No one would have suggested Al Gore responsible because he wouldn't have been. Conspiracies make us feel better--they give us a nation to be pissed off at and they give some people reason go off about War Crime prosecution. But only if you are a Republican.

Anyway, interesting film, at least the first part.

-Drew

Cool profile moniker.

You know, it was beyond classless that this post topic was put in the Religion Chat forum. I'm one of the people who comes over here and often argues and debates with religious people so the content here is not offensive to me in the least. But...there is a "Sex and Dating" site in the community and there is the General Forum and it seems to me that coming to the Religious Chat section to ask the members if there are any Virgin Mothers that one would like to screw is just, Oh, I don't know--either a massive plea for attention, a complete inability to read, or, wait for it.....just being purposefully disrespectful.

-Drew

So where is the line? Is going to a grocery store an lack of faith that God will just "bring" you food? Is wearing a seatbelt lack of faith that God will protect you should you hit an 18 wheeler at 70 mph? Is wearing a life preserver lack of faith when out boating for the day?

To be sure God asks people to have faith. But presumably he motivates some minds to practice the art of medicine. Those folks could have helped this girl. Again, she needed insulin, something we all HAVE to have to live.

No, it's not showing a lack of faith if a person goes to the doctor--it does however (in this case) show a lack of common sense. If God wanted people to ignore minor medical issues like this then kids the nation and world over would be dying of the simplest things--and for no good reason at all.

-Drew

Wiccancowboy:

Thank You!

-Drew

Welcome mdt. Hope you enjoy it here.

-Drew

I thought that odd behavior could be squarely placed before the effects of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes.

I read every link posted here, hell I even watched that "New World Order" video link that WarElephant posted a few days ago. I thought it was rather funny and I thought Alex Jones was a bit odd but the point is, I do look it up and it doesn't take courage to do so. For me I guess it's just that I want to know what you think, not what some guy from an online publication thinks--I like the conversation to be about ideas from a place more personal than to cut and paste. Perhaps you think that's wrong of me, but I'm prepared to live with that--it's just mu opinion.

-Drew

I don't really mind the idea (I mean, if the public really cared about those working for four M&Ms a day to make them a shirt Wal-Mart would have closed a long time ago) of Wal-Mart--but what is with the family reunions that take place in the middle of damn near every aisle I need to travel. And then when I rudely attempt to navigate through the maze of kids and adults I'm glared at like I've just wandered in to the middle of their living room.

I don't know--it's just odd.

-Drew

I have never thought that anyone owed me a response to an e-mail. If I say hello and don't hear back that's life in the NFL. Just because we have the option to say hi doesn't mean someone has an obligation to respond. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons--who knows--but I would never consider them a jerk simply because I don't hear back. And doesn't the belief that I'm owed a response sort of make me the arrogant one?

Anyway--good luck.


-Drew

Ahhh, so now they are also a bigoted group? First, bigotry is really not on topic so you might be getting a note from Madison but second (and really this is becoming a bit of fun) check out the ethnic diversity of the Bush White House as opposed to the Clinton White House. And Dragoness, part of being political is being biased. Voters don't pick presidents because of objectivity but rather for their subjectivity.

-Drew

If it takes someone more time to decide what to have for breakfast than it does to decide if they want to have a relationship with someone then we should hardly be surprised that we have a bit of a divorce problem in this country.

-Drew

MorningSong--

Thanks for the reply. As someone who was once very much a member of Christianity I struggled with a number of issues. What became problematic for me was that when my inquisitive mind got together with my curious nature asked a few too many questions the fall-back stance was always--"Well, Andrew, you just have to have faith." What strikes me as odd about that equation was that at the time, I DID have faith. And still the answers never came.

I could not understand why a loving God felt the need to allow his Son to be tortured and impaled on a cross. I can't imagine a father alive today who would ask this of his son let alone his only son.

I could not understand why a loving God would heal the blind but not cure blindness, feed the hungry but not do away with famine and ask his followers to find abortion abhorrent while not sparing people the pain of miscarriages.

I did not have what it took to be so sure that the Christian Way was the only way. Muslims and many who practice Judaism feel equally strong about their way and while practitioners of Judaism are strictly forbidden from trying to convert non-Jews the same cannot be said of those practicing Islam. How could a God so large, so big, and so loving allow such a tragically small road on which to travel to a blissful afterlife?

I could never understand a God that needed to be praised without end for doing what I can only presume came rather naturally to Him.

I could never understand the math--the equation that made death the penalty for not accepting a "gift."

I could never understand a guide to being a decent father that required the creation of a place like hell. A place where thirst is never quenched but where fire consumes, where torment and anguish are present without pause. One moment spent thinking about such a place is a waste of a moment. One moment spent creating it is simply sadistic.

I could never understand how Adam sinned in the first place. From where did Adam find the ability to do wrong when he had not yet been exposed to the mechanism (tree) that would allow him to do wrong? Furthermore, I could not understand how one mistake (this in light of fully realizing that humans would make thousands) cost so much. People don't hold those types of grudges. God does--we are in fact commanded not to.

I could never understand how slavery (though more "acceptable" in Biblical times) was never condemned in the New Testament as cruel and unusual and the denial of basic freedoms no matter the race/creed of the people or the location of the practice.

"Believe and you will see" is what people are asked to try. But I never got that. You would dismiss that logic entirely if when buying a home or a car or even a TV someone said to you" "Pay, and you will enjoy."

There are more but I'll sign off for now. I did not pull these from an anti-Christian site or anything of the sort. These are my questions, questions that I have asked, questions I asked when I believed, and they are warm-up questions. I've investigated with an open heart and mind the idea of the sacrifice, of the only begotten Son, of the guilt handed me for an act I was not alive to be responsible for.

I don't mock religion. If I were to go to your church tomorrow as a visitor I would dress for the occasion. I would be polite and I would never embarrass someone as a result of their belief. I am not threatened by religion nor am I beholden to its more cynical customs and beliefs. Above all I am not free to do whatever I would like simply because I'm not entranced by a systematic religious belief. I don't mind being held to a higher standard; what I mind is being held to a lower one. I dismiss the notion that someone in my position cannot be gentle, kind, and loving. I am a good friend, a good son, a good brother, and a good uncle. And while entirely capable of being a jerk, am equally capable of apologizing for actions that I know are wrong. But not out of guilt, not out of a fear that in the back of my mind that creates in me a belief that my failure to do so will cast me out of the favor of God.

I am not tragically human nor am I cynically created. I was given a mind capable of compassion and prose, of love and tears of being secure and unsure and of belief in doubt. In that this is the mind God gave me I can hardly think of a valid argument or reason (though Chesterton would disagree) for the result of its exercise being eternal separation from that which made me as I am.

Christianity asks us to believe in absolutes but to do so using less than absolute faith.

That I do not understand.

-Drew

Oh Madison, please. The title of the thread was "They Lied". The premise of that was that Bush and company lied about Iraq and lied about our reasons for war and lied about just about everything having to do with this. So, with that in mind I posted a slew of quotes that REFUTE that premise. How is it that you think that belongs in a different post? Why shouldn't a person be able to refute a statement or argue a position against it? Are you suggesting that everyone who came in to comment after seeing "They Lied" should be required to check their thoughts and opinions at the door and with a wink and a nod, simply agree?

I stayed right on topic here Madison but it wasn't what you wanted to hear. I did not twist anything you said nor have I ever done that to a post topic here. What I have done is made a perfectly relevant point arguing against a "theory" you have posited that GWB lied. That my doing so bothers you is fine, had you chosen simply not to respond that also would have been cool. But to argue not against my position intellectually but from the standpoint of it having gone off topic is really just a bit sad.

Telling me that my contributions to this thread have been off-topic as a way to avoid dealing with a refutation of your premise doesn't make it so any more than accusing Bush of lying makes it true.

-Drew

Kerry,

Actually, I have asked a number of very direct questions. When confronted with "Bush Lied" just under sixty times in the last month here in this forum I posted direct quotes from Democrats stating that Saddam was not only a problem but a massive threat. A number of those quotes were made long before President Bush was elected. When I asked some here who want to blame GWB for everything from 9-11 to the sinking of Titanic there is an eerie silence that follows. Please since you believe I have framed my positions in a rhetorical manner, give me some examples. If I have I'll quickly fix it.

And I was not one of the folks who thought Clinton wrong to lob some cruise missiles at Baghdad. I have never written here or anyplace else that he was wrong to get us involved in Bosnia or Somalia or in a limited way, Iraq. I should also make clear that I did not support the impeachment but there again, I digress.

What dictator should we go after next? Great question and I'm up for the discussion but clearly both Clinton's use of force doctrine (for humanitarian reasons only) and Bush's doctrine are not far apart. I've said in the past that the outcome is irrelevant when the logic used to get there is identical. Clinton felt that starving people in Mogadishu was a good enough reason to ask Delta and Rangers to grab Aidid. Was he right? Was it worth the loss of life we suffered that day? I believe it was and it was something for the greater good.

The Middle East is a mess. What one person does in their nation affects us today in ways the Founders could not have ever anticipated. I think my overall point has always been that I don't agree or disagree with conflict based on the President who started it. Whether a Democrat or a Republican, there are going to be wars to fight. Kennedy got us in to Vietnam. Johnson kept us there yet it is Nixon who gets the blame for most of it and he was the President who got us out.

I've not discussed things like this with you in the past and I don't know your part affiliation (nor do I much think that it matters.) What I have done is taken exception to people whose only viable method of comment is to cut and paste what others think while at the same time refusing to answer points made in defense of a position.

The whole notion that Bush Lied (to the exclusion of many that came before him who made his case long before he did) isn't an ideological difference--it's politics at its worst--unprincipled--based solely on the letters R or D.

Drew

Honestly, humor is everything to me and in that I now understand your intentions, well, like I said, all is well. I just know that sometimes (we've all seen this) people will use humor to disguise insults. Thanks for the clarification.

-Drew

No more a scam than:

***ATTENTION*** Tired of high electricity bills, special new solar powered dryer! This amazing product will cut your electricity bill by 20-30% immediately. Why WAIT? Completely solar powered, easy to use, Why WAIT?"

What arrives? A clothes line and some clothespins!


***ATTENTION**** Learn how to avoid Internet rip-offs--send $20 dollars to-------

"Wow, I'm sending $40 so I'm doubly protected.


Yeah, it's a scam.

-Drew