Imperfect Heroes

In my brainstorms regarding my writing and stories I'm often reminded of the Bible and its flawed heroes. We have an odd mindset toward heroes in general in the West that I can't quite figure out.

Nearly every single person depicted in the Bible is documented to have some fatal flaw or actual wicked act. However, the Bible does not document every single sin as having a direct, in-your-face consequence, or for that matter, some instance where God Himself brings judgment raining down on that person. For some reason, many readers in the West, particularly those who wish to discredit the Bible, seem to think that God's presumed silence somehow condones the actions of these flawed men and women.

Generally speaking, we are unable to deal with complex, genuinely flawed characters if we put them on a pedestal before seeing said flaws. Let's take one of the most loved fictional representations of good in the West: Superman. Superman, to the Western fan, is supposed to represent the best of humanity. So imagine if DC Comics decided to write a story where Superman cheated on Lois Lane. What would the possible reaction from the fan base be? I could confidently say many fans would accuse DC of violating the pristine nature of such a character. But the real question is, would they accuse DC of actually condoning such behavior simply because Superman is meant to be such an iconic example? In other words, is everything he does expected to be a perfect example of behavior?

Now imagine that story was written with the intent of showing Superman as a flawed person, not just an iconic hero. Imagine the story arc comes to a close after a few years and had subtley illustrated the destructive consequences of Superman's actions as opposed to an overwhelming condemning diatribe from the narrator. Would people get it?

This analogy isn't the greatest but hopefully you get the idea. Logically, DC would have to have a reason for showing Superman to be imperfect, and since he's fictional, they can do as they wish.

Any historical account should be simply a "just the facts" unbiased documentation. It doesn't matter if the writer likes the person being recorded or is worried about their reputation. History should be an uncompromising record of what has been done.

The Bible is written in such a way, but with a twist. The people recorded, heroes and villains alike show their true colors. Not all sin is directly punished and not all good is directly rewarded. It simply is. Just the facts. Not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned, even if done by its saints. Sometimes you have to examine the underlying consequences of an action as opposed to an outright condemnation. That's also why it's important to understand what type of book you're in: historical, poetic, instructional, etc.

The twist is that these men who could otherwise be idolized by their nation, or by readers, for the amazing accounts of their faith also show just how fallible and helpless they are- just like the rest of us. The weakness and sin of the heroes of the Bible illustrate their imperfection and need for a savior. All of these heroes point toward the promised Messiah- the one who truly was and is perfect and blameless.

Who do the heroes turn to when they can't even save themselves?