Hemingway’s code of ethics for heroism- that a “hero” must maintain composure under pressure, be self reliant and reserved, and to live for themselves, describes completely the character Pedro Romero. Romero is a bullfighter, someone who, as Jake says early on in the book can “live life to the fullest,” and it shows in his character and technique as a bullfighter. He doesn’t maintain the façade of the other fighters for safety- he relies on his own innate skill and ability to keep him safe. This is entirely shown when he dances with the bulls and puts himself in danger for sport. Also extremely important is Hemingway’s placing the mantle of hero on a nineteen-year-old boy. Pedro Romero, a bonafide hero, through and through, displays admirable courage and skill even as a young man, showing heroism is innately ingrained from birth.
Today, heroism can be difficult to find. With the Internet and phones allowing for instant communication, it is easy to focus on all of the negatives in the world, and none of the heroes. However, it is even more difficult to pinpoint Hemingway’s archetypal hero, because Hemingway’s hero works alone. When you think about what a hero truly is, it is difficult to determine, because situation plays so much into what makes someone a hero. And because the situation surrounding someone’s heroism determines heroism, I believe Hemingway’s archetypal hero character is flawed.
When I was five, my mom and dad got a divorce. This event didn’t change life too much for me- I still saw my dad, and lived with him part time- but eventually, he moved back, just as we were planning to. But then my mom received a promotion at work, and decided to stay in California, meaning my father and I became separated by a foreboding three thousand miles of open continent.
We lived this way for a few years. My mom, my sister and I living here in California, while my Dad worked as a successful reporter at the Ohio Capitol building. He even produced and starred in a news show every week. But he really wasn’t happy. He was lost, sort of like the Lost Generation, but with less alcoholism, and he knew his cure- he wanted to see his kids, and two weeks twice a year wouldn’t cut it.
So he packed everything away and drove for three days from Ohio to Vacaville to move back out to California. He gave up the stability of Ohio, a great job, and all his friends, for us. I remember the day I saw him drive up and get out of his car, and I was elated- I could see my dad again! Ever since that day, my dad has been my hero.
But, theoretically, he doesn’t fit Hemingway’s description of the archetypal hero. My dad couldn’t live alone, self sufficient- he was miserable during his time alone in Ohio- and he needed to see his kids. Hemingway would likely have denounced my father as weak and rejected his heroism, but I know better. My dad went from a regionally well-regarded reporter in Ohio to card dealer at Cache Creek Casino, until he earned his credentials for teaching, all for the love of his kids.
Hemingway believed that the true hero is self sufficient, and could stare at the face of adversary and tame it, but I believe a different type of hero exists. My father, unable to live happily so far away from his children, represents this group. For this type of hero, family matters most, along with love. Life isn’t some lonesome trip of solitude that you live by yourself- you live it with others.
So my real point is that Hemingway can be wrong- heroes are not just the people that work the best alone or can succeed alone. Heroes sacrifice everything for their loved ones and can stare any adversary down and find a solution, even if Hemingway wouldn’t believe in their solution. Today I believe there are more heroes like my father around, rather than Pedro Romero types, so one has to wonder is Hemingway’s type of hero even really important any more, or applicable?
