The Designated Hero

One of my favorite bloggers over at Ace is Gabriel Malor. From one of his posts today, Obama, Designated Hero:

One of the cardinal sins of inexperienced writers of fiction is their tendency to violate the rule "Show, Don't Tell." Instead of giving the reader or audience a chance to see the character's attributes, the writer has the narrator or another character or (in the worst case) the character himself, tell the audience about his attributes. More than that, usually, if the audience were never told about the supposed attributes of the character, they'd never know from his or her actions.

A subtrope of "Show, Don't Tell" is the designated hero. This is where the writer tells us who we're supposed to be rooting for and it's a good thing too, otherwise we'd never figure it out.

Politics has much in common with fiction. Here's the Economist's attempt at a designated hero:

Note the headline: "Obama v BP". The hero is alone, but not giving up. See his lowered head, his obvious heartache as he turns half-away from the sight of the offshore rig. Don't miss his rolled-up sleeves, his arms akimbo. The hero's not done yet.

Needless to say, the accompanying article is vomit-worthy.

Here's the original, un-doctored photo:

Many violators of the Designated Hero rule run into the same problem. Their hero is an awful, frivolous, and empty person. You end up having to tell the readers to like him because if you don't they'll assume he's the bad guy.

The Economist has the same problem when writing about the President. In fact, he's done more to frustrate efforts to protect the Gulf than anyone. His drilling moratorium will cause more damage to the region than the BP spill itself. In fact, he hung the Gulf states out to dry while he had another round of golf.

Ace then posted an alternative Economist front page.






















Notice that headline at the top, "Socialism: Why it's not so bad."

No, socialism is actually very good for the ultra-rich. I recently did a post that showed that the ten wealthiest men in the UK had actually made out like bandits during the 13 years that the British Labor Party borrowed and spent like debauched and decadent aristocrats - or American Democrats with their Obamanomics.

Unfortunately socialism is bad for the poor because they become trapped in a subhuman culture of serfdom to the government. And of course it's terrible news for the middle-class because it is the money earned by their sweat and labor that is used to subsidize the welfare serfs. The ultra-rich treat taxes as part of the costs of doing business and simply pass those costs on to the middle-class.

PS And to think that I once subscribed to the Economist. I cancelled my subscription 30 years ago when I realized that it was a Fabianist publication.