If A Hero Falls Alone

Have you heard the saying, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The answer may seem obvious at first, for surely even if there is no person watching, the falling tree will still make a sound. Upon looking a second glance, the question becomes more complex. The reason that the lonely tree question is interesting is that the answer hinges on your definition of the word ‘sound.’ According to the internet, the definition is, “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.” If sound are simply the vibrations created by falling tree, then yes, I would agree that the falling of the tree would make a sound. But the very definition of sound involves the fact that it must be “heard” and must therefore be perceived by someone.

            Now, what about this question: If a man acts heroically in midst of a crisis and no one is around to see it, is he a hero? (Sorry, it’s an awkwardly phrased question) At first glance, one may be inclined to think that no matter if there is a witness or not, a heroic act still constitutes a hero. But once more it is more complicated than that. The answer to the question depends on your definition of the word ‘hero.’ As per the internet, a hero is “another term for submarine sandwich.” Jokes aside, a hero is, “a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.” The key word here is ‘admired.’ If there is someone that is admired, there needs to be an admirer. Therefore, there must be an observer for there to be a hero.

            The need for a witness for the creation of a hero is definitely the case in Gaines’ A Lesson Before Dying. When Jefferson does not want to eat his nan-nan’s gumbo, Grant asks Jefferson to eat not for himself, but for his nan-nan’s sake. Grant says to Jefferson, “A hero is someone who does things for other people.” What is more important than Jefferson being a hero is the image of him being a hero that will reside in the spectators’ minds. The fact that spectators are necessary for a hero to exist suggests that the heights to which a hero’s journey may reach in some ways depends on how prominent it is in the eye of society. Jackie Robinson’s famous steal home made him a hero because of how widely it was admired and celebrated. In reading Jefferson’s journal, we act as the witnesses, transforming his sad story into a hero's journey. In fact, a reader converts any heroic protagonist into a hero.

            What do you guys think? Are heroes created by society? Or can someone be a hero even without someone to see them? Can an action be inherently hero material, or does it need to be talked about and admired later? Any comments would be appreciated.

EDIT: There is a lot of confusion in the comments about the distinction between the adjective 'heroic' and the noun 'hero.' I would say that one who is 'heroic' is not necessarily a 'hero.' To be heroic is to be courageous, while to be a hero is to be "admired or idealized for courage." Yes, I agree, it is possible to be heroic without needing a observer to be the witness the actions. That I do not dispute. But I argue that to be a hero, a spectator is necessary. I hope this clears some of the obscurity up.