Hero

I find this to be a very interesting juxtaposition

Heroes   (fixed the links) -- Pilothouse

In the night
In cold
In the rain
He's wandering
On a tired pale horse
In the forest wandering

His armor is tarnished; his helmet is lost, and his sword is in need of repair
He is almost relived when he comes to the cave and he sees that the beast isn't there

He's ashamed 'cause a part of him wants him to stop
His body can't see what his heart knows
That the call of the wanderer never gives up, though the world has forsaken its heroes
A relentless desire
To serve and inspire
But no one around wants to hire...
A hero

In the night, in cold, in the rain, he's wandering
In the city streets all alone he's wandering
His spirit is broken, his mind nearly lost, and his body in need of repair
At the palace they turned him away at the gate though the beast was in residence there

He's ashamed 'cause a part of him wants him to stop
No one else cares what his heart knows
That the call of the wanderer never gives up though the world has forsaken its heroes
A relentless desire
To serve and inspire,
But no one around wants to hire...
A hero

In the night
In the rain
On a tired pale horse he is riding again
In the streets
All alone
No one sees him arrive and nobody cares where he goes

Holding out for a Hero -- Bonnie Tyler
Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need

[Chorus]

I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light
He's gotta be sure
And it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life

Somewhere after midnight
In my wildest fantasy
Somewhere just beyond my reach
There's someone reaching back for me
Racing on the thunder end rising with the heat
It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet

[Chorus]

Up where the mountains meet the heavens above
Out where the lightning splits the sea
I would swear that there's someone somewhere
Watching me

Through the wind end the chill and the rain
And the storm and the flood
I can feel his approach
Like the fire in my blood

The Hero can be invisible because he does not see himself ... or because others cannot see him.

Trying my hand at contrasting these two visions of heroism, and of reading the hero in a romantic context.

The Tyler Song:

Don't know what the intention of the song is--is it meant to be romantic?  Because I think overall it probably fails on that count.  By which I mean it fails not according to what I would find romantic, but what society generally constructs as a romantic hero.  The hero in this song is too perfect to be the romantic hero.  Generally romantic heroes must be flawed or there is no role for the woman to play, he has no need for her.  On that count, the Pilothouse hero is more romantic (though I don't think the Pilothouse song is supposed to be about romance).

What this song seems to me about is primarily a woman's sexuality--her 'need'--her fantasy which keeps her tossing and turning until the morning light.  But she can't acknowledge her ownsexuality except in a glorified, unrealistic and fantasy way.  She can't acknowledge it as her own--instead it becomes the responsibility of the man--who sweeps her off her feet--she is sexual not because of her need but because the man takes over, takes the active sexual role.  And she can only give in, or be swept away, by a man glorified by being better than all others, a god, a hero on a white horse, a superman, someone who comes to her 'fresh from the fight.'  Her own passivity in regard to sexuality comes across in the line about sensing the man as 'someone somewhere/Watching me'--she objectifies herself.

-------------------

The Pilothouse song generally is to me about the need not to act in 'Bad Faith' in the existential sense of that phrase.  This is heroism not on that larger than life glorified way, but the heroism required of everyone in day to day existence, of taking responsbility for one's moral choices.  And this is why it is a relief when the 'beast' isn't there--the beast is facing the fact that sometimes one makes the wrong choice and is responsible for the consequences.  Why the hero isn't seen or acknowledged in the song is that in general society doesn't want to face that beast.  People want to think of both hero and beast as outside of society.

Where things get complicated is that the tarnished, broken state of the hero in the song can also be read very romantically.  Women's role is to rescue the man--to rescue him emotionally from the ways in which his struggles with his own beasts damage him.

But I think the actual message of the song is that to read the hero romantically would be a 'bad faith' error.  It would be a way for a woman to define herself in terms of her role of nurturer and rescuer of the hero, instead of stepping into the heroic role herself.  It would make her goodness or moral responsibility be defined by him, with her only moral action being to rescue him through love.  Which is not to say that people's love is unimportant or valueless--but that for women the traditional romance narrative says that this is their ONLY value, the only way in which they can behave heroically or have any moral impact or responsibility. 

In other words, I think everyone should take up that heroic armor--tarnished and broken--and everyone is responsible for helping each other with the repairs.  :-)

I thought Paula Cole's "Where Have all the Cowboys Gone?" is an interesting composition, and a bit lighter on the artificial front, to Tyler's song. She ups the ante with women liberation in a sense. (Reminds me of Nellie McKay's "I Wanna Get Married" sarcasm.) She met a man who she thought would be a "cowboy" in a heroic sense to her, he ends up disrespecting her and actually neglecting her. I think "cowboys" have often been perceived as having respect for women... the respect that she needs anyway is what she sees in a cowboy. 

I don't associate cowboys with having respect for women somehow...even in popular mythology.  The cowboy's often the guy who represents lone individualism escaping from any of the confines of society and it's women who represent society.

My favorite song about cowboys is Kirsty MacColl's 'Don't Come the Cowboy with Me Sonny Jim':

'Some boys with warm beds and cold, cold hearts
Can make you feel nothing at all
They'll never remember and they'll never mind
If you're counting the cracks in the wall
They're quick and they're greedy
They never feel guilty
They don't know the meaning of hurt
The boots just go back on
The socks that had stayed on
The next time they see you
They treat you like dirt
The next time they treat you like dirt

So don't come the cowboy with me Sonny Jim
I've known lots of those and you're not one of them
There's a light in your eyes tells me somebody's in there
So don't come the cowboy with me'

"I don't associate cowboys with having respect for women somehow"

No, I didn't either, really... but I gathered she envisioned her cowboy-hero as one of those old chivalrous types.  "Where is my John Wayne?" So actually a rather fictional, fairy-tale one.

I've never heard of that song before. Interesting that she interprets the greedy, unguilty, disrespectful guys through a cowboy lens.

Yeah, actually getting back to the song you were writing about--what's interesting there is that merging of the John Wayne hero type with someone who would take care of the woman as a husband.  John Wayne might be the kind of save the day type hero, but then rides off into the sunset alone.  He doesn't stick around to take care of her in a more domestic setting.  So in a way that does fit in with that chivalry model.  And kind of fits with the discussion you and DL are having below.  The (male) hero is on the borderline between civilization and the wild--acting on his own to save civilization/society (which is where the women are).  The Pilothouse song critiques that duality.  (self-empowerment)

There's an interesting tension between chivalry and romance as the chivalrous hero can never settle down to domesticity (without losing his heroic status)--which in a way allows the romance to continue in an idealized fashion.

"The (male) hero is on the borderline between civilization and the wild"

Ok, I think of Sawyer any time "civilization" and "wild" are in the same sentence.  Heh... interestingly, though, Sawyer is a bit of a Wanderer himself - lost, broken, wounded. Living on the outskirts of civilization ("I'm in the wild"), an outcast to the rest of the Losties. And like Batman, he needlessly loses both his parents as a young boy and from that point on his understanding of the world changed. The Joker's sentiment that all it takes is "one bad day" for a sane man to become crippled with insanity shines a very fine light on tragic events such as these. Sawyer's character is not a hero that saves, but rather needs saving (in seasons 1-3 anyway. ; )

Wanted to add this in to my first comment.  I really like Kirsty MacColl--I teach several of her songs in a Feminism & Pop Culture class.

Here's a link to the YouTube of the song:

'Don't Come the Cowboy With Me'

And the rest of the lyrics:

Don't be too rough on my cold, cold heart
It's all I've got left to me now
I fell out of favour with heaven somewhere
And I'm here for the hell of it now
Some girls play cowboys
And some boys play harder to get
But they're got just the same
They smile and say cheese
They're so eager to please
But they'll never remember your name
The names and the places all change

But don't come the cowboy with me Sonny Jim
I know lots of those and you're not one of them
There's a light in your eyes tells me somebody's in
And you won't come the cowboy with me

Did somebody tell you I'm lonely as hell?
I didn't expect you to know me so well
If I learned a lesson it's how to bounce back again
Sometimes I bounce off the wall
And sometimes my head hits the floor

So don't come the cowboy with me Sonny Jim
I know lots of those and you're not one of them
There's a light in your eyes tells me somebody's in
And you won't come the cowboy
Oh don't come the cowboy with me Sonny Jim
I know lots of those and you're not one of them
There's a light in your eyes tells me somebody's in
And you won't come the cowboy with me

---------------------

And another favorite:

There's a Guy Works down the Chip Shop Swears He's Elvis

The one I usually teach is 'My Affair' but can't find a video for it.

So we live in a world in which some perceive there is shortage of heroes.
But here we have a hero that perceives there are a shortage of people who want a hero.

It actually seems like there's a difference in the definition of what a hero really is in the 2 songs.

Pilothouse                                                              Tyler's hero
A wanderer                                                            sure, soon, fast
never gives up                                                       ?
tired, relieved when  he doesn't have to fight       strong, fresh from the fight
tarnished, ashamed                                               larger than life
tired, pale horse                                                    fiery steed
A relentless desire to serve and inspire                To fight the rising odds

Which frame is true?

The skeptical patron
Is Bonnie Tyler at the palace in the Pilothouse song looking at this dude with tarnished armor and completely missing the point?
She can "feel him approach", but cannot quite see him "swears there's someone, somewhere watching me" - but maybe because she is blind to him.

The thing that sticks out most to me is that the Pilothouse hero has a goal to inspire - which to me implies that he may be coming to fight, but that the fight against the beast should be a collaborative effort.  Tyler's hero seems responsible for taking care of "the rising odds" all on his own.

Pilothouse mentions the hero "never gives up", but the Tyler song suggests that the fight is over when the Hero has his "prize" - implied here as his true love - the one he's searching for.

OR

The skeptical hero
Is the Pilothouse hero a hero that needs saving himself?
Is he really a "Hercules" that was wounded by his many battles, and needs his true love to restore "the fire in his blood"?
Is he wandering because he hasn't found his "true purpose"?
The lyrics "no one else cares what his heart knows" and "nobody cares where he goes" - is that a product of his "mind nearly being lost"?
Does he need to face reality that somebody does care?  Maybe all it takes is a herione to come to his rescue and restore him to his "god-like" state.

The point is ... that if heroes exist, but none are seen - one perspective or the other is skewed - and how do you decide which point of view is more accurate - the Hero, or the Patron?

Everything you described under "skeptical hero" reminded me of The Hero's Journey. He could be "wounded by many battles", perhaps a heroine figure needs to rescue him. He's tarnished, "in need of repair", perhaps needs his heart restored. It led me to wonder where on the path this hero is and what that represents in relation to what a hero means in Bonnie Tyler's song. I think what you present is an interesting juxta with her song.

What I thought was interesting was that the hero in the Pilothouse song calls himself a "wanderer". To me that archetype distinquishes the difference between the two definitions of "hero" in the songs. Unlike Bonnie Tyler's hero, the hero in the Pilothouse song is intrinsic to one in which society doesn't understand, but with whom we as the listener can sympathize. The Wanderer archetype is independent (or, at least, braves indepedence, lonliness) and has a true heart. He is tarnished, but he will fight the journey until he can't fight it anymore.

So, looking at the Wanderer archetype... this archetype invokes movement, holds a sense of order as not placing down an anchor. Rather than having a point of destination, the Wanderer is aimless and thus is less likely to carry "baggage" (hmm... perhaps a symbolically heavy interpretation there?) for the journey, yet he will have enough to provide for those who want a hero. In the song, the wanderer is a hero because he has "a relentless desire
to serve and inspire."

To contrast with Tyler's song - "It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet" ... The Wanderer archetype is known as having lived his early life in captivity or hardships, and seeks change and continuous adventure. Also, the Wanderer does not commit and is lonely. I thought, at first, this description could represent Superman (which made it interesting to me considering Bonnie's choice of words), but I think I tend to find a stronger relationship to Batman. Which brings me to another point... I know Pilothouse's "Shadow II" is about Batman, and the lyrics are different than "Heroes", but I've always thought this song could be about Batman as well.

I see the insertion of a wanderer in "Heroes" as inspirational because sometimes people feel like they are merely wandering through life, with no destination, pegged as a "lost soul". But I think it's awesome that one can be a "wanderer", symbolically, (as if one is traveling on a vast journey while reading a story, listening to a song, etc.), you can be in one place, while never moving, and still possess this archetype.

Found this interesting snippet on the Wanderer archetype:

This [archetype] alters our relationship to pain and suffering. For by taking on the archetype of the wanderer, we’ve declared that life is not fundamentally pain, but rather, an adventure.

Above all, the journey of every wanderer takes courage and a measure of trust in existence. And so those are the first things that it teaches.

So suggestively - the hero compared to the wanderer - very apt, both take courage.  Though perhaps the wandering hero is different from the steadfast hero based on where trust is placed.  The wandering hero seems to place trust in personal existence and the steadfast hero places his trust in a cause.

Inward focus vs. Outward focus
Because the wanderer puts belief in his own existence foremost - sets himself outside of the normal way of doing things... in a way he's setting himself up for the social rejection he faces when he attempts to return back home "the hero".   The journeys of the wanderer are solidary -- though I'm not sure "lonely" is necessarily a given in that context, they are in the least inward/self-reflective.  The wanderer values his individuality.  Heh -- reminding me of yet another conversation.

The "steadfast hero" in Tyler's song places trust in his cause over the inward journey itself.  Tyler's hero focuses on identity and becomes the archetype, sacrificing his individuality for the cause.  This is how he indeed moves from man to superman and becomes a socially acceptable myth/Icon.  In Batman's own right, he is accepted for what he is able to accomplish - as a social reformer of sorts.  The wanderer hero receives no such accolades or understanding - due to his progress being mainly individual and unseen.

This comes back to the difference I see between Heroes and Shadow II - which is that element of pain. 
In Heroes the guy seems to be looking for social acceptance ... his mantra is "nobody wants me".  Whether this rejection is the cause of it - the line that clinches it for me as far as the "sad business" goes, relates to the hero's spirit being broken... which is something I don't relate to Batman's character.  Batman finds his limit and stops before he is broken... the wanderer beats his head against a brick wall and keeps going until he is broken.  Also - Shadow II and Batman -- they aren't looking to pal up with society and aren't concerned if "nobody wants them".  They use the fight in them to redirect an unjust situation with no regard to how it looks to other people.  Batman begins even describes how Batman aspires to be "larger than life".  He remains dark, unworshipped and outcast.  Though his social acceptance is conditional, this description still may even be more in line with Tyler's hero description than the Heroes song -- Shadow II being the dark side of the yin yang for that type of iconic figure - IMO.  Shadow II shows a hero very much in control... the Heroes song portrays a hero not in control.

Varying shades of superman...

Though Tyler's reference to Superman seems more in line with the character in the comic books due to the gross exaggeration of the physical feats throughout the song; Nietzsche's superman seems to relate closer to Batman and could even bleed over to the wanderer hero.  I have a tendency to relate it to Nietzsche's view which can arguablely (at a stretch) represent a morally superior person of any physical stature, and not some gross stereotype of what is perfect.  I find that interpretation more noble in a lot of ways than a character who is worshipped because their physical superiority is shown outwardly "Fabio-style".  It's arguable that either view of "the superman" could be seen as iconic (which is what I think Tyler's song is going for).  

Nice. You're so smart. I'd say "genius" but I don't want a banana thrown at me.

Let me just get all of this out of the way. I don't see too much of a similiarity with the element of pain, but I do tend to see some varying similarities to do with the Wanderer archetype that sort of relates to the element of growth and struggle. Heroes and Shadow II both represent a dark hero. Mysterious to everyone yet both heroes are intrinsically different from each other. Obviously what separates Batman from other super heroes is that he is a human being. He experiences pain as we would. Our tendency to humanize Batman is partly responsible for the audience's sympathizing nature with Batman. Such is what I see in Heroes. When relating Batman to Heroes, which I'm reasonably certain I passively reflected my thoughts via the Hero's Journey lens, I'm seeing one complex of the myriad of complexes of Batman - one of them being, at his core, a wounded hero. And as this archetype would have it, the Wanderer is capable of setting himself up for rejection when he "returns" to society. I see a (stretchy) connection here with Batman in a sense. Bruce Wayne's persona as a masked figure tends to result in society's incapability to identify or familiarize with him, which leads to society's curiosity and in the extreme, a lack of trust in Batman (and his morality) ... even to the extent as perceiving him as his opposing archetype - the Joker, the Trickster/Rebel archetype that he subsequently draws to himself. Batman is a dark but inherently moral character, but he is misunderstood. Batman isn't out seeking acceptance, but he can understandably *feel* rejection from society as he slowly loses grasps with what ties him to humanity as he battles on night after night. The differences I see at this point extends to what you've ellaborated on with which I wholeheartedly agree. And I would also identify Batman as an iconic figure more strongly with Tyler's song.

I like this quote from Nietzsche: "Behold I teach you the superman: he is this lightning, he is this madness... I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus his head is only in the bowels of his heart, but his heart drives him to his downfall. I love all who are like heavy drops falling singly from the dark cloud that hangs over mankind: they prophesy the coming of the lightning as prophets they perish. Behold, I am a prophet of the lightning and a heavy drop from the cloud: but this lightning is called superman ."

I think I understand what you're saying about relating the Wanderer archetype (or Batman? ... I suppose it doesn't matter) to Nietzsche's view because for one, Batman believes that standards for morality can only come from within (as opposed from other influences such as God - which doesn't exist in his world), and with that belief he chooses to ignore the "law in order" when fighting crime although he has to adhere to society's law to an extent. Forced morality isnt morality. It becomes structured. And if you can get away with transgressing the police force, you are living the life of Nietzsche's superman (albeit a more or lesser extent) through sheer force of will, as is the case of Batman.

Well... it's probably important to distinguish whether Tyler is speaking of Superman the comic figure, vs. Nietzsche's superman because of this element of growth and struggle.  I've always taken the song the Nietzsche direction because she says "a superman" ... whether lyrically that was just to make the rhythm fit or not... it's the only thing that makes sense to me.  Which is why, though Tyler's song exaggerates the physical feats, I don't find myself picturing Fabiosuperman strutting around in tights... and the rest of the song and personna actually becomes symbolic and mythic in meaning (and can be very flexibly interpreted) rather than the character described taken as comic, exaggerated, and infallable.

That being said that renders the analysis a lot less complicated for me - as you've aptly pointed out then, Batman is "a superman".
Though to me it is stretchy in itself to say that the Wanderer archetype is set up for rejection by society when he attempts to return home.  I don't think this is always the case, or even assumed by the definition of the Wander archetype itself.  The rejection issue I speak of comes into play specifically when the Wanderer attempts to take on the Hero mantle and remain the Wanderer at the same time.

The Wanderer-Hero is asking society to accept the knowledge of his inner journey as a boon to them.  He is presenting himself without a mask.  He represents the suggestion that heroes are citizens just like them ... in a way he's asking for society to "ditch the icons" and step up themselves.  If he is rejected, there is no haven or refuge.  In attempting to become the personified hero icon/archetype - if the icon is broken/rejected - then so will he be.  This is why his spirit is broken.  Society wants their masks but not for the same reason as the hero.  Society does not want to step up and be responsible for themselves.  The Wanderer remains unacknowledged as a hero because he does not wear a mask.  Though he may be a true icon and hero, he will not be able to pass on the torch.

The difference between the Wander-Hero and Batman would be -- that Batman is wearing a mask.  If Batman is rejected, he still has another identity for himself... he can take off the Hero's mantle if it becomes too heavy for him and cease to be an icon.  From my point of view - Bruce may have been a Wanderer, but when he became/becomes Batman - the journey ceases to be inward.  Yes, they both will *feel* the pain of rejection when society struggles with "the law" and what is "just" or "acceptable" - but the rejection of the Wanderer-Hero seems is more complete to me.  Batman might lose his mind and feel a lot of the same things described in the Heroes song (I can totally see that imagery), but until Batman dons the mask no more - I would say that he is not broken and thus his spirit remains in tact.  So again, that's the main reason I can't fully place Batman within the Heroes song as much as the other 2 songs mentioned. 

I think it's reasonable to take the Nietzcshe superman direction in Tyler's song. But even Nietzcshe's superman is egotistical in the "superior strength" department. Nonetheless, no ordinary man can save Tyler. I'm feeling a strong sense of that juxtaposition you talked about with this song and Heroes. I tend to view the patron's ideal of a hero as wrong - he must be infallible and physically strong in order to save her, in order to be a hero. But because she leaves room to look through the Neitzsche "superman" lens, I tend to see her ideal of hero as misplaced given that the hero can be tarnished from previous battles and even broken and still have a strong will and can still save her. If the hero didnt have an intense desire to serve and inspire, his will would be broken just as his spirit is.

I didn't mean to imply that rejection is a common perception of a wanderer archetype (or any other archetype), I had mixed thoughts about Batman and Heroes and I made an inaccurate statement. In relation to the possible stage in the journey - the Refusal of Return - the Wanderer's attempt to take on the Hero mantle and still remain a Wanderer is an elegant heroic attempt in of itself, but it becomes an exact conflict of this stage in the Hero's Journey when society doesn't accept him. I know I keep going back to this, and realize it probably wasn't intentional, but it is an intriguing originality to me.

I like what you said about the hero presenting himself without a mask - representing that he is still human like the rest of us, yet that is the very representation that results in society not acknowleging him as a hero. If they ditched their icons and take responsiblity and rise up, they would understand that the unknown is an abstracted dimension of the world that they already know. Thet can acknowledge that the hero's world and their world are actually one. And they would see that it doesnt take a mask to be a hero, and the hero would not only be accepted, but his torch passed on.

On another note, there are certain lyrics in the song that I find interesting when you compare them.

"His armor is tarnished; his helmet is lost, and his sword is in need of repair"
"He is almost relived when he comes to the cave and he sees that the beast isn't there"

"His spirit is broken, his mind nearly lost, and his body in need of repair"
"At the palace they turned him away at the gate though the beast was in residence there"

Of course, the "beast" and the "cave" give me that Batmanesque feeling, but in terms of analyzing this I'm not sure I understand what these lyrics mean with the rest of the song. I know symbolically his spirit is his armor, his mind is his helmet and his body is his sword. But what about the beast? Is the beast him? Does the beast represent his inner demons? Or is that the beast of a previous battle? ... which in a way could be the same thing.

Point well made and well taken. Some time after I posted I realized I hadn't included any thoughts about Batman wearing the mask and Bruce Wayne. So I think you get what I'm saying if you can see the imagery in Heroes. I haven't been able to put my finger on it exactly but after some reflection I'm realizing that previous to this discussion I've tended to see Shadow II and Heroes as a sort of progressive story in terms of the Hero's Journey, which is what led me to identify Batman in Heroes as basically an extension of Shadow II. As the journey follows, the hero falls out as he questions his own morality and ethics, as a human would do. Let's "say" Shadow II was written before Heroes and Heroes was written intentionally for the hero to be at "The Refusal of Return" stage. Instead of following the traditional conception of the monomyth, the pattern is disrupted... so instead of the hero being reluctant to return with his boon to the "old world", society is who is reluctant or refuses the hero's boon. Batman (masked) in Shadow II eventually dons the mask (not in the song) and transforms into an unmasked wanderer in Heroes. On the same coin, if Shadow II is about Batman, Heroes could be about Bruce Wayne. This is conceivable to me because of society's assertions with Batman's identity.

I know in the larger scheme of things it doesn't make any sense. The song is about an archetype and I'm twisting it into a hero and his journey. So anyway, I'm not implying that the two songs were intentionally set up that way. I'm concerned that I'm taking away the true meaning from the Heroes song in terms of what the lyricist was actually implying. My mind wanders itself sometimes.

Going back to the songs outside of the Batman reference...

the hero can be tarnished from previous battles and even broken and still have a strong will and can still save her. If the hero didnt have an intense desire to serve and inspire, his will would be broken just as his spirit is.

Hmmm.... but the Wanderer-hero actually does not end up "saving anybody" - not even himself.  Even if he succeeds in his task, what the Wanderer hero is asking is for society to save themselves.  He can be seen as the Herald on their call.  His goal to merge the real world with the magical world and thus give people the untapped power within themselves.  What he needs to be/find/call upon are the supernatural forces to urge society on - as society is the unwilling adventurer into the realm of self reflection (peeking under their own masks) and salvation.

It's funny how Tyler's song is overtly the "romantic song" but the "Heroes" song more emotively appealing.  I think romance is equated with the emotional appeal.  Because the Wanderer-hero is more human it's easier to ascribe human emotions and romance to him - though in the song itself he is not looking for a lover.  I think you get the sense that he needs a lover or to be loved in what seems to be his plea for acceptance, but you have to read in between the lines to actually find that message. 

I think the Tyler song suggests a general perception - that the romance narrative can "save" people.   Romance is packaged in "the mask" of the hero.
That also flips along the gender lines... I think there is a concept that the female can romantically "save" the male - like your example on the "Emotional Rescue" song.  The Wanderer-hero makes a good candidate for that type of "rescue" perhaps because they appear to be helpless to the whims of society in terms of their acceptance.

Because of this romantic narative bleed into the 2 stories... I find I have this temptation to try and place the Wanderer-hero in the seat of adoration that Tyler's hero occupies (or change Tyler's song to make it fit the emotive Wanderer-hero), even though the Wanderer-hero is distinctly NOT offering rescue of a romantic kind -- maybe even most of all.  If we look at his goal of "peeking under your own mask" and being personally responsible for what you find there... the romance rescue narrative might arguably be one version of "the beast" that society allows to live in the castle. 

Though generally in the song I think the beast is meant to be flexible and can apply to both external and internal conflicts -- it's pretty cool that romance is both and internal (self) as well as an external (society) struggle... which mirrors the self-society struggle the Wanderer-hero is undertaking.  I also find it interesting that if this "Rescue Romance" is the beast - it's not in the (Bat)cave (if we take that angle) - and this hero's song is not meant to be a romantic song.  I find it interesting that it can seem like the hero reluctantly looking for the beast can look like this romance is what he wants/desires from the point of view of someone who wants to be the hero's romantic counterpart within this frame; but that the hero is actually looking for the beast in order to kill it.  And that... killing the "rescue romance" beast is not what makes the Wanderer-hero lonely, but his refusal to enter into the idolized hero narrative and take responsibility for what is underneath his lover's mask. 

To worship the Wanderer-hero romantically as an idealistic romantic hero (archetype/mask) and within this narrative "save each other" is directly contrary to taking responsibility for yourself and your own emotions.   It is self empowerment that the Wanderer finds in his self reflection and is attempting to present as a means of salvation.  I think what this teaches me about the Heroes song is that ... though frustrated and worn, his strong will has seen him through - and the Wanderer-hero is not helpless.  He is alone, but this does not necessarily mean that he is lonely.  "Life is the adventure."  Romance may, or may be a part of that, but only on the terms of a cooperation.

"Hmmm.... but the Wanderer-hero actually does not end up "saving anybody" - not even himself."

Right, I was just extending on Tyler's emphasis of a strong hero to save her and agreeing with your points since we'd been interjecting that juxtaposition with Heroes and Holding out for a Hero. In a sense, I was diving into my own temptation to try and place the Wanderer in the seat of adoration of what Tyler's hero could also be (not iconic). Though that would involve stretching Heroes hero outside of his realm of what being a hero is to him.

I also think the beast is meant to be flexible externally and internally. I suppose that is why I couldn't find any real sense of what the beast represents to the hero himself. But, ahem... following the lines of the Hero's Journey - the hero prepares to battle, he enters the belly of the whale - this often includes entering a den or cave of some form, which necessarily represents confronting danger. A shocker, I know.

Earlier I read your first couple of paragraphs and started replying and I realized as I read on that I was pretty much repeating what you're saying! : ) I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. And you hit on an important distinction in terms of the juxtaposition mentioned between the two songs and in terms of "Heroes" itself.  Simply put, it is not a romantic song. Being a "wanderer" he is not out looking for love or to be saved romantically. Though at his core he might need "to be loved", but not in an exclusive sense - only in the context of society receving his boon - the salvation of self empowerment, to sum it up. This includes any romance narrative that may or may not be a part of the adventure - the unspoken part of the boon is the acknowledgment that its not self empowerment if you depend on getting (romantic) gratification from outside of oneself rather than from within. I think mentioning that the hero needs a "lover" might be confusing as that would contradict the wanderer's strong-willed dependency in that the hero's happiness becomes dependent on a lover. But I do agree that his plea of acceptance is at least partially suggestive of a desire to be loved, accepted.

The parallel I see with the Wanderer is the sense of preserving the natural way of life in the hero. He's not forcing what he has to offer onto others as that would contradict the hero's message that society needs to step up and take responsibility for themselves. The intrinsic nature of the Wanderer reflects this letting go of the normal way of doing things. What immediately comes to mind is a "Confucious" idealism. Because the hero's idealism is so distinct from his society and culture, it suggests a deeper concept that society is blind in their current way of seeing/doing things. Which extends to the depth of the dilemma... the hero isn't helpless to himself, but rather feels helpless as he wanders on unaccepted and unacknowledged.

I think the Wanderer archetype is probably one of the most appealing archetypes to me. Along with "that" site you linked, it suggests in the Hero's Journey that the hero is often the wanderer in the beginning of the journey... I think it's important that one remain a wanderer of sorts... always on an adventure, to seek truth, happiness, love, liberation, life. Which could be one of the "lessons" this hero wants to convey to society (which would explain why this hero would choose to remain a Wanderer after passing on the boon). Generally, to continously question ones assertions of the world.

"He is lonely, but he is not alone". Heh, interestingly, that reminded me of Coldplay's "Lost" song. The message of the song isn't a parallel to "Heroes" in any means but I think there is a general similarity that ones current circumstances will always eventually pass... which to me compliments your sentiment that the hero's strong will has seen him through.

Entering this discussion late, but I think in general agreement with both of you.  To me the main meaning of the Pilothouse song comes across in juxtaposing those two sections Kat cited above:

"His armor is tarnished; his helmet is lost, and his sword is in need of repair"
"He is almost relived when he comes to the cave and he sees that the beast isn't there"

"His spirit is broken, his mind nearly lost, and his body in need of repair"
"At the palace they turned him away at the gate though the beast was in residence there"

The first is the traditional  hero and beast as on the margin of society--both freaks--Batman and the Joker.  And then we are reminded that this is not what a hero really is anyway--not some marginal and mythic figure fighting demons far away somewhere.  That's not where the demons are.  What has worn his armor out and broken his sword is the fact that this is a daily struggle--a struggle within society not on its margins--and within us that breaks spirit, mind and body because we pretend that the beast is far away in a cave  rather than down the street at the palace.  I think the word 'hire' is important too--'cause you don't think of heroes as 'hired'--they do what they do more from that 'relentless desire'.  So in a sense I think people would 'hire' a hero if it meant paying him off and never having to acknowledge him.  I think it's important not to hire the hero or to idolize him--but to incorporate the heroic (to acknowledge the need for the heroic in ourselves because the demonic is there too)--self-empowerment.

It very strongly reminds me of what the Joker represents in defining people by making them face their own mortality, their own madness, their own capacity for evil. 

And I agree that in this context the romance narrative can be seen as a version of the beast--an escape from facing that.

Also reminds me that in the movie anyway, I wound up finding Batman and Commissionar Gordon 'unheroic' in that they continually supported the idea of masks of one sort or another.   I'd say more but don't want to give plot elements away. :-)

In Shadow II I find a different version of heroism in that the focus in that song seems to me to be the need for vengeance (a dish better served cold)--with that kind of hero I can see why he does remain on the outskirts as it's hard for a society to function on a vengeance cycle.  So there Batman is more like the Roman sacrificial heroic figure talked about in the movie who has to take the vengeance role of society onto his own shoulders.

even Nietzcshe's superman is egotistical in the "superior strength" department
...right, right.  I really have to stretch the meaning and imagery in Tyler's song -- perhaps a tad too much -- in order for it to appeal to me.
You're more correct in your interpretation there.  She leaves room for the Niezcshe superman... but she does not in my opinion leave room for a Wanderer-hero.  What she wants/values is the mask.  She values the hero personna more than the person underneath. 
I think that's why romantically it's easier to connect on a deep emotional level with the hero in "Heroes", unless you connect more strongly with feeling helpless/victim of society - like the woman in Tyler's song.

As I mention below ... but more generally... this is a problem not only Batman, but a lot of Heroes (even comic book Superman) have in that the women that adore them and make their feelings known -- are in love with the side of them that is a mask.  They don't want to believe that part of them is the mask.  Rachel wanted to believe that Bruce was less true than Batman because of what she valued.  Though she admired him at first - mentioned that "Gotham needs him" alluding to a grander purpose... like Tyler she coaxed him to action with her admiration for the hero in him.  She made it clear that it was his heroism that she fell in love with.  But she did not want the whole package - and in my opinion couldn't have truly loved Bruce.  Perhaps this is what made it easy for her to move on and fall in love with someone else.  She justified her actions/judgement about Bruce in the end and tried to make the split "Bruce's fault" for "always needing Batman".  She ends up loathing Bruce - and not believing in him so much as to question his actions in regard to her new lover which I think Bruce in truth admired.  Like many women who fall into the "woman needing rescued" category - she in a sense objectifies herself by presenting herself as "not responsible" and "helpless" and thus falls susceptible to the ranking narrative that comes along with that romance pattern in stories that we see.  She misinterprets Bruce's actions as jealousy because she can't escape her frame.  She is lost to her own mask in the end because she does not take responsibility for who she is or for her own framing of the person of Batman or the situation of their "romance".   It is the reason she will never see him in the end.

WARNING: LOTS OF PLOT SPOILERS 

I disagree that Rachel is like Tyler.  I see her as exactly opposite really.  What Rachel stands for in the movie, for me, is the need for the power that Batman represents, the power of justice, to be taken up by each person in the society rather than resting on a single man.  Similarly what Harvey says in his press conference--that society creates Batman by abrogating their own responsibility.  What Rachel fears and winds up rejecting in Bruce is his need to be the sole force for justice--to make it overly personal, narcissistic.  In the first movie she steers him away from the single act of vengeance.  In the second movie she fears him becoming Caesar--having too much power to himself.  The reason she assumes Bruce is acting out of jealousy is not because she is viewing him through the frame of the romance narrative and over valuing her own importance--it's because she's seen many times that Bruce's perspective on the world is overly personal and she thinks he's doing it again.

What really struck me seeing the film a second time is how critical of Batman the directors are, and I see Rachel's rejection of him as part of that.  The central criticism is in the Batman/Joker contrast.  If symbolically Batman represents justice and the Joker represents chaos/madness--then what makes the Joker so successful against Batman in the film is the Joker's assertion that what he represents lies within everyone.  He doesn't claim that power all to himself, but looks to release it in everyone.  He doesn't need all the money and technological gimcrackery to accomplish his goals that Batman does.  He tells Batman that all Batman's strength is helpless to do anything about him.

Batman/Bruce's mistake of wanting to keep all of this power/responsbility to himself alone is shown in his reaction to his copycats.  Yes, he doesn't want his copycats to be hurt--but what does he say to them--that what distinguishes him from them is that he isn't wearing hockey pants (the sarcasm that Rachel's used to hearing from him).  That is--only he has the right stuff (the money, the power, the technology) to be Batman--to represent justice.

The Joker is all about removing masks and making people define themselves in the face of their own mortality--he misjudges that when he forces the people on the boats to do this that it is the dark side that will emerge.  What defeats him there is not Batman, but the people on the boat taking on the power of justice for themselves.  Letting the power that Batman represents emerge in themselves.

Batman/Gordon on the other hand keep relying on masks (on playing things close to the chest)--because masks allow the power to remain seemingly with just a few.  When Harvey says that he is Batman, Bruce should have stepped up and said he is too.  Instead, he takes advantage of this to turn Harvey into a symbol/target--a mask/trick to capture the Joker which it turns out is just what the Joker is hoping for. 

And then the other thing that the Joker counts on is that Batman will choose the personal over the more general social--he will choose the romantic person to save, just as he originally is motivated by his personal vendetta.  Instead of choosing Harvey (the people's justice, rather than personal justice), Batman chooses Rachel.  So I see him as the one relying on the romantic frame.  By doing that he loses them both and is instrumental in creating Two-Face.  That's why the continued 'mask' of making Harvey into the martyred white knight and letting Batman again take on responsbility (this time for Harvey's madness--his Joker side) is a mistake at the end of the movie I think...and will come back to haunt him.

(MORE SPOILERS ON THE DARK KNIGHT) 

You make some excellent points - and I do agree that there might be more depth there in regard to Rachel's character and her ultimate rejection of Bruce.  I actually like your interpretation of Rachel in the sense of the whole progression of things:
In the first movie she steers him away from the single act of vengeance. 
In the second movie she fears him becoming Caesar--having too much power to himself.

However - I'm not sure if it was the actress in the second film - or that I had to get used to a new actress midway or any other number of possibilities (direction, editing, storyline)... as far as the feel of the film - I do not think the film itself made a strong enough point on its own about Rachel feeling Batman had too much power to himself, if this is what they were really saying.  I wish it had.

The things that stick with me are that at the end of the first film Rachel gets all dewey eyed about Batman and rejects Bruce because the man she admires is finally taking action and the jackass billionare playboy is someone she can pretend isn't real.
In the second film if Rachel really was seeing Bruce's jealousy outside of the romance narrative I guess I would really expect that she would be as direct as she was in the first film when she steers him away from "the single act of vengeance" and say something along the lines of "you really need to reign Batman in, this is out of control".   There was opportunity for her to speak frankly with Bruce several times and she says nothing.  Every time she is presented she is presented as a romantic pawn.  For instance:
- At dinner with Harvey there was a debate about whether Batman was a force for good or a destructive force.  Everyone talked at the table on this topic but Rachel.  Harvey's point was that he couldn't be Batman because he has a personal life and a romantic interest.  The conversation ends with him "claiming" Rachel by taking her hand.
- On the balcony she comes out to talk to Bruce - not out of concern about where the Batman thing is heading, but in the frame of "hey don't insult my new beau."  Almost as if to point out "he's better than you, Bruce".  She is afterall claiming that Bruce is in the rival position and she's setting him straight on where he is for the competition for her hand. 

- Even when Bruce tells her he's hanging up the mantle, she doesn't say "good, you were getting out of control" or something in the middle like "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" ... she puts her response within the romantic narrative again "don't quit this thinking you can have a normal life with me". Her only concern seems to be the romance.  Again, this is an attempt to put Bruce in his place in the line of suitors for her hand.

Instead it almost seems like everything she did in the second movie was about her value as a romantic character.
Her only moral struggle seems to be this promise she made Bruce to always be there for him.  Perhaps she can't commit to Harvey because she feels as if she has some obligation to this promise.  

The only time she's down on Batman "the hero" at all is when he doesn't rescue her love Harvey from his own choice to put himself in danger. 
This to me is the setup you see in a lot of romantic narratives with hints of the Lover-Martyr and the emotional rescue narrative. 

In the emotional rescue narrative Rachel has to save Harvey from himself, but she's powerless to do anything and inwardly resents Harvey's choice to separate from her and take on the hero's role.  Ironically she is seeming to resent the hero archetype more and more as her need for the romance narrative increases.  In order to deal with the emotional conflict this presents, instead of being angry with Harvey for taking the hero's mantle and letting him be responsible for his own choices, she blames Bruce for Harvey's choice and predicament and then denounces him by calling Bruce "unheroic" for not stepping in and taking control in the exact manner he would need to for her personal romantic cause.  This in fact is the turning point in her decision to stand by her promise to Bruce.  In fact the only action she really takes in this film is to defend Harvey against Bruce.  She is soft on Harvey, pleading for him to come back to her side because there is her hope that she can steer him back into the romantic narrative where she wants him - by her side as her lover.  Perhaps they are Wanderers together and she doesn't want to lose that for the greater good.   They share a cause and she wants that to be enough.  The only hero she's interested in is the one that has solely devoted his causes to her and the values she shares but only up to the limit of what she's comfortable with in giving back to the world.  Based on what she will and won't sacrifice for the greater good of Gotham - I feel the romance ends up trumping her valiant causes in the end.  Perhaps even because she's felt she already lost Bruce to the battle.

Her being ok with the self sacrifice in the end could be something more (along the lines of knowing Gotham needs Harvey) but vocally I didn't catch any other reason except for her romance with him.  Her last words are to comfort him and tell him "you won the rivalry, I am yours" (lover/martyr) ... not "I really love you, but stay true to your cause - you will make a difference in gotham"(hero/martyr).  In fact- had she said something like this - Harvey may not have become 2 face in the end... her sacrifice would have been a reminder to the cause they both shared instead of just a reminder of the romance lost.  In the end it's this reason that I find her last words to Harvey almost selfish. 

The fundraiser scene actually forced me back down to earth. I'm thrilled that at least Rachel's character is strong (albeit less than Batman Begins) and she stands up to the Joker in that scene, but the Joker's sexual innuendo's while he's holding her face still really bothered me. If the point of that scene was to highlight a woman's act of heroism, that was a step in the opposite direction. 

I was mostly seeing her heroism in standing up to the Joker when he's trying to intimidate the people at the party.  He threatens an older man and she intervenes.

I didn't quite understand what you were saying though about the sexual inuudendo and the step in the opposite direction.  Can you say more?

I remember him acting flirtatiously with her--doesn't she physically strike him in response (knee him, in fact--or am I confusing that with the op-ed 2057 :-)).

The versions of the story of how the Joker got his scars is interesting in light of what he says to the cop in the interrogation room--that he is a force which leads people to define themselves in confronting their own death.  He tells a version of the scar story in which he's been abused by his father when he talks to the mob boss right before killing him.  Then he tells Rachel a story about his wife's need to be pretty and how he disfigured himself in order to match her looks when he talks to Rachel.  I wonder if the story of the scar is a reflection of the person  he's talking to...a way of defining them?  Then he starts to tell the story to Batman--and Batman gives him even more scars in response (with the new uniform that Lucius designed)--that seems to place Batman as a mirror of the Joker (another person who creates scars)--but his scars coming from superior money/technology?

Kneeing him - heh, I don't remember! Hey if not we can always start a story progression with Op-ed 2057 and the "fundraiser scene"... ; )

Yeah, I know how you were seeing it and I understand it. I was expressing my beef with the writing style inherent in that scene. He makes several comments about how pretty she is and when she does try to fight back he says that he likes it rough. Maybe I didn't make the connection while I was watching it, but I don't remember that scene as being another one of his typical "Ya know how I got this scar?" conversation pieces with the victims (which would have made more sense to me), but I might be mistaken. I don't have a problem with sexual innuendos in of itself, but it's while she's a powerless victim those comments are thrown into the mix. She attempts a heroic act only to lose and of course Batman has to save her, or else....?? It's always portrayed as if she never should have bothered trying to stand up or fight for herself or anyone. Of course, I realize this is the "norm" in super hero stories, and I realize the movie is about Batman and everything in it is focused on a structured "pull and push" on Batman's character, but I thought it was unneccesary to include the "mild" subtextual pruriencies. But to give credit, throughout the film I did perceive Rachel's character as heroic and courageous... all the way to her demise she was courageous... which intermixed with the Joker's view, that you see who a person truly is right before they die, I respect that.

Anyway...

I wonder if the story of the scar is a reflection of the person  he's talking to...a way of defining them? 

Hey, that might very well be the case. I've forgotten all of the versions he says to each person, but yeah I noticed that and was curious if there was a meaning behind it. That is a very good point and makes a TON of sense! I'll have to keep that in mind the 2nd time around...

What I like about the Batman movies is that to me it doesn't seem like any character - not even Batman - is completely heroic and couragous *all the way* through to the very end.  There's a shuffle of archetypes -- the characters are very human.

I suppose if you go by the theme "you either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villian" the movie could be making the overall point with Rachel's demise is that she did indeed die before she crossed that line to villian.  That's the end of the character; so it is written.

Generally I think she was on the hero's path; I saw her as more heroic in the first film though, to be sure.  She's the only one in the DA's office to take up the cause of justice and does so without a thought to herself.  But... Rachel never saved/rescued anybody in the Dark Knight (not to say she was never brave but...).  Her only moments that approach heroic in the Dark Knight were to celebrate her romance with Harvey - as if this is where her value truly lies.  When she stands up to the Joker that does appear to be an attempt at heroism, but like the untrained Batmans wearing hockey masks - when challenged she fell like a house of cards.  There was courage, but no substance - no knowledge of what it takes.  To have Batman come in at that moment to jump off a roof for her - basicly solidifies her purpose in the film as the romantic prize - never to rise any further on her own. And also... To me her demise seems more like the Lover/Martyr than the hero, as the cause she promoted was not completely selfless.  She'd rather die than keep fighting alone.

It makes me wonder - why is Dent the celebrated hero of the film when he and Rachel never really reached that level of power/admiration doing the same thing?  The two of them are really purt near the same in so many ways.  I was talking to someone else about this but - it kind of bothers me that she wasn't the DA.  There were other plot devices they could have used to keep Rachel's heroic integrity in tact and also stay true to comic book lore.

It's almost as if she passed the torch to Harvey after the first movie and after that took on the "emotional rescue" part that traditionally women are relegated to.  Well and frankly - I find that notion of a "hero via romance" to be more of a fallacy than true heroism.

It's like the filmmakers didn't know what to do with Rachel without a male counterpart to define her.  "She's weak and helpless without one or the other of them". 

Once she served the cause of the hearald for Batman - (she inspired his personal journey that allowed him to save himself) - her hero's journey was simply discarded for her socially demanded need for a man in order to complete her. So she stops being the wanderer, not to become a hero, but a "nurturer".  In more cynical, frustrated words - a helpless woman.

What you said about the fundraiser scene is reflecting precisely how I felt.

I agree the hero via romance is a fallacy, it's one dimensional. I'm not determining her heroic or courageous status through the love triangle she was placed in. I guess I'm looking away from all of that since it only leads to one direction... but you've touched on all the problems I had with her character. She was definitely the Damsel in Distress, placed in a love triangle, but within that she seemed empowering to me. Her role was limited, but I saw her as somewhat defiant and assertive in her role - if that makes any sense. Even though she's a "helpless woman" in many of the ways you've ellaborated, she is still deterministic in her morals.  She does stand up to the Joker, more than once. Nearing her demise, she doesn't go crazy when she's tied up with explosives surrounding her.  

But I also see the Rachel in Batman Begins compared to in The Dark Knight as bothersome. She was a powerful attorney who dedicated her life to fighting crime out of her own committment to justice. In the Dark Knight, she's a pretty girl who's dating the D.A., sitting on the side lines. Furthermore, it was proposed that Harvey would be the "public" hero Batman could not be by being the new DA. At one point she tries to express concern for Harvey's life as he poses as Batman, saying that Gotham needs him - "Who will do that if you die?" I... suppose a "helpless woman" can't be that person.

And as soon as she makes a choice for herself (albeit, as the script would have it, chooses who she wants to be with -sigh-), she gets blown to pieces. There's a certain aura of concern for me with her death and what becomes of Harvey Dent - her death transforms him into Two-face. What does it say when one of the main female characters has more effect on the story dead than alive?

All in all, I thought the writers were fairly lazy with her character in this film. I wasn't expecting her to be some liberating spirit of feminism or anything, and it's unfortunate that she suffers from many of the common problems with female characters in hero stories, but she still emerged as a strong character to me.

Or maybe I just want her to be strong. Or maybe it's because I like that actress. *sigh*

Heh wow... just realizing -

Rachel inspired a hero in Batman in film one.

She inspired a villian in Two Face in film two...

Well, for me I think it's because I like her performances in her other movies. And she portrays someone that isn't afraid to take on the more "shocking" or controversial films. She may not star in the greatest movies but I like what she does with her characters... to me, she expresses a real sense of owning the character given to her.  And she just seems like she is more of the "human type" of the Hollywood stars nowadays.

Ok so I think she's assertive and defiant...... crap!

Heh, but overall, I think she's a better actress than Katie Holmes so I was satisfied with her replacement.  But that's just my opinion.

My speculation is that it is because she wasn't the Hollywood pretty, pretty woman that they felt they had to "soften" her by amping up the romance angle to "make her look desireable".

...and all things considered Holmes did a pretty good job acting in the first film as far as she is concerned.

I loved Gyllenhaal in Stranger than Fiction. 

She even seemed like somewhat of a rebel-hero to me in that one.  Where did that 'tude go for Batman?!  ... I feel cheated.

Yes, I totally loved her in Stranger than Fiction! That is one film I'm satisfied with that didn't underwrite her role.

Unfort. can't say the same for TDK...

Thanks for the clarification jaz. Your last sentence pretty much expresses the feeling I had of the scene when said and done.

You're right about the Joker's "flirtatious repartee". Perhaps it's a component of his need of control. Interestingly, doesn't he tell Batman that he "completes him" (the Joker)? I see a slight corallary with his conflicting scar stories - if, as you say, the stories are a kind of reflection to the victim he's telling it to - perhaps he sees (a false) extension of himself in the victim. That fits within the context of a control freak anyway.

"What she wants/values is the mask.  She values the hero personna more than the person underneath."

I see a similarity with Batman hiding his identity behind the mask... not in the iconic sense of a hero like Tyler's, but in terms of protection.  He values the mask because it allows him to remain a symbol for justice as well as a symbol of fear for criminals. 

You're right that a lot of hero stories involve the women falling in love with the mask. Which is usually followed by curiosity as to who is under the mask.

In Batman Begins, Rachel quotes him to remind him that it's not who he is underneath, but what he does that defines him.  She understands Batman but she can't conceive of loving a man who hides his identity. Bruce would have to don the mask, turn himself in as Batman in order for them to be together. I struggle with Rachel's and Batman's relationship sometimes but I agree that she couldn't truly love him if it takes admonishing a great deal of who Bruce Wayne is in order to be together. It's interesting that she can't be in love with Bruce and Batman - the whole package, but falls in love rather easily with Harvey Dent, whom, after her death becomes a "masked figure" himself in a sense. The difference between Two-Face and Batman being that Batman/Bruce are not competing personalities of good and evil.

Ah no... I wouldn't worry. This whole conversation is just a bunch of meandering, really.  I don't think this kind of speculation detracts from the intention of the song - if anything it adds to it.  Perhaps the lyricist left it open on purpose.  And the speculation is kind of fun... which I'm sure would be appreciated if I had to make a guess.

What you said that makes sense to me - I can see Heroes and Shadow II as a progression in the hero's journey.
But instead of reordering the monomyth - why not have "Heroes" be the attempted return.  ... and I'm going to think along the lines of Batman here for the framing of this (because I like your angle here)...  In Heroes the Wanderer believes that he is in the "Refusal to Return" stage of his journey.  Like in Batman begins when Bruce comes back unmasked in order to kill his parents' killer.  He at first seeks justice on a social level - "an eye for an eye" without considering the facts of the individual.  He thinks that his personal views on justice should be the same views that society takes.  He presents his journey to society in presenting his plans to Rachel.  Like the Wanderer-Hero in the song, Bruce "broken/rejected" by the words of his lover (taking the place/voice of society in this example).

Hm... so taking this angle it was Bruce's pride and misperception of the situation that lead him to believe that he had found his hero's boon to present to the people.  But in actuality he was still at the beginning of his journey - at the Refusal of the Call (from that site) :
The hero may refuse the adventure or deny the ability to move beyond the status quo.

Rachel is the herald.  He instead sees that he was behaving the same as society and had in actuality not moved beyond the status quo.  It is the voice of society in his lover that helps him to see that his personal views on justice in another frame are really just a misguided revenge to soothe the troubled feelings he is dealing with in coping with his loss.  His journey becomes a cooperation.  He reenters the quest to find a different answer and sees that masks society clings to can be a tool as well as a crutch.  He studies society as well as himself -- Shadows II.  "He knows exactly what he needs to know".  "The Dark Knight returns" and becomes who he needs to be, not to serve himself, but to serve the cause.  He becomes the iconic hero.  The mask which on one hand is a tool in the death of society and the reason for their helplessness, becomes Batman's tool of salvation.  In this way he not only saves himself from being broken, but becomes a leader in showing how people can use their masks as tools to save themselves.  The torch is passed in The Dark Knight with the copycat Batmans, but the inspired few lack the skill or training to fully understand where to begin their journeys.  Batman finds acceptance from those in society who understand his quest... but he is a hero not in it for the glory.  He does not need the worship or admiration often associated with the iconic mantle.  Heh, heh... Tyler never sees her hero because the icon/archetype is not in it for a prize.  Batman does not seek a lover... it is Bruce who wants a lover and a life of his own... but Tyler/Rachel is at the palace looking at the Wanderer and wondering why she should bother with him.

That's really amazing that you can pull it all together like that. I really like what you've said and don't think I'd change a thing. And I agree Rachel is the Herald. She asserts that Gotham needs a protector, someone good that will serve justive to the people of Gotham. Hmm.. in that sense, I also see her as "the goddess" that the hero encounters later in the Hero's Journey.

All of this really highlights what a hero is. Being selfless, he seeks vengeance but he is protecting the people of Gotham. Likewise, so are the copycat Batman's - they are selfless in that they have been inspired by Batman. The role of Batman didn't just fall into his lap (like Superman), he consciously made the choice to become Gotham's protector. Likewise, the copycat Batman's made a conscious choice to sustain good in the city... but as you say need skill and training to become (like) Batman.

"Tyler never sees her hero because the icon/archetype is not in it for a prize.  Batman does not seek a lover... it is Bruce who wants a lover and a life of his own... but Tyler/Rachel is at the palace looking at the Wanderer and wondering why she should bother with him."

Heh, I love that... that after all of that, the "placing the Wanderer-hero in the seat of Tyler's adoration/incorporating Batman" attempt turns out as elegant as it did.

Hero's Journey

I'm not sure I know enough about "The Hero's Journey" per se, but found this interesting website summary of it.
According to this - I would guess that the hero in this song would be at the "Refusal to Return" stage:
‘Refusal of the Return.’ He may hold a belief that those still in the former world cannot comprehend what the hero has learned.

Though in the Pilothouse song it sounds like the refusal is not on the part of the hero, but on society accepting what the hero has learned.
Perhaps he's gotten beaten up/tarnished attempting to "Cross the Return Threshold"... the hero is not allowed to become the "Master of Two Worlds" because society refuses to accept that the apparent separation between his world and theirs does not exist. 
It would seem to me that the hero is trying to communicate his discoveries and the boon to humanity and allow another to hear the message - to pass the torch and arise as the next hero -- but no one is willing to accept responsibility.  Even in the Tyler song - they want to keep the hero responsible, instead of taking responsibility themselves.

Though interestingly enough this site suggests that the hero's knowlege creates a refuge of immortal bliss - where this song suggests that this knowledge or ultimate boon is what makes him invisible - and it seems quite sad and even painful.

I recently recalled another song from my youth - and wondered if there was a general concensus...

Ok - let's pretend this is not Mick Jaggar... and that the person singing this song is the person that you desire the most.  Would everyone agree that the role taken by the male in this song is a heroic figure?

Emotional Rescue

(lyrics copied from lyricsfreak for those of you who can't play the song)

Is there nothing I can say
Nothing I can do
To change your mind
Im so in love with you
Youre too deep in
You cant get out
Youre just a poor girl in a rich mans house
Yeah, baby, Im crying over you

Dont you know promises were never made to keep?
Just like the night, dissolve in sleep
Ill be your savior, steadfast and true
Ill come to your emotional rescue
Ill come to your emotional rescue

Yeah, the other night, crying
Crying baby, yeah Im crying
Yeah Im like a child baby
Im like a child baby
Child yeah, Im like a child, like a child
Like a child

You think youre one of a special breed
You think that youre his pet pekinese
Ill be your savior, steadfast and true
Ill come to your emotional rescue
Ill come to your emotional rescue

I was dreaming last night
Last night I was dreaming
How youd be mine, but I was crying
Like a child, yeah, I was crying
Crying like a child
You will be mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, all mine
You could be mine, could be mine
Be mine, all mine

I come to you, so silent in the night
So stealthy, so animal quiet
Ill be your savior, steadfast and true
Ill come to your emotional rescue
Ill come to your emotional rescue

Yeah, you should be mine, mine, whew
Yes, you could be mine
Tonight and every night
I will be your knight in shining armour
Coming to your emotional rescue
You will be mine, you will be mine, all mine
You will be mine, you will be mine, all mine
I will be your knight in shining armour
Riding across the desert with a fine arab charger

Ok - so I gather that this song would not be appealing if the woman was not interested in the man singing it to her.  Otherwise, the character becomes the tyrant instead of the hero.  I can't help but think of a progression of songs to create the story here...

First Bonnie Tyler's "Holding out for a Hero" ... but she ends up with the "wrong guy"... she was "tricked".

Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn"  ...  here "Illusion never changed into something real"... she's "bound and broken" - helpless to help herself.

Then the Hero emerges - Rolling Stones "Emotional Rescue" giving her courage and his love (he even has the 'fiery steed').

Finally Sarah McLachlan's "Sweet Surrender" 

That's generally how I see the story go anyway.

I think that's a brilliant lyrical composition. Can't think of any songs that fits as well (though I'm sure you could! )

My brain drives me crazy with things like that.   This most recent one made me laugh because it started with a free association in my car.

How's this one for a tragic love story? (not really related to Heroes at all)

Fool in the Rain - Led Zeppelin   ... followed by:

Harden my Heart - Quarterflash

Maybe he'd use some different "wooing songs"

Lover-Merchant style -

James Taylor - Handyman - Marketing slogan:  "I'm good at fixing"

Magnet and Steel - Walter Egan  - Marketing slogan: "We belong together"

Though... Since Bonnie is "shopping" for a hero I think the Stones song fits best because the song seems to be an attempt to sell the qualities of the singer to the patron. 

Emotional Rescue - Marketing slogan:  "I am your Hero"  -- using the same imagery as the Tyler song in a lot of ways.

I find this song interesting personally because it is the man taking on responsibility for the emotions in the relationship, which to me is a role usually taken by women.  I'm only basing this on life experience - so wondering if this is different for other regions or countries or whatnot.

It's also a somewhat aggressive song.  He wants her very badly.  It seems like the lyricist is saying that the relationship the woman is in is only for show - that she is a prize and treated as an object.  The lyricist wants to "save her" from her situation.  His love is "real" and the relationship she is in - is not.   It's kind of a man's version of the "this is an unstoppable love" story.

It was a very popular song in it's day.

**Adding more as I think about it here... socially at the time this song was out there was a clash between the kind of "macho man" stereotype and the "caring man".  I wonder if this song was an attempt to be both.  From a marketing perspective I wonder if the song was popular because it was from a well established, famous band - or if people were emottionally connected to the message.

If people emotionally connected to the message, does this same message still ring true today - or is this like one of those movies you watch and love when you're young and when revisited is either just bland or even causes embarrassement?

I replied to this but I think I got signed out when I posted the comment because it's not here. Anyway, wanted to add that while I was listening to some music, a song that reminds me of this whole reversal role-playing/emotional aspect of relationships was "Love Song" by Sarah Bareilles.

To me, she's not helpless; she's independent, strong, and even real... telling him she can't write him a "love song"... like a fairy tale. She is saying that the guy wants her to prove her love for him. He could say "I'm leaving this relationship unless you prove to me that you love me." Obviously her counter is that she isn't going to write him a love song so he'll stay with her. Show me that you really do love me and will stay because you see the determination in me. Show me that you'll stay because you love that I can be assertive and true to myself. He made her think that she needs him, but she knows she doesn't.

But what I also found out was that she didn't write this song to be *about* a love song. She wrote it to her record label whom requested that she write a "marketable" love song. She didn't want to write some redundant, empty love song. You can see it in her lyrics, "I'm not gonna write you a love song. 'Cause you asked for it. 'Cause you need one, you see." Likewise, the music video sort of compliments this - people keep throwing money into the karaoke and she has no choice but to perform. After she realizes, she eventually takes the coin - writes her own love song. On the same note (pun not intended), toward the end of the song she's telling him that it's not too late for a change of heart, the clerk gives the coin back, symbolizing perhaps a commitment and giving her a choice to remain true to herself. 

Of course, the awesome thing about music is that it can be interpreted beyond how the writer wrote it and it can mean something different to each person... if not, music wouldn't speak to people the way it does. So I love the irony. She's a clever woman.

Ah yes - that song is brilliant.  The multiple interpretations thing reminds me of the conversation over in the Paintings forum concerning how the patron actually becomes the artist at a point.  I find it incredibly awesome when a song like this can take those different views and yet still mean everything the original artist intended in a nice "multi-layered" fashion.

Linking the lyrics here - but this line says it all:

I learned the hard way, that they all say things you want to hear.

...You've heard of the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?  --This speaks to the subjective nature of the problem.

I was told that Oscar Wilde held a similar perspective to mine on this topic and I found a quote from him that explains the concept: 

"All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."

The fact is there is no universal defintion of what beautiful or "perfect" is.  If you believe there is an "ultimate authority"on the matter - that would be God - and how does anyone speak for God - and how do you identify if such opinion/claim is correct?  In fact my view on God is that the entire human existence is beautiful and perfect or God would not have made the creative decisions that God did. So with art we only have our human point of view.  "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

I saw an episode of Monk that encapsulates this idea to me (in a very humorous way):
Monk Paints His Masterpiece 
If curious you can watch the full episode on the USA website site

So the art itself is not a window into some "perfect place of beauty" - it is more accurately a mirror into the soul of the viewer.  The beauty that a viewer sees or does not see is actually a reflection of self.  The artist has no control or input into the soul of another human being - and thus cannot control what another person sees in their work.  Thus the birth of the art critic, eh?  It is up to the viewer to add value to what they see.  There can be no value without the viewer.  This process is only different from the experience of the creator artist, in that they are at the beginning of their creation.  All art starts with viewing, then leads to doing.  So the patron views - and their opinion/experience that *they create* becomes the value of the piece itself.

In fact the artist is a viewer/patron as well as creator - they just get to view the work every step of the way.  Whatever value they get out of the piece is their's alone and can't in actuality be taken or given away as the artist experiences it.  Art at best can only inspire more art.