I'll start with the fact that he is the protagonist and that we have been given a fairly good explanation of his childhood or lack there of. Ned is portrayed as a character that is relatable, he is human. We see bits and pieces of our own moral struggles within his story. Because of this he could blow up all of Australia and we would still Be nothing more than disappointed in his poor decision making. It would be very hard for the book to convince us, at this point, that he is evil. Using Harry Potter as a parallel, in the 6th book, we are told all about Voldemort's past, however, it is very clear from the beginning that Voldemort is evil. He hurt animals as a child, manipulated other children, etc. We do not see him as something human, we cannot relate to him in any way. Ned Kelly may never appear to be the villain in our eyes because of the way the book has presented him from the start.
This does not mean that he cannot be a criminal and it also doesn't make him a hero. He has done plenty of things that were illegal (though not necessarily immoral) and while he seldom does things that are immoral he is never punished for the immoral things when he does do them (shooting Bill Frost, killing someone else's cow, luring people into a trap with the police). The police on the other hand are portrayed as being very immoral, assuming they even have morals.
As far as the whole Robin Hood figure thing goes, at this point in the story it seems like that may be a bit of folklore and exaggeration. Is he a good person? Yes, he seems like he has very set morals and that he usually follows them. Is he a hero or a villain? No, and whether he is or isn't should not affect the reading of this novel.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Raleigh St,Chapel Hill,United States
I agree with you on your point that deciding whether Ned is a hero or a villain is not really important, and frankly, impossible. No person writing their life's memoirs would insist every single action they take is completely morally sound or selfless in nature; if they do so they are guilty of vanity or just self-deluded. Ned is a normal human being- he is impulsive, slightly selfish, and sometimes hedonistic- he desires an easier and more enjoyable life and after all, who doesn't? At the same time he loves his family and friends, sacrifices to protect them, and has a pretty strongly developed sense of justice for someone raised in such a corrupt and harsh atmosphere. This is the story of an ordinary man who goes through some fantastic circumstances- not a god or a demon. And when reading this story, it shouldn't be necessary to place Ned into a category.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as well about the importance of determining Ned Kelly's status as a hero or a villain. I know that my first whole post was about my thoughts that Ned Kelly was going to be portrayed as a hero, but after listening to all the class discussions I've decided that it is not really that important. There is so much stigma associated with both the words hero and villain and I think that neither word really fits the description of Ned anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to label Ned though, I would say that he is just a good person with strong morals. That doesn't make him a hero, but what does? Who is to decide the strict definition of hero or villain? A hero could be a good person with strong morals, it depends on your perception of what a hero is. Ned could be characterized as a hero from the eyes of his family, since they are who he protects throughout the entire book. They may not be grateful for Ned in the moment, but it is clear that he helps them out a great deal, and I think in retrospect the family will see that. So after typing all this out, it's clear that the term hero is multifaceted and can't really be confined to certain terms. This is why I don't think it matter whether we decide if Ned Kelly fits these terms or not, since it's obvious that we aren't clear on what being a hero means.