4.3 Comparison
4.3.2 Virtues and Vices
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
beginning of his administration as president. He is, in fact, the only character in the narrative to be described this way. This hints at an acute distrust for politicians presented in the narrative. Although his skills as a politician are not directly condemned, the fact that he is the only character to whom this skill is attributed associates them with him, the primary antagonist of the narrative.
In the USA, on the other hand, there has been a rapid, well-documented increase in wealth disparity since the 1970s, (Stone, Trisi, Sherman, & Taylor, 2018). Anxieties regarding this trend may have an influence on the USA’s national origin narrative and the values held within it. All of the antagonists of the USA’s narrative are wealthy, privileged members of the British aristocracy except Arnold, who misuses American government resources to support an aristocratic lifestyle. This villainization of blatant corruption and entitlement is also hinted at when the text addresses the Declaration of Independence, saying that although it claimed all men were created equal, “It did not claim that all people had the same abilities or ought to have equal wealth,” (Holt, 2012). In this way, the text clarifies this specific value, implying that people ought to have equal opportunity to earn wealth, but that wealth should not be villainized. The way the narrative deals with wealth reflects the difficulty the USA has had in addressing its growing wealth disparity over the last half-century.
4.3.2 Virtues and Vices
Much like a religion, a fable, or a myth, the national origin narratives of the ROC and USA prescribe, whether knowingly or otherwise, a set of values and behaviors that are to be emulated in an ideal person, and in this case, an ideal citizen of the nation. Their prescriptions are similar in many ways, but diverge on certain issues, especially on those
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
qualities which are considered other, and irreconcilable with the values of a true citizen.
The two heroes, Sun and Washington, act as vehicles for this moral framework through their invariably noble and heroic portrayals. They are both represented in shimmering perfection, while their shadows, Yuan and King George, embody the vices that oppose the heroes’ virtues. The supporting characters also contribute to the moral framework through their roles in the narratives.
Heroic Virtues
Both heroes exhibit immense leadership skills and clear-headed intelligence. They are described as practical thinkers, and when they are quoted, their voice seems to put arguments to rest with their unquestionable, fatherly advice. In this sense, both heroes are depicted as father-figures to their respective peoples. However, Sun, who is never permitted to cross the return threshold, does not enjoy the ultimate status of master of two worlds. In the return stage, Washington is able to put down political squabbling with little more than a sentence, while Sun is unable to bring his country together without his shadow (represented by Yuan Shi-kai and the other warlords) betraying him and his cause. This is not a reflection on Sun’s status as a god-like hero. It is simply the struggle perpetuating itself. Unable to cross the threshold, he is trapped in a perpetual hell, experiencing repeated cycles of revolution and betrayal.
The two heroes diverge further in the depiction of their most dominant traits. These traits are especially evident in the manner in which they are initially described when they are introduced to the narrative. When Sun is introduced, the text focuses heavily on his education and up-bringing. He is immediately cast as a well-educated physician, invoking the image of an intelligent, scholarly leader. Washington, on the other hand, is first
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
described as physically powerful. Although he is mentioned earlier, the first time he is properly introduced with a description he is described as tall, broad, strong, and “an expert horseman,” (Holt, 2012). There is, in fact, no mention at all of either Washington’s education or of Sun’s physical stature. The difference in these introductions is striking, and certainly reveals an important difference in the values being encouraged through these narratives.
Vices of the Tyrants
The tyrant monsters’ characteristics indicate qualities that readers of the narrative are encouraged to repress in themselves and reject in their countries. The most prominent similarity between Yuan and King George is their tyranny. Both villains seek to exert absolute, personal rule over their realms, but their motivations are markedly different. Yuan is interested in personal power and authority. He betrays and manipulates both the revolutionaries and the Qing in order to aggrandize himself. The text describes him as,
“unsatisfied,” (Lín, 2007) until he declares himself emperor. King George, however, is in no need of an improvement in status. At the outset of the narrative, he is already at the pinnacle of the social hierarchy, and so his motivations are instead erratic, irrational, and emotional. He is portrayed as an elitist, entitled to unearned respect and privilege, and as an insolent child throwing a tantrum. The characteristics imbued in the two tyrants are similar in that they both result in tyranny, but they demonstrate a different set of values.
Yuan’s characterization demonizes self-interested, personal ambition, depicting him as Machiavellian and power-hungry, while George’s portrayal encourages the reader to be contemptuous of those who are born into luxury and privilege. The qualities they encourage
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
readers to deny in themselves and criticize in others are unrelated to each other, although they do represent the opposite of the heroes’ characteristics in their respective stories.
These characterizations also highlight a subtle difference in the moral use of power.
Both national origin narratives directly villainize corrupt use of public resources. The tyrants and other daemons in the two narratives are explicitly depicted abusing public funds, military power, and other resources that are meant to benefit the people. Using these resources for selfish gain, whether it be to improve one’s status or to surround one’s self in luxury, is a cardinal sin of both national dogmas. However, it is notable that there is no villainization of an individual’s effort to improve his or her personal status in the USA’s narrative. Each of the ROC’s daemons are expressly motivated by a desire for power and increased status, while the daemons in the USA’s narrative exhibit a desire for luxury and decadence, not an improvement of status.
Supporting Roles
These values are reinforced in the portrayals of the supporting characters, especially the shapeshifters of the two narratives, who are particularly revealing because they shift from one side of the conflict to the other, thus providing an example of the characteristics that change during the transformation. In the ROC’s narrative, Duan Qi-rui is the most prominent example of the shapeshifter, but elements of that archetype are present even in Yuan, who plays both sides of the conflict against each other. This prevalence of the shapeshifter archetype indicates a special demonization of manipulation and cunning deception. Although those are not among the most prominent of the villains’ characteristics in the USA’s narrative, they are still represented as undesirable. The shapeshifter in the USA’s narrative, Benedict Arnold, makes use of his corruption to, “live extravagantly,”
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Holt, 2012), rather than aggrandize himself, thus, reinforcing the rejection of unearned luxury and privilege.
Another supporting character, the mentor, reveals values through its conspicuous absence in both narratives. Although John Locke fulfils some of the role of mentor, he is only briefly mentioned and is not even alive at the time of the conflict. This reflects both narratives’ deification of their national heroes. Both Sun and Washington are depicted as inherently self-confident in their leadership and answer the call to adventure without hesitation. During the multiple refusals of the call to adventure which take place in the USA’s narrative Washington is absent, only appearing when the narrative is ready for his decisive action.