Heroic Stubbornness
—TV Tropes explains the basic idea pretty well.
The idea of the “stubborn” hero, who has unshakable will to persevere, remains surprisingly popular into modern storytelling. Captain America is a well-known embodiment of the principle, codified in his somewhat famous quote from the Civil War event in the comics:
(By the way, some spoilers for recent-ish MCU content are found a bit further down, fair warning)
There is something deep, even archetypal, about stubbornness (if you like, you can call it “willpower” instead; I’d consider them interchangeable for the purposes of this discussion). In terms of storytelling utility, it can serve as a signal for a hero as the overcomer prior to (or possibly, though hopefully not, in the absence of) his taking the climactic action of overcoming. Stubbornness in a hero means commitment and conviction, especially in contrast to sidekicks or supporting cast who don’t possess it as strongly. In a pinch, sheer stubbornness appears to stand in for actual prowess in combat, and it’s perhaps especially commonplace for protagonists in Shōnen manga/anime (Naruto basically runs on it).
A memorable subversion of how this character trope often plays out in Shōnen is found in One Punch Man. That scene when Mumen Rider faces down the Deep Sea King, against all odds, knowing he doesn’t stand a chance in a fight against the monster. He does get the tar beat out of him for his trouble, but this is an important lesson for the would-be stubborn: there are consequences, and you don’t always win the fight. It should be noted that, despite being played as a bit tongue-in-cheek, Mumen Rider remains a genuine fan-favorite in- and out-of-universe. Actually winning is not a necessity for the stubbornness to “work” in a story (though it is probably advisable for a narrative climax). The earnestness and the will toward what’s right are the important ingredients to note.
By Way of Contrast
The reason I’m slightly surprised by the enduring popularity of heroic stubbornness is that commitment and conviction are in such short supply in the comfortable Western world. I suppose that I need to point no further than the response to everyone’s favorite deadly virus to illustrate this. Or rather, the response to the response to it.
In the early days, the sense of togetherness was palpable. There was a sense that the coming two weeks would be unpleasant, but by golly we’d get through it out of a shared sense of duty. That went away quickly. It quickly settled into private discussions, in hushed tones, how little all this makes sense, in hushed tones — juxtaposed with public admonishments to “take it seriously” and “be responsible,” hammered home via news and social media again and again. This doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with the louder opinion, or even that majority do. It just means that people are scared to say something about it due to an engineered perception that they are all alone.
Consider also the issue of CRT. Or “wokeness” in the emerging vernacular. You see the same pattern in the summer of 2020 as in the spring of the same year, in response to the George Floyd incident: the acute rallying, the social media black squares, the truism-turned-shibboleth (which is conveniently also the name of a self-avowed Marxist organization, you know the one). The dissolution of this near population-wide phenomenon into whispers of “well sure, it’s not like I don’t care about the issue, but aren’t we taking it a bit far?” The overwhelmingly loud popular narrative making it socially and even professionally risky to voice your concerns at a volume any louder than a whisper.
In both cases, and only a few months apart, we witness a dearth of courage to accompany sanity. People are afraid to be moved and so they become more movable.
We crave stories of stubborn, headstrong heroes because we lack the trait in ourselves.
The Israelites, faced with Goliath, shook in their boots. Even their king, formerly a paragon of courageous action, was hiding out in his tent (interestingly, he basically began his reign by hiding as well). They all needed David. David, who, eschewing the expected and conventional tools of combat, faced down the giant with only a sling and a staff. Remember how commitment and conviction have a functional power all their own? I guess when I say “stubbornness,” perhaps I mean something synonymous with “faith.” It wasn’t that David was just that good a warrior (though he was literally deadlier than your average bear). It was that he took enough offense to Goliath’s constant antagonism to his God and nation to do something about it. And he didn’t care how scary everyone told him that seven-foot-tall (give or take) Philistine was.
The “No. You move” speech was adapted, in a way, into the Civil War film later, though given by Sharon Carter rather than Cap himself. I do find it interesting that the person who actually gave the speech in the MCU continuity later suffered a nasty character assassination in Falcon and the Winter Soldier (one of many grievances one could lay at the feet of that particular post-Endgame MCU work). But the primary character being assassinated in that later chapter was not Sharon Carter, but rather Steve Rogers by proxy. He had already been given a much more respectful send-off in Endgame and so it had to be the most dispensible character still available instead.
I think that tolerance for heroic stubbornness will wane in a culture that does not value resistance to a gigantic force. We should all be prepared for a couple of patterns to emerge:
Expect “empathy” to be favored over “stubbornness” in popular storytelling. Empathy is considered far less toxic, and it’s only subversive in the nice, corporation-friendly kind of way that subverts things already popular to dislike.
Expect the price of stubbornness and held principles to keep going up as more and more leverage is used to coerce those acting in faith.
Expect the time when it is appropriate to make a stand to come sooner than you are comfortably rationalizing it to be. A tyrant’s favorite dish is boiled frog.
Look, extreme stubbornness is a rare trait, and usually for good reason. Most people at most times are inclined to follow the rules and are generally well-advised to do so, but this presupposes that the rulemaking itself hasn’t been compromised. We’re in a situation where we need more people to be a couple of standard deviations into the stubborn end of the curve. We need people who will not be swayed by solely emotional appeals or Huxleyan coercion.
My fear is that we’re still all just Israelites. My hope is that there are some who are not missing opportunities to saunter down to the stream and look for some nice, smooth stones. Or at least a bicycle.