Hercules and Jesus and Superman are not as good of models because they are unrealistic, and I don't mean to say that Warp-Powered starships or enchanted sowrds or magic spells (Mr. Potter and Friends) is realistic.

But the idea that one or two or three or so can be the ringleaders, and their friends can make them stronger and the whole group is stronger as a whole...

THAT is more realistic, and a better idea than saying a man can do it all by himself and kill Titans by himself or walk on water or be fast as a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

If we are just talking about the entertainment factor, then I think I prefer something like the Great Many, but not too many. Like a group of 20 people max, because it allows the reader/audience to relate to the characters more. I am in no way like Jesus/Superman, but I might share similarities to Robin Hood or Friar Tuck. Also, when there is a Great Many, the characters are often more diversified and much less powerful, but more specialized at what they do. For example, when reading LOTR I find myself relating to certain characters (Faramir comes to mind [Damn, I just realized that Faramir was the unwanted child, and that I will probably need some psychologist to help me sort this out now. :P ]) and then I can see some of my friends in other characters [if that makes sense]. It makes for a much more interesting read, in my opinion.

I think that some of your examples could fall into either category, depending on how it was looked at. For example, Jesus had his disciples, and there are a few books of the bible that talk mostly about what they were doing after his death. King Arthur is pretty close to the Almighty One, as his court doesn't really seem to do anything, except for Merlin. His death at the end is what ultimately stopped the advance from evil, and add in the prophecies of him returning some day, and that is about as close to the story of Jesus as you are gonna get. :)

You call the almighty one unrealistic, but I am sure there are some real-life examples that I just can't think of right now. Maybe Johnny Appleseed, lol? Not really saving the world from danger, but legendary none the less. :)

I think the Tuatha Dé Danann (or later Sidhe) from Celtic history are absolutely fascinating as a collective hero/god group.

"Down through the ages the Sidhe have been in contact with mortals giving protection, healing and even teaching some of their skills to mortals - Smithcraft or the working of metals being one such skill."

@hammac: You might like to check out http://www.seannaiche.com/ You could call this Celtic diplomacy.

My PhD adviser (he's Korean) loves to rant about America's hero worship problem. His theory is that the economy is failing because companies pay too much money to their CEOs due to the misconception that one man can save the company. But more often than not, when the life of a company depends on one man, it will struggle and ultimately fail. I've thought about this a lot, and I have to agree that America does have a hero worship problem.

@Timur - thanks - that looks brilliant - but then .... do I need another game obsession just now :-)

I'll just read up on the rules for interest - at least that's what I'll be telling myself.

@Beetle Bailey - if investors who put too much faith (and money) into their CEO's are punished by the market, over time CEO salaries will decrease.

@Beetle Bailey - what are you writing your thesis on?

@Kool
Yes, that is true. And we have seen CEO salary decreasing in this economy. We have also seen government intervention forcing CEO salary caps.

My thesis is in advanced manufacturing; specifically laser-welding of aluminum alloys. I develop models and write finite-element software to predict microstructure during and after laser-welding. And yes, this has very little to do with economics. And no, my adviser is not an expert in economics (although he may think otherwise).

@KaptainKool: you said "if investors who put too much faith (and money) into their CEO's are punished by the market, over time CEO salaries will decrease. " - that is a simple assumption which assumes a bunch of rational actors - economists love the idea of rational actors because they are able to make great predictions based on said idea.

THe Idea is wrong, I would say it has been shown that humans are emotional creatures of habit with a rational finish. See the emerging field of Behavioural economics for a little insight, we haven't had the Adam Smith, or Karl Marx of behavioural economic yet, but i imagine we will soon.

@Beetle Bailey - lol, nice. So your in some form of Engineering? That is what I am studying, so I am also not an authority on economics, I just like reading economic philosophy.

@orthaic - i agree to an extent, but I also feel that the assumption of rational behaviour is currently our best method of economic analysis.

so our best resulted in a gaint economic downturn - i will mark our current economic analysis "must try harder"

@orthaic - are you presuming there is an optimal economic framework that would allow for perpetual growth?

why is it that for the past few days every single thread here has either degenerated into an economics or religious debate?haha

I personally prefer The Multitude (The Fellowship, The Justice League, ect) although I do really like Batman. =P

lol, I didn't even look at the question in the thread, I just responded to previous posts... my bad.

with limited resources no, we can not achieve unlimited growth. But we can achieve some level of stability - the whole point of economic policy since the second world war was to avoid a repeat of the great depression (which lead to the rise of Fascism in more than one place)

The idea that people will feel good if you provide them with a stable economy (so they can expect that investments in pension scheme will be worth their while) is a major part of the whole social order in current democracies.

The great depression did not lead to the rise of fascism, and the whole point of economic policy in the 21st and late 20th centuries has been to grow. No matter what your economic system is you can not defy economic misfortune - due mostly to other factors (such as war, political unrest abroad etc.), there will always be harder times.

I believe your comparison is flawed. The great majority of the examples you have presented and characters of fiction (and thus, meant for entertainment).

To place Jesus in the same category as superman or Hercules really makes no sense. Whether you believe Jesus to be the Son of God or not, it is historical FACT that he lived, and clearly had great influence as now approximately a quarter of the world's population follows his teaching.

Hercules, Superman, Frodo, Captain Kirk, Robin Hood... These are all fictional characters and thus, really do not belong in a comparison with Jesus, or even Muhammed or Guatama Bhuddha either for that matter.

That being said... from an entertainment standpoint, I do prefer the Great Many. I feel this is typically a more realistic model of life, and it is more comfortable before it shows that with a good group, you do not have to extraordinary or superhuman as an individual to make a difference.

@KaptinKool, you said: "The great depression did not lead to the rise of fascism"

Really? Please explain. My understanding has always been that it was (along with resentment persisting from the Treaty of Versailles). To pay off the war debt in the Treaty, Germany printed money and created hyper-inflation... Germany never really recovered from WWI, and by 1923 their money was essentially worthless... Germany's depression started earlier than ours and was deeper. The Nazi's offered a cheap renewed national pride by blaming Jews and other nations for the problems and swept into power in 1933. This is what I've understood to be the basic model on how the Fascists came to power in Germany (I know less about Spain and Italy... except that the Nazi's supported Franco in Spain). Please offer your thoughts on why the Fascists came to power.

@dexter morgan - I should have said "economic depression did not cause the rise of fascism". I will admit that economic mismanagement contributed but I feel that the largest factor was the sanctions placed on the German people, but definitely the request for immediate debt repayment was a catalyst for Hitlers the notion that Germany was being controlled.

I love how you characterize "The Crew of the Starship Enterprise" as collective. As an avid Trekkie (For the past six months or so, I've been working on watching the entire franchise start to finish - I have two seasons of Enterprise left and of course Star Trek 11.) I object to this. One could just as easily argue that Star Trek expresses ideas of individualism. The only one that I feel is indisputably collective is Star Trek Voyager.

{Spoiler Alert}

TOS had Kirk going off by himself and fighting people all the time - he single handedly took on any number of bad guys. Not to mention you had Spock, who was Mr. Individual.
TAS I don't consider to be cannon, so I will not consider it here, however it is much the same.
TNG: I think this one probably leans slightly more collectivist, with themes of Data trying to be more human, etc. and how he sacrificed himself to save Picard (and the entire crew of the Enterprise) in Star Trek: Nemesis. But I think there's still a point you could make about Picard taking care of himself and being a very private person: (Re: Vash, Q, Beverly, his family). Of course I think that trend ends in All Good Things... when Picard sits down to play poker with the senior officers for the first time, saying "I should have done this years ago." Also, in the movies Picard has much more of a familial tone with his crew.
DS9: This one clearly belongs in the individual category I think. People were always running off doing secret things behind Sisko's back, and half the time Sisko said, "To hell with the Federation, I do what I want."
VOY: Pretty clearly collectivist, in my opinion, with themes of Voyager becoming a family etc. But you could also argue that they portrayed the ultimate villain, the Borg, as a collective. Hell, that was their name: The Borg Collective.
ENT: I still have two seasons to watch, but I don't see any way you'd characterize Enterprise as collectivist. Johnathan Archer IS Mr. Space cowboy (But still has nothing on Malcolm Reynolds).

And no discussion on collectivism vs. individualism fiction is complete without John Galt. Just BTW.

Well, they're related... the sanctions brought on the depression... which brought the Nazi's into power... and then the immediate debt repayment (1929) probably sealed us into a trajectory towards war and genocide. ...but with the "ideas" of the Nazi's already in place by 1929 (outlined in Mein Kampf [1925] and in speeches) it might have been inevitable anyway. At least that's how I see it.

I would agree.

Re: Me

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

This ^^

What is TAS in relation to Star Trek?

The A_____ Series....?

the animated series

Oh right. That was produced by Gene Roddenberry. How is it not canon?

@Jamie, actually not. I think the fact that some of the technology and aliens they used that did not match up with TOS was part of the reason... also apparently Gene did not have full creative control of the series and he objected to some of what they did... at least that's what I remember hearing.

Memory Alpha considers TAS to be cannon, but I think it's a bunch of crap. The episodes are only 20 minutes long, and it's largely inconsistent, etc.

TAS included a story "The Slaver Weapon" by Larry Niven (my favourite author) modified slightly from an earlier story "The Soft Weapon" his "Known Space" future history. There is an excellent write up here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slaver_Weapon

@Rlumley

+5 for the Firefly reference

My point was not to name the numerous contributions to the rise of fascism, just to point out the economics of germany contributed, and thus post-war economic policies were aimed at ensuring stability (of defeated nations aswell as home ones) to help build up powerful allies to trade with.

The aim of government intervention to avoid any new recession becoming a depression is still a major part of modern economic policy in most developed nations - growth is great, but how to achieve it varies from allowing the market to be completely free to complete control of the means of production, and before you claim communism doesn't work, it did manage to produce growth and industrialise one of the biggest nations in the world in shorter time (and more painfully in human cost) than anywhere else.

As for American hero worship - it is great for morale to follow a strong leader who you believe in - however if the Hero fails then so does your morale. That is having an Iconic fiure to follow is a useful thing, at times. I think however a team working together as a collective (not competing with each other, even if they are competing with external advesaries) can come up with great ideas and collaborations while maintaining it's own morale and momentum.

Jesus was real, but the Gospels are treatments of his life designed to make a point, and in all of them, the disciples are pretty much clueless. One of the themes of the New Testament is how the disciples were pretty much useless and stupid before the resurrection, but became awesome after it because Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit. So I think it's fair to use Jesus.

@Rlumley:

First... we can agree on TAS. I saw one episode ("More Tribbles, More Troubles" on the Season 2 TOS DVD) and it was... Trek V was bad, and as bad and cheesy as Trek (I LOVE IT, btw) can get, TAS is so... beyond words.

And as I always identified with Chekov in with my friends, I hate they have some mutant blob in his chair... I have two words for that blob: NUCLEAR WESSELS! ;)

But I don't see how you can argue Trek isn't the Great Many... the whole PINT is that its a diverse crew coming together, that one man can't do it alone... the closest that ever comes to failing is Kirk because he's... well, Kirk, leader of it all, and Shatner's Shatner, but that doesn't matter, really, overall...

Kirk STILL NEEDS:
-Spock to essentially be his brother and logical side, sitting on his shoulder for counsel
-Bones to essentially be his brother and emotional side, on the other shoulder vs. Spock
-Scotty to save the ship and solve the impossible problems under fire
-Uhura to be caring and professional and steady in her work for him, whatever it may be
-Sulu to drive the ship and be the silent-but-sturdy man on the team
-Chekov to be loyal and active and eager to help and take the shots for Kirk or Spock

It's ALL of them.

Same with Picard's crew, VERY much the Great Many... Picard leads it, but that doesn't mean he can do it alone, he needs Data's cold logic to be balanced by Worf's firery spirit, Riker and Troi and Crusher and Geordi to do their parts.

DS9 is my least favorite, I just prefer exploration and friendship to all the weird elements of DS9, but its still good... but of all of them the least like the others and, keeping with that, the one that breaks the tradition of togetherness-over-One most.

Kirk and Picard might have been super-great and so took a lot of screen time and solved many issues... but that was their abilities, not personalities, Kirk was always a friend to his crew (at least to the Main Crew... a redhirt's a redshirt to some degree lol) and Picard was always sort of like the patriarch, the older man, the father, especially to Data and to a good degree to Worf and Riker and Wesley (who was FAR better, btw, in the last season-two seasons once he put on the red uniform... the early seasons gave him his bad reputation, but if they'd always written him as they did in later episodes, he might have become a second Chekov or so instead of... WESLEY.)

SISKO, on the other hand... he says screw it all, MY WAY, BUDDY!

Voyager is so ridiculous in places its good, and the crew's pretty much a collective group.

Enterprise... It's often a Trifecta, as Archer/T'Pal/Trip is obviously an attempt to bring back, down to the Vulcan and Southerner, Kirk/Spock/Bones...

But Kirk/Spock/Bones is a TV legend, perhaps the most famous Power Threesome in TV history, and its a part of American culture (maybe even a bit of Western pop culture... but I can't speak for those across the pond- do you over there consider that threesome of Kirk/Spock/Bones pop culturally important... or is it all about that WHO for you lol.)

Archer/T'Pal/Trip is like Trek meets the Three Stooges sometimes... without the great funny. (ANOTHER great threesome Moe/Curly/Larry, and, of the same era, and my personal pick for Best Comedy Team pre-Python and tied with Python for Ever, Groucho/Harpo/Chico)

Aside from Archer and the other two of the Three... Hoshi's scared, Mayweather's... not really ever too big a deal, really I think... Phlox is a decent doctor character (ALL the docs of Trek, actually, have been good actors... the "bad" characters are never the docs, from Bones to Crusher to Bashir to EMH to Phlox, all solid) and Malcolm... well, he's pretty competent, actually.

Still, TOS and TNG crews are leaps and bounds ahead of DS9/VOY/ENT both in terms of being great example sof The Great Many and in terms of show qualitiy and cultural importance... which from DS9/VOY/ENT you prefer is largely a matter of taste. I find hardcore sci-fi people go for DS9 more, VOY attracts a looser base of fans (and a lot more women like this show than many others, probably because of Janeway and Kes and B'Elanna and Seven, easily the most feminist Trek) and ENT has and odd fanbase.

TOS and TNG for me, then VOY and ENT for a change of pace, and DS9 least of all, both in terms of taste and the Great Many.

AHHHH! Too much Star Trek in this thread. :D

I would agree that Americans tend to follow the almighty one rather then the great many. Just look at sports, normally the media focuses on 1 great player on the team as if they are the ones doing everything. Micheal Jordan is a perfect example. Not to take anything away from his accomplishments, because he was the best B-Ball player of all time, but he also had a couple of all-star team-mates and a scary-good coach. But when someone thinks about the Dominant era of the Bull, any mention of Scottie Pippen or Denis Rodman (lol) is more of an afterthought.

@obiwanobiwan, most of the animated series shows are dreck... I remember thinking that about 3 or 4 were pretty good (though definitely kiddish). If you can steel yourself for another go, I would suggest "Yesteryear". ...it is also the only of the animated series to be written by D.C. Fontana - writer of several of the better original series episodes.

DS9 was the best of them all... If you watch them in order and understand the plot arcs.

And I think that, at the very least, you have to say that both individualistic and collectivistic themes are present in both of them.

I'm a life long Star Trek fan, but both Babylon 5 and Firefly/Serenity were better. <Speaker hurriedly dons asbestos underwear>

DS9 is the best star trek series, at least compared to Voy and Ent, TNG had it's moments, and i never really liked TOS.

DS9 was the only series which had interesting/realistic politics going on, (ok maybe ENT aswell, but i'm not convinced, i haven't seen too much of it) admitadly it was trying to emulate it's direct competition : Babylon 5, (wich i prefer).

Firefly, Farscape, and perhaps BattleStar Galactica are better. Never mind what Stargate did to Si-fi.

Stargate is very much a multitude - but also the Star team SG1 doing everything. Farscape has John Crichton greatest almighty hero of them all, and though he knows how to work in a team it is always his crazy plan that wins the day (and you definitely feel the others wouldn't have accomplished anything close to the same thing without him)
BSG is pretty multitudy.

@hammac: Hi, Hamish. glad to have a Celt around.

Under some conditions the great hero or leader can be a deciding factor, with other conditions only the team will be successful. Other times it's a combo. The world has many shades of gray with many different conditions. Jason and the Argonuats has examples of both team and the great hero.

@obiwanobiwan: All very interesting. My take on all this is that it only takes 'One Almighty Hero' to unpause a game and save the day. I believe it was Nietzsche who said, and forgive me if I misquote him, 'Get off your fat, hairy, misshapen, lazy, philosophising arse and unpause your fucking game motherfucker for fuck's sake!' (Or was that Locke?)

"Hercules, Superman, Frodo, Captain Kirk, Robin Hood... These are all fictional characters... "

WHAT

@texasdeluxe:

Yep... he might've said something to that effect... ;)

@ANYONE who said DS9 was the best series:

EXPLAIN!

I'm sorry, saying its the best of the recent shows is one thing, out of DS9/VOY/ENT.

But putting it above TNG (which escaped the "Sci-Fi-Fan-Only" circle and became part of the mainstream culture... EVERYONE knows about TNG and knows who Captain Picard is and many would know Data and Geordi and maybe even Worf) is a hard sell, and will require some pretty big explaining. TNG gave us a new Enterprise, Patrick Stewart (excuse me: SIR Patrick Stewart... +10 to TNG for having Trek's only knighted actor lol) as Picard, the pre-Voyager Borg (when they were cool) and pre-VOY Q (again, when he was cool, though he had a couple decent VOY episodes, "Deathwish" being especially good) and such a slew of classic episodes: "The Best of Both Worls Parts I and II" and "Darmok" and "Chain of Command" and "The Measure of a Man" and "Q Who" (1st Borg episode ever) and Bones came back for "Encounter at Farpoint Part I" and Scotty came back for "Relics" and Spock for "Unification Part I and II" and the BEST Trek finale, "All Good Things..."

I can think of three episodes that really stand out to me for DS9 only- the baseball episode (just because I LOVE baseball), "In The Pale Moonlight" (EASILY the best episode I've ever seen of the show, the only DS9 ep. I'd put in a Trek Ep. Top 20 or even maybe the Top 10... completely goes against Rodenberry's vision for a squeaky-clean humanity but that's what makes it so good, that episode should be shown for fun in Ethics classes across the nation, just to contrast the slew of moral codes and ethical ideas in that ONE EPISODE!) and the one where Jake is an old man and Sisko's stuck outside of time (just a solid story.)

Outside those 3 episodes, DS9 is largely a blur, not always recognizable as Trek, and while its not a bad show, its lacks a lot of what I think of when I think (and love) Trek.

That being: TNG and, to a greater extent (just because it came first) TOS.

There is NO TREK BETTER THAN TOS.

That IS Trek. It put Trek on the map. Kirk. Spock. Bones. Scotty. Uhura, Sulu, Chekov- those are household names!

Picard, maybe Data or Worf- household name.

Sisko or Quark or Odo or Bashir- no. VOY cast- no. ENT- no.

TOS and TNG, to me, are the "classics," the shows that are always in dyndication and shown and remembered and are in the mainstream. DS9 is a blur of sci-fi shooting and Sisko getting pissed, VOY is... well, watch sfdebris' channel on YouTube... and Enterprise just never had a chance, the execution was just wrong, had a few decent episodes and a couple really great ones, but nothing top 20.