Is the hero, by necessity, a collectivist figure?

Is the hero, by necessity, a collectivist figure?

no

No, Jordan/Joseph.

Nothing says the hero has to share his boon

Depends on their scope i suppose.
A friend saving another could just be a personal hero, esp. If the suicidal friend isnt particularly liked.
A hero of the nation could be donald trump becuase of the size of his constituency, and possibly how his actions will echo through time.
Though if trump is only backed by a few elites of which they would be the only ones to benefit from his actions, then Trump would be considered more of a villian becuase of the scope of his actions and how little of a benefit his actions actually produce.

I guess i would say a hero doesnt have to be collectivist but they should be utilitarian.

But if he fights for himself and in pursuit of his own desires, an these desires of his dont happen to coincide by pure chance with those of the collective, who is going to celebrate him? (Other than the reader of corse) but thats another issue, with brings us to another question, can the actions of an individual, isoleted from the idea of future human history (aka a last man on earth scenario) be ever considered heroic?

Whats the difference between a hero and protagonist?

protagonist of the story
hero of the people

The idea of someone doing this for my/our own good keeps popping into my mind for some reason.

A self serving extrodinary individual is closer to the idea of a villian imo. (Or you would end up with something like Saitama from One punch man, but then again, he did make a personal sacrifice and took blame upon himself to conserve the honor of the other heroes, although I think op's question refers to the idea of a classical hero).

>hasn't read Ayn Rand

See: I'm no longer a Randroid but she's a good counterexample to this.

not exactly, but yes in terms of the general idea you're driving at. there is a sort of mythical evolutionary selection at play. see adorno's writing about the odyssey OP

The hero is, by necessity, an individualist figure. The Hero must act alone where others dare not to go. The Hero's journey takes him from the collective, from the safety of what he knows and what is safe, into a place beyond convention where he must decide for himself what is good and right even against impossible odds and certain failure. The Hero is the triumph of the individual for the sake of the community.

I am Spartacus.

do you even read books?

Since the biggest mass-murderers have been collectivists, no.

You could argue it one way or the other. Pointless way of looking at it.

>The Hero is the triumph of the individual for the sake of the community.
Or, the individual shaped by society, to serve society, reduced to a tool of the collective, while the villain is the ultimate egoist, free from the shackles of social conventions.

bump for interest

>But if he fights for himself and in pursuit of his own desires, an these desires of his dont happen to coincide by pure chance with those of the collective, who is going to celebrate him?
Americans.

Never. The Hero is always unique among his people. This is the Marked Crom Birth trope. In some way or another, the Hero is an anomoly in his tribe. This causes him great angst prior to adventure, and it weakens the bonds between him and his tribesman, which allows him to leave in the first place. The Hero is the one who leaves, because everyone is too enjoined to the collective to set thdmselves apart. It is usually a weakness or flaw in the collective thst puts them in danger too. Group think blinds them to Looming Evil. The real treasure and reward of the Hero's quest is the wisdom he brings back to his people. By his efforts, the whole collective is changed. I know it's cliche, but the collective is like sheep, and the hero is like a sheep dog. The Times make The Hero, because he is an individualist, and The Hero shapes The Collective, because groups follow leaders.

Yes. In fact, it's the collective that proclaims him such.

no, he is romantic though

fiction is inherently fascistic unless you do some really weird shit that isn't actually enjoyable to read, honestly

The hero's being viewed in at least two ways here. As a character, he's obviously a special, stand-apart individual. As a phenomenon he belongs completely to the collective, who not only fete him, but keep his name alive.

>fiction is inherently fascistic unless you do some really weird shit that isn't actually enjoyable to read, honestly
gee, I wonder if a fascist made this post.

Here. Depends how he's viewed.

What about an hero?

A hero is a protagonist with good morals.

Well, usually. But he also succeeds at whatever it is he's attempting to accomplish for a more or less lengthy period.

A Hero is a man with extraordinary ability applied to great feats, that's the only requirement

Yes
This is why the individualistic figures in Rand aren't heroes