Considering this question objectively, one would have to ask what it means to be heroic. Winston, like many modernized protagonists, does not match the archetype for the classical hero: as mentioned before, he has no special qualities, there is no call to adventure, and definitely no supernatural help. Perhaps, being a product of Orwell's imagination, Winston would fit his own creator's idea of a hero. George Orwell himself defined heroism as “ordinary people doing whatever they can to change social systems that do not respect human decency, even with the knowledge that they can’t possibly succeed.” This definition seems more appropriate for a modern day man and woman, but is that what Winston Smith …show more content…
Did Winston succeed in changing the system? Absolutely not. Did he try? That is debatable. What really clarifies Winston's standing as a hero is his motive. Winston did not show much desire to change the system because it did not respect human decency—He wanted to change the system because it did not respect his own decency. It seems quite likely that, given the opportunity, Winston would be satisfied if he could extract himself, and only himself, from the grasp of the Party. One may be able to conclusively say that Winston was not a hero. Winston is human. With no help, mortal or otherwise, and no special characteristics, can readers really expect him to be spectacular? Maybe he was not meant to be anyone's savior—maybe he was not hero at all, but that does not make him less admirable. There is admirability in his questioning and in his desire to be happy. He is still emulatble and one can learn from his mistakes. He shows readers that not all misfortune can be resolved, and if everyone is expected to be a hero, is anyone