The other day Doug Mataconis mused over why superheroes were so commonly orphans. My answer is that it’s a storytellling convention that goes back at least 4,000 years and probably much farther. Here’s a partial list of historical and literary heroes who were either “sons of the widow” or foundlings, each dating from 1,000 years ago or more:
Sargon the Great
Horus
Tammuz
Moses (the story of his being found in the bulrushes is a retelling of the earlier story of Sargon the Great)
Cyrus the Great
Theseus
Perseus
Oedipus
Romulus and Remus
Jesus of Nazareth
Muhammad
Andal
Arthur
Parzifal
The list is practically endless. Why? I suppose one answer would be “because that’s the way it happened.” My response would be that there are vast numbers of details about those individuals that are not considered important enough to report. Why is it important that they are “sons of the widow” or foundlings?
It’s also been suggested that it makes it easier for the storyteller who doesn’t have to explain their relationships with their families. I don’t think that stands up to scrutiny, either—the detail could merely be omitted.
I think the reason is that it’s a shorthand notation for growing up under conditions of extreme deprivation and adversity. Being the son of a widowed mother or a foundling was not uncommon but, conditions being what they were, it meant that the child would have a difficult life. It’s something that most people would readily understand. Heroes have not only survived great adversity but risen above it in triumph.
It allows people to rise farther, relatively. The story of Mitt Romney isn’t that compelling because he was born to a relatively high station. Bill Clinton’s personal story is much more compelling because he was born to much rougher circumstances. Clinton went farther in life, even if Romney does get elected President.
Also, I guess people have always loved underdog stories. (They don’t always love underdogs in real life, however.)
I think there is a related concept, which is the dramatic revelation of birthright. I’ve read a lot of the Andrew Lang Fairy Book with my daughter the last few years, and one of the most common tropes in Western Fairy Tales is that any commoner in a fairy tale is going to be revealed to be a Prince or Princess by the end. Superman does not realize he is an orphan, he’s just an ordinary kid raised by the Kents until he is revealed to be something more. Arthur I believe knew he was adopted, but was unaware that he was heir to the King; not sure about what Jesus or Moses knew of their birthright. Did Hercules know his father was Zeus?
Anyway these stories don’t necessarily follow a heroic trajectory of overcoming life’s obstacles. They tend to be more in the nature of ordinary people, possessing an unknown birthright of power or social standing. Its more in the nature of wish-fulfilment.
Hercules is kind of an odd case. He was delivered at the same time as his half-brother, who had a different father, his mother’s husband. By some accounts Hercules didn’t know the score until he started getting beat up on by Hera. Apparently, being queen of the gods gives you access to DNA testing.
Jeepers, I haven’t read the Andrew Lang collections for 60 years! I was sick a lot as a young child, did an enormous amount of reading then, among them as many of the Andrew Lang collections as I could put my hands on.
OT- Dave or Drew- What is your norm in expected benefits paid out as a percentage of salary? Is it changing? How much does it vary over low, medium and high wage earners?
Steve
The rule of thumb used to be 30%. That was an average. I don’t have any firsthand experience of compensation determination for high wage earners.
Steve
Dave is correct, given my experience. In my opinion, about 30%. That’s up from the previous rule of thumb of 25%, say, 10 years ago. The major change occurring right now is Obamacare. Our HR managers aren’t quite sure what to make of it all, because it’s all so convoluted and untested. But it looks like another 5% as a result. For example, in our firm it’s another 3.8% for sure.
These numbers of course scale. But I generally t hunk in terms of lower to mid level employees we routinely hire at portfolio companies. Officer level employees cut all sorts of special deals, including equity incentive comp, so they don’t really count.
PS
So when you think about it, benefits are a huge portion of comp. they have become an integral component in employment decisions.
Thanks guys. Ours run a bit higher, but we do it on purpose. Making a presentation soon and just wanted to confirm. The BLS puts the national average at 30%, but I also wondered about the trend. Benefits really kill me as I have to have a certain number of positions staffed at all times. If someone goes on vacation, their work cannot wait until they come back.
Steve
C’mon, St eve. Just tell the patients to take two aspirin and call you in the morning.
😉