Foster makes a good point in
saying “it’s easier to introduce characters without imperfections.” After
considering this statement, it is much easier to tell when that potential
greatness is present. If J.K. Rowling hadn’t given Harry the scar,
the death of his parents, and all the hardship he faced, it would have been
significantly easier to get to the point where Harry is at Hogwarts and becomes
a wizard. Eliminating his hardship would diminish his greatness though, not to mention
make the story much less interesting, so J.K. Rowling clearly had a purpose in detailing
Harry’s unfortunate past.
It
seems that in a great number of cases the “mark” for greatness originates from
something negative, such as a troubled past, a physical disability, or some
other hardship. To achieve greatness, the characters must overcome the
hardship. This form of “marking” for future success is very relatable to
reality. In the real world, people are admired for overcoming adversity. In
literature, there are the other cases of “marked for greatness” in which the “mark”
is some trait that did not derive
from past adversity, such as a girl with purple hair (I couldn’t think of a
better example) or someone being great just because they were born that way. It’s
obvious which stories of greatness we prefer, however. Who wants to hear about
someone who already has a great life who then, for no reason at all, becomes
even more endowed than before? I
think that the general consensus is that people like to hear about underdogs
who beat the odds and become something wonderful. After all, that’s exactly what
people strive to do in the real world; beat the odds of finding success in such
a cut-throat and competitive society. The achievement of greatness we see in
literature inspires people, particularly because we are all working towards the
happy endings that exist in the stories about those “marked for greatness.”
