With a bit of luck those thirty three miners trapped deep in the earth in Chile since August 5 will soon be back above ground.

I have to be honest. I try not to think about their plight too closely. I'm not fond of enclosed spaces. I wouldn't go down a mine easily in the first place. The idea that they might be trapped there in some dreadful accident, spend days fearing the outside world had given up on them, be detected alive... then told it could be Christmas before they might be rescued...

The whole thing beggars belief. I doubt many people can appreciate the dreadful rollercoaster ride of emotions those men have been through, along with their loved ones on the surface. It's a miracle they were found, and a miracle their release seems to be happening before schedule.

<!--more-->An amazing media circus is already assembling to witness the event. The BBC alone are reported to <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318790/BBC-sends-team-25-cover-Chilean-rescue-escape-shaft-expected-break-Saturday.html" target="_blank">have sent no fewer than twenty five staff</a> to cover it (which seems a bit excessive to me frankly).

Now let me make a prediction. When these brave chaps finally do reach the surface you won't be able to move for the word 'hero'. Don't be offended but here's a worthwhile question: is it used accurately in this context? No one doubts these men have shown extraordinary courage and fortitude during an ordeal that would break many others (me among them). But are they really heroes?

Well, a lot more than many of those who get the tag. I've seen minor celebs described as heroes for winning talent contests, footballers labelled heroes for nothing more than scoring an important goal. Yet the more we misuse words the less meaning they carry. So what does 'hero' actually mean?

In a sense, like any other word, precisely what people believe it to mean. If you feel a pop singer who triumphs against adversity really is a hero, then he or she probably is, to you anyway.

But I feel a bit old-fashioned here. Consider a couple of definitions from Dictionary.com
<blockquote>a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.</blockquote>
They seem pretty sound to me. Being brave, being decent, being exceptional are not enough. Heroes do heroic things. They save kids. They jump into rivers to rescue a drowning dog even though, sometimes, they can't swim themselves.

That word 'deed' is important. There's something active about being a hero. They may be dashing -- a knight in shining armour. They may be ordinary -- the guy from round the corner who finds something special inside him. It doesn't matter. What matters is they don't sit still. They <em>act.</em>

Heroism comes from choice, from some determination a man or woman finds inside them, sometimes to their surprise, sometimes to their displeasure. Heroes elect to be what they are, and that's important. They make themselves out of the circumstances around them.

I'll never forget a friend of mine who had a serious medical condition -- now happily cured, but very bad for a while -- grumping about how many people patted him on the back for his bravery in putting up with all the operations and nasty tests that came his way.

'I'm not a hero,' he moaned to me once. 'It's not as if I have a choice.'

If I'm being picky I'd say those miners fit the same description. Incredibly brave, they deserve all the admiration and praise that's going to come their way. And I suspect too academics and all kinds of researchers will be quietly talking to them for years to find out how they managed their ordeal so well.

But 'heroes'? This takes nothing from them, but if I'm being pedantic the answer's probably... no.