We are all heros?

Today in ap Literature class, we discussed and watched a video about what makes a hero. Generally it is some who leaves their ordinary life to do something extraordinary to save the lives of people, ideas, and beliefs. Commonly we tend to think of them as the good guys, but in order for one to gain the status of a hero one must engage in a transition from normality into an amazing individual. The video also discussed about how culture changes the qualifications of a hero, and I was wondering does each society have their own distinct hero type or are they all generalized to the standard saving humanity type of people?

According to Joseph Campbell in order for a hero to become a hero, they must first embark on adventure, either willingly to accept fate, thrown into it by chance, or embarking on it in order to find something. Journey this journey the hero usually experiences a rebirth where he/she realizes comes out of a depression with a realization of what their purpose for the journey is.  This is the point where the person actually crosses into the field of adventure, leaving the known limits of his or her world and venturing into an unknown and dangerous realm where the rules and limits are not known. When analyzing Harry Potter Harry doesn’t officially become heroic until he sacrifices himself for the good of others, he must first be killed by Voldimort in order to gain the realization needed to defeat him. Another important step for becoming a hero is experiencing the belly of the whale which represents the final separation from the hero's known world and self. It is sometimes described as the person's lowest point, but it is actually the point when the person is between or transitioning between worlds and selves. The separation has been made, or is being made, or being fully recognized between the old world and old self and the potential for a new world/self. This is where we stopped the video!

One comment brought up by Joseph Campbell is that as culture changes so do the expectations for the hero, I was wondering is that really true or do we assimilate the previous morals into the ones we have today when we define the hero. I believe the true definition of a hero never changes, but the way we classify a hero differs from each type of hero. Let’s look the generic super hero such as Captin America: he has superior strength, cunning bravery, and immense knowledge about how to defeat villains. This differs from how we view real life heroes such as Steve Jobs: he created Apple to help the public and make life easier, he has immense knowledge that can help society, and he did it out of his love for technology. When looking back on real life heroes they all have similar qualities but as time progresses we make up the standard super hero, and I want to know can the super hero count as a true hero from the Campbell definition of a hero?

Response to All The King's Men

      

For the past few weeks we have been reading and analyzing Robert Penn Warren’s novel, All the Kings Men. One of major themes throughout the novel is knowledge versus ignorance, which is a very controversial idea in this book. Jack the main character struggles with concept of truth and fact, throughout the novel he chooses to stay focused on facts rather than truth. While reading this I was intrigued to figure out what was the difference between the two and does knowledge affect how we define the truth and how we define fact. Jack’s main occupation in the novel is professional dirt searcher for the Governor of Louisiana. The whole novel is told through Jack’s flashbacks of the time he worked with Willie and the whole time it seemed he was searching for the truth. Power is also assimilated to how much knowledge someone has.

As seen in the last three chapters of the novel, truth is one of the leading causes for the down fall of Willie, Adam, and Judge Irwin. The entire novel highlights the downfall of man and how truths build up and when released all at once can lead to destruction. Many of the outside characters were attracted to Willie because of the knowledge he has, but he never accepts responsibility for the problems that his knowledge causes. I think when Jack refers to knowledge it’s almost like it’s a tangible object that one has to win, in reference to the title Knowledge is the crown owned by the king (the crown goes on your head and knowledge is inside of it: HA!) Is knowledge the truth that lead to Willie’s down fall? Well in my opinion I belief it isn’t the direct truth that caused his downfall, it’s his ability to reveal that truth is what caused his demise. Ultimately his true demise was caused by him hiding his and Anne’s affair from Adam, but throughout the novel Willie is also forced to conceal the truth from his voters. (ex: hiding his divorce from Lucy, concealing the truth about Tom and his baby mama)  Many of the minor characters were attracted to the false fisad, which gave Willie more power and likeable. The same goes for the Judge, he had been keeping his secret reimbursement with Mac Murphy, but he was seen as attractive to many of the minor characters.

Does power really relate to knowledge or is ignorance bliss when it comes to politics? Willie’s power was merely based off of the ignorance of society and the linage he had to make mistakes and not have society realize that he had made a mistake. But within the center of politics knowledge holds the power to control the entire dynamics within policies and constituencies. So can power be dictate by ignorance. This novel presents the idea the ignorance is needed for knowledge to flourish. Knowledge is definitely a type of power because it can definitely be used to influence and attract people towards one’s beliefs.

Nora's social delimas... and do they carry on today

This past week in AP lit we have be analyzing Ibsen’s play, Doll’s House, we have focused on how society defines the individual. The society appears affluent and agreeable enough for those who can operate in it successfully. The Helmers have a very nice home and are looking forward to even more commodious living once Torvald gets his appointment. There is room here to celebrate Christmas with presents, to employ servants, to play music, to enjoy all sorts of creature comforts, and to celebrate with one's friends. Many of the most cherished ideals of middle-class life, then and now, are clearly on display. Nora, the main character in the story, is faced with dilemma of tarnishing her family’s pure societal reputation by leaving her family to find what it means to be an individual or stay with her husband to keep up this facade of this perfect marriage to conform to social morals. Outside the warmth of the house, the world is bitterly cold, full of snow. There is here no consoling sense that nature offers any alternative to society: nature here is brutal, a symbolic extension of the wintry life outside the respectable social group. Throughout the novel there is a clear separation between the inside of the Helmer home and the outside world. The conflict is that Nora lives in this doll’s house facade but wants to find a way to get out and defy society’s standards. Back in the day It wasn’t okay for women to live their life without a man, it wasn’t okay for them to abandon their children, but what I want to discuss is, have those moral changed or are women today obliged to stick to those same morals.

In the play Nora’s internal issue is that she doesn’t know herself as an individual and when she is faced with the harsh reality of society she doesn’t know how to handle it because she has been hidden away from society by her husband. Are women still hidden by society’s expectations? At the time this play was released to be performed people were so appalled and angry at the play because it ended with Nora sacrificing her family to go off and find herself. Today it usually reverse we go and find our self before jumping into finding family, but eventually we are pressured into creating a family. Society today I think still set social obligations for each gender and it’s hard to become an individual when there are so many pressures to find perfection, but how do we determine what society portrays as perfect. I also don’t understand why people stick those standards when society has so many moral flaws.

Nora’s story presents a controversy about self versus society, and which one we should follow when it comes to determining our lives. Nora’s dilemma also reveals a huge flaw within the perfect image of family that society imposes on people to follow. The perfection that people strive for is fake it’s a facade that people strive for because society has such a huge influence on some individual views.