Presentations

I learned a lot from these presentations. Projects like Jim's were pretty good. I knew about the mystical weapon but when he analyzed it and talked about the different and deep mythologies each weapon has before it reaches the hero. That was pretty neat. Similarly, Kyle's thesis that we all want a mystic weapon but don't want our enemies to have one was intriguing as well. I think my favorite presentation thus far was Steve Nisi's because I am a big fan of Catcher in the Rye. I've only read it one time, but his presentation was definitely entertaining. He and I basically had the same thesis or paper, where we applied the traditional hero's cycle to an alternative character, but I think his was probably more insightful than mine. Henry also had a great presentation. I am also a big fan of film noir and his idea that the protagonist or the detective in these films doesn't change, while the events and situations around him to do was quite insightful. It is true, the classic detective doesn't change and that's pretty cool, especially compared to another typical hero that learns a moral and becomes a nicer person throughout the course of the story.

Presentation

Gosh...another homework assignment. I'm going to talk about Napoleon Dynamite and the paper I wrote about on his hero's journey. I'm doing this because I felt that this was the more creative of the two papers. While possibly interesting at times and enjoyable for me to write, it does not take much imagination to write the paper on the application of Underground Man's logic and its affects on the world of batman. Really, it just takes a knowledge and understanding of some of the characters in Batman. I pride myself on the Napoleon Dynamite paper for the fact that it was a difficult idea to write about and there were some stretches I had to make in order to prove some of the points I was trying to make. On that note, I am a little bit disappointed in my paper. The style I used in writing it wasn't great and other things. I guess that paper was a prime example of a good, unique idea, but the execution wasn't that good. I think my Batman paper will be more polished and better written, but a less enjoyable project and certainly not as ambitious as my previous essay.

Female Heroes

There are many female heroes. Princess Leia, Wonder Woman, Jean Grey, etc., just to give a few examples. Unfortunately, though, these characters are often underdeveloped or passed on for more established and known male characters. There are plenty of examples in film or literature where women are empowered. For example, in the original Star Wars, there is an expedition led to rescue Princess Leia. In fact though, once Han, Luke, and Chewie "rescue" Leia, they are about to be killed and the whole mission is for nothing. But in fact, Leia ends up saving them, gets them out of trouble, and is arguably a better shot than the rest of the group. Interestingly enough, in Japanese anime, many of the stories center around female protagonists. It seems as though in America and the west, not always, but often times when there's a an action film or a male-type role played by a female, it seems inauthentic and forced. I think that regular women need to behind the empowerment movements, and not some corporate executive. We do value our female heroes, a we do value them being women, but i think we can more appreciate them for being heroes. We're able to look beyond their gender and just see them as heroes. This is better than just focusing in their womanhood. We like Samuel L. Jackson, and it may be an issue, but we don't see him as a black man. We see him as an iconic actor. Sure his heritage affects some of the things he does, but we don't think of him just being good because he's black, but because he's talented. He just happens to be black.

Batman

Batman is a combination of all of the types of heroes that we've discussed in class. He is the archetypal hero, as we see through examples of the heroes' journey. (Alfred, Bat-gadgets, problems with his parents, etc.) He's also an anti-hero because of his methods of taking the law into his own hands. But if I were to make case for what type of hero Batman is, I would say he isn't a hero or that he is the tragic hero. He's a tragic hero because he'll never be able to complete his journey. he won't kill these villains, thus they'll keep retuning to haunt him. He can stop their schemes from occurring, but he's still at their discretion. Also, batman has made it his life's mission, he has dedicated his all to it, (even his alter-ego of Bruce Wayne is a tool utilized by Batman), but the thing is, Batman creates his villains. They are all fixed on him and all of these characters are drawn to Gotham out of some sort of fixation on the Caped Crusader. At some point, their lives were all molded somehow by Batman. You could also argue that Batman is not a hero, and in fact he is just as crazy as the Joker, or Two-Face, or Killer Croc, or whoever. And really, batman could stop all of this mayhem, but due to his own beliefs, he is actually causing more harm to Gotham than good. batman is just as insane as his villains, but just due to luck, he fights on the side of the law and not with his villainous counterparts, but hte essence of Batman and his rogues are all the same.

Underground Man

The Underground Man seems to be a bit inauthentic to me. Earlier in the book, he acts as if he is superior to everybody and we get the impression that he quite reclusive, seeing as how he has locked himself away in his home in St. Petersburg, with only his stenched maid for company and human (lack of)interaction. While he states these things about people and creating the illusion of being above culture and interaction he in fact isn't. Even from the very beginning of the story, underground man is quite self conscious. I remember in class we were discussing how he is ashamed of some of his qualities and tries to make them seem less applicable to himself than they actually are, or how underground man is quite self conscious of himself and tries to tailor things to the reader. But in this latest reading, I find that the actions he takes contradict this image he has created for himself. In my opinion, underground man's actions all derive from some sort of desire to be accepted or recognized. We see this with the prostitute or with the soldier. He is rebelling or anti-conformity for the sake of being different and not necessarily because these actions are what would be naturally instinctual for him.

Rooster Cogburn

Rooster Cogburn is the hero that we admire. He's the guy we want to be, but are afraid to become. We like his ruthlessness and his basic B.A. factor, but we also secretly admire the fact that he's a hero. Because he aids the good guys in the film we love him, but had he been the antagonist we would deplore the very same characteristics of Cogburn that we love in him now. After our initial meetings with Rooster, we see that he is most certainly not afraid to inflict a little kick ass on a convict or two, but we also get a glimpse into a softer side of Rooster. When Cogburn states that he killed all of those men because he had to, we believe him. And because he was forced to kill, we are admire and praise him all the more. I know that he'll come off as a villain at times, and will most likely have conflicting views with Mattie, but ultimately the good guys will win, Rooster and Mattie both will have transformed or evolved some how, and Rooster will go off and do something that might seem bad at the moment, but will ultimately end up being a great deed later on after it's initially completed.

Notes From Underground

The underground man is this constantly pondering man of inaction. He resides with his distinctly odorous servant around the Russian city of St. Pertersburg. Quite critical in nature, there is hardly anything I can find that he does in fact enjoy or respect. He does not even like himself completely, or at least he is ashamed of some of his qualities. I understand this to be true due to the part in the story when the underground man exhibits some sort of a caring tendency or nature, but is quick to detour he reader from this into again, a more critical view or opinion on said topic. At first glance, one would assume the underground man is an egomaniac, but I believe him to be quite insecure about himself and longs for positive recognition and acceptance. Underground man is always referring directly to the reader and I am positive he is trying to make himself seem more sane and omniscient to a more skeptical or less understanding reader. I like underground man. I like him a lot. Dostoyevsky, I mean Underground man, is somebody I agree with and can relate to, as pretentious as that sounds. I do agree with a lot, not all, but many of his observations, especially the ones that we would classify as wrong or "bad", but we know are true, but we're just to afraid to articulate and make real.