Reflections

I thought all of the presentations were rather interesting. Some people put a lot of work into theirs, and most had at least a clear summary of the paper and an interesting visual aid. Overall I would consider them very successful.

One of the ones I was most drawn to was Matt Leagre’s presentation about V for Vendetta. I have read the graphic novel and seen the movie, and I love both of them. Matt did an excellent job putting together ideas from the book, and I liked his use of the movie clip, even if it does not exactly follow the end of the actual graphic novel. However, Matt’s presentation was also interesting because he discussed the qualities of an antihero, which was I myself did in the presentation. I found the ties between our presentations interesting, and would like to read Matt’s paper in more detail to see if we analyzed our antiheroes in similar ways.

Steve Nisi’s presentation was also interesting because he chose a topic that did not necessarily lend itself obviously to the hero cycle, and so he had to stretch his ideas and the text in order to make the steps of the hero’s journey match up. This shows, though, that almost every story follows to one extent or another the hero’s cycle, and with a creative mind and a little wiggle room you can find the connections.

I also enjoyed Batu’s presentation on Batman and all of the others I saw, and I enjoyed learning more about the various aspects of the hero’s journey and applications of the hero cycle to various works, and can’t wait to see the remaining presentations.

Presentation (a bit late)

My presentation is going to be over my second paper, the topic of which was a comparison of the antihero qualities of the underground narrator in Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground and the protagonist of Andre Gide’s novel The Immoralist, named Michel. I plan on giving a brief overview of each novel and each character, discussing Michel and The Immoralist more heavily because the class should be familiar with Notes from Underground. As for visual aid, there does not seem to be much to do except make a PowerPoint with various insertions of text to illustrate specific points, perhaps accompanied by pictures of the novels, the authors, and maybe illustrations. It will likely depend on what I can find online.

I will discuss why I chose this topic, probably mentioning my intense interest in Dostoyevsky’s life and works, and the recommendation of The Immoralist by the esteemed Ms. LaMagdeleine. The comparison between the two works, thought up in collaboration between myself and noted educator, was of great promise and seemed interesting to me at the time.

The first example I will probably draw from the text would be my direct comparisons of the females in the two novels, Liza and Marceline, and their impact on the antihero qualities of the two protagonists. Any quote will do, and a lengthier explanation will be brought out as deemed appropriate and as time allows. The second example would be a direct comparison of two quotes, one from Michel on the uselessness of reason and morality and a similar one by the Underground Man.

Female Heroes

To be honest, it is difficult to think of very many contemporary, or historical, female heroes. Society at large does not support them nearly as much as male heroes, and even when women rise above the general populace, they still tend to take a backseat to a male hero. In example, batgirl and supergirl are little more than sidekicks to their respective superhero men. However, there are a few examples of female heroes in modern culture. One heroine, less popular now, is wonder woman. An independent hero, Wonder woman uses strength and skill to defeat enemies. She is not disguised as a man in the slightest, and in fact her feminine features are exaggerated. This could be viewed as positive because she does not have to hide that she is a woman, or negative because she is highly sexualized; the feminine features that are exaggerated could appear to make wonder woman nothing more than a sex object. Another heroine in modern culture is Samus Aran, a fixture in many video games. Samus takes the opposite approach, hiding all feminine qualities behind an all-encompassing suit of armor. She does not appear to be female, and she is not nearly as sexualized as wonder woman is. Again, this appearance could be interpreted multiple ways. Samus Aran is purely powerful; with no sex characteristics she rises above typical feminine stereotypes to be much more like a traditional hero. However, one could also argue that Samus achieves this because she is disguising herself as a man, or at least losing all gender characteristics. It could easily be argued that she is becoming a hero only by failing to remain a woman.

Batman

There are elements of Batman’s character that put him into any of the three archetypes we have discussed. Primarily, he is the archetypal hero. His journey, set out mainly in Batman Begins, follows quite closely the nine steps of a typical hero. He has an unusual birth, being rich and watching his parents murdered. He has a mystic weapon in his suit and crime-fighting gadgets, a spiritual guide in Alfred, and crosses the threshold when he learns to fight and dons the mask, becoming Batman In general, he is a physically and financially gifted individual who uses his abilities and assets to empower himself to fight evil. He captures criminals and generally cleans up the streets of Gotham City, saving lives and making noble decisions that would classify him as a hero. These qualities, his journey, and his decisions would generally classify him as an archetypal hero.

However, there are elements to suggest he is a tragic hero and an anti-hero as well. Batman is an anti-hero in that he completes noble actions, but does not necessarily act like a gentleman or even a nice guy while he does them. He often beats criminals senseless, and does not always treat the common people well, as evidenced in the first scene when he ties up and leaves for arrest vigilantes mimicking him, even though they, too, are trying to do good. Batman is also a tragic hero because, at the end of the movie, he falls from grace. Even though he has everything going for him, his decision to take the blame for Harvey Dent turns him into an outcast, a fallen idol who everyone despises. This fall from respect and glory classifies the normally victorious Batman as a tragic hero.

Spiteful Man

I find it interesting that the Underground Man is taking the path he is in this sequence. For a man who said he could never act, we see him taking action. He invites himself to, attends, and then basically ruins the party of his friends. He borrows money and chases them into the night. He even initiates a conversation with a whore he meets. All from the man who is now frozen in inaction, contemplating potential paths he could choose.

And yet, in another way, his actions meet exactly with his claims in part one. The underground man is fulfilling his role as a mouse, being taunted and humiliated by stronger and better people, bearing the assault in order to hold some vain hope of vengeance. He is taking pleasure in his own degradation, one of the common themes of his discussions in the first part. He is driving himself into humiliation and shame simply because he can, and seems to find some perverse pleasure in the process. When he finds his friends have left the house of ill fame, the Underground Man’s sedentary nature asserts itself in his happiness at their departure. Throughout he had wished for vengeance, but was relieved when he did not actually have to follow through.

The Underground Man is living through the terrible shame that drove him underground, and we see in his choices leading to that fall the character traits he assigns himself in part one. He is feeble, weak, and jealous. Even more than that he is a spiteful man, degrading himself and others in a pathetic attempt to revenge himself for a perceived wrong.

Rooster

Rooster is a federal marshal. A lawman. He is employed by the government to search out, capture, and bring into custody criminals of all sorts. When he first appears in True Grit, he is just returning from an apparently very successful raid, having captured a great deal of criminals. Obviously he is very successful, though his methods are called into question in the next scene when an attorney questions Rooster while he is on the stand. The viewer learns that in his nearly four years as a federal marshal, he has killed twenty-three men, and presumably shot many more. He is accused of murdering the family of the defendant at the trial in cold blood, though Rooster claims he only killed them in self-defense. Either way, Rooster is suspect.

His personality and appearance do not endear Rooster to the viewer any more than his suspicious conduct. Rooster is large, rough looking, and wears a large eye patch that makes him appear vaguely sinister. His personality matches his less than refined appearance. He is rude, ignoring Mattie Ross when she attempts to get his attention while he brings in prisoners. He is gruff at the trial, almost refusing to answer the questions of the attorney questioning him. He also appears unrepentant about the many lives he has taken.

Despite all of the factors that suggest Rooster is a very unsavory character, we know he is a noble man by his profession (and the synopsis of the plot). He is an anti-hero, doing good using methods that are at the very least questionable. He is, regardless of anything, a powerful man and a powerful character.

The Underground Man

The underground man is an outcast, an anathema, driven to a decrepit hovel on the outskirts of Petersburg where he sits and maligns the world around him. He no longer works, and is sustained by an inheritance he received from a dead relative. Before he quit working he was a worker in the government service, where he was intentionally rude to the petitioners who came to see him. To all appearances he is a grim and hateful man who finds enjoyment only in his own degradation. He believes himself cleverer than everyone around him, and yet he envies the stupid, direct men and women who can single-mindedly and peacefully take action.

However, the underground man is brilliant, and has made real discoveries about the human condition. He has also realistically approached himself, stripping away false pride and seeing himself for what he truly is, a mélange of a hero and an insect. He sees himself as a mouse, a man who is not truly a man because he refuses to answer injustice, but merely bears ignominious (haha) insults and despises the world from a corner, content to attempt petty revenge that is doomed to injure the one seeking revenge than the one he is seeking revenge upon.

The underground man is a recluse and a hermit, but he is one honestly seeking to understand himself and the world around him. He has been hurt by the cruelties of the world, but is accepting and understanding of his pain. He seeks retribution, but he knows this is petty, and accepts that. He is above all a man who understands and accepts himself. I like him, the underground man. He is not a man I would want to know, but he is a man I desperately want to hear the thoughts of. This book will do.