http://www.iuinfo.indiana.edu/HomePages/022699/text/groslouis.htm
In this article, the writer is holding an interview. The questions revolve around what the man being interviewed, a professor named Ken Gros Louis, considers a hero and how he believes the definition of a hero has changed over time in both real life and in literature. While reading this interview think about the following:
Does Gros Louis make a good arguement as to how he defines a hero?
Do you agree with his criteria?
The article says: "...everyday heroes don't impact society enough to really rise to the level of the kind of hero that various cultures admire." Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
Who would you consider to be the main literary heros from books you have read?
Anthony Springer, Sammi Schecht and Elizabeth Mercer
I like his point about how the definition of a tragic hero is ever changing with society. This makes me think of the article we read in class about how there are no 'true' heroes anymore and leads me to believe this is just an opinion because the heroes we watched and experienced in the past are completely different from the ones of today, it doesn't make them more or less a hero to me, just different. I also think he is implying a difference between social heroes who we enjoy for entertainment and real life heroes who help us out everyday. I also see an implied emphasis on the importance of social heroes due to their popularity and recognition over everyday heroes like police, firefighters etc.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the tragic hero is always changing and the representations of political figures should looked be considered heroes I also have some things i disagree with; like that a heroes need to do heroic things multiple times. I think that if a person does just one heroic thing but they do it out of complete selflessness, then they can be considered a hero. Of course, that is more of an idea of current heroism and not the tragic hero, as described in the article. When i think about tragic hero i would definitely agree that we currently don't really have examples of them. Stories, novels, real life isn't full with drama of those sorts. I would be nice to have more heroes in our world but as of now i hope the everyday heroes, like Carissa Polk mentioned, will keep up the good work and put others' lives before their own lives.
ReplyDeleteI think this article points out the importance of the historical backgrounds when defining the hero. Although there is a classic definition, it is not the only criteria to define a hero. And I think the definition is getting broader and broader. I kind of don’t agree with the claim that everyday heroes are not influential enough. I think everyday heroes could be good role models who inspire people to do something good to the society. However, I completely agree that the hero we need today is someone who can make us feel more secure, especially when the nation is facing a fiscal catastrophe or a natural disaster.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Gros defined what a hero should be in his opinion and well explained for it. As he said, hero should be one "who inspires our confidence and trust, who represents the highest values of civilization and who can communicate those values to others, and who has a good sense of self and of his or her responsibility to others." I agree with him that heroes should be able to convey proper thoughts and impact the sense of value for people significantly, but not just sacrifice to save others. And I partly agree with his idea about everyday heroes. However, I think maybe they are not heroes in general, we shouldn't ignore their contribution to human beings as well. Prometheus in Greek mythology could be a hero. He created fire and spread the culture of fire for human beings, and was prisoned for this behavior that broke the rules.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Gros Louis' criteria, including his statements about how "everyday heroes" don't really have enough of an impact to be considered hero by society. Although random acts of heroism by people may go unnoticed and sometimes unrecognized, it is still important to go through with these acts. This is because it does not really matter how many people you impact with your "heroism", as long as you make an impact in at least one person in some sort of positive way. As for the general definition of a hero over time, I think that heroes have changed significantly is many different aspects, such as style and the type of heroism they pursue. I would also agree that present day society needs a hero who will not only boost confidence and trust, but will also relate to everyday heroes in some way so that they will continue to do good in larger numbers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Louis when he says that the definition of heroes changes with the culture. I also agree with him when he says that everyday heroes do not impact society enough to be the kind of heroes various cultures admire, but that doesn't mean that we still can't admire them. I believe that if someone saves just one life it's an amazing and heroic deed even if they aren't praised by everyone. From books I have read, I would consider the three kids in the Narnia series to be heroes. I would also consider Albus Dumbledore to be a hero because he is an awesome wizard, and if it weren't for him Voldemort probably would have taken over everything.
ReplyDeleteI agree his view that the definition of the tragic hero change over time and have various definitions due to the different historical background, because there are different things asked by people at their time. I also agree the sentence abstracted from the article that everyday heroes do not have enough impact on the society since the question raised by Home Page has already defined everyday hero as people who try to do right thing and bring out the best of themselves. This kind of people can be treated as hero but cannot have the affect cross cultures. Nowadays the world is becoming flat and so does the view of world. But when it comes to definition of hero which is related to the core value of that culture, there must be differences which distinguish each culture from others. It just works the same way that the definitions of hero vary from one age to another.
ReplyDeleteLouis makes a good case for what he believes is a hero and I like that his definition is for a modern hero. He talks about how the definition of a hero is constantly changing over history so it makes sense that the hero we need today is different than the classical interpretation. However, it is kind of funny that he basically describes Superman. And he is right when he says that everyday heroes don't impact our lives enough to inspire our entire culture but that doesn't degrade the actions of these people at all. They are all still heroes who deserve our respect, but it takes a lot to be put on the same pedastal as Ghandi and Mother Theressa.
ReplyDeleteI think that Louis makes a valid point. The definition is constantly changing. Things that were considered heroic in the 1960s wouldn't necessarily be considered heroic nowadays. Everyday heroes do impact our lives but they don't necessarily get noticed for their deeds. I agree with Damieon witht he literary heroes of today. However I think that book like the ones James Patterson writes with Homicide Detectives Alex Cross and Lindsey Boxer could also be considered heroic. Their titles sort of imply their heroic deeds and their actions back it up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what Gros Louis says and think that he points out many interesting things that I have not though of before. I think that it is interesting how he shows how heros have changed throughout time. The question that I liked most was the one about heroines. Its interesting to look at how there were no real heroines but that the woman instead influenced or helped the male heros. When talking about the kinds of heros we need today, I couldn't agree with Louis more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yuqin when she said the definition of a hero is becoming broader and broader. With that being said, I agree with the statement that everyday heroes aren't admired by cultures as a whole. It is true that the definition of a hero is different to everyone and although it is ever-changing, there haven't been many figures recently that would be considered a hero to different multiple cultures. However, it is hard to be compared to people like the Pope of Ghandi.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Louis's opinion about the change of tragic heroes. I also know that the definition of heroes is variable with time going on, because our values and views of things are changing all the time. It is true that compared to the past we don't have as many as heroes who can make a significant influence among the society. Instead of sitting here and complaining about the hero problem, we would like to make "heroes" more ordinary and touchable. I think we will lose the belief or dream of good things if we don't have some persons to admire. Compared to the need of heroes to support and recognize them, I think people do need heroes more.
ReplyDeleteThis article sort of confused me. Louis talks about the hero in society and how there are specific guidelines for modern heroes, but to me this doesnt make much sense. To me, a hero is whatever a person wishes to belive in. If somebody believes that a person is a hero for no reason at all, then so be it. Everybody has their own definition of a hero and I think it is just difficult to set guidelines and say "this is what a hero is today".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake. This article was confusing to me because it started out as old time heroes such as those fictional in Greek Mythology then we jumped to American heroes and how he cannot think of any in our society. I do not necessarily believe in his criteria of a hero. I think he was too critical and thought there was a lot more that goes into a hero than I think because personally I think a lot of people in our American Culture are heroes, especially the military which he said were not. I also believe some political heroes such as specific presidents have made heroic actions. I agree with him thinking heroes are someone we trust and represents high values, but I do not agree with everything else. I thought his idea of heroes were kind of depressing and I wish he thought more of modern-day heroes, than just older literary ones.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Gros Louis opinion about what he defined "tragic hero". Because this kind of definition was depends on the interpretation of what history is. Different times of history, different definitions of hero. While as Yuqin said that the definition is getting broader and broader. There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. The definition really depends on people's own opinion. What we need hero today is someone could give us safety and courage. And we do need hero in current society.
ReplyDeleteI think the author's definition of hero is generally right but not exact enough as he use more words to describe a hero but not define. I agree with his idea that the value of culture and society play a big role in defining a hero. But he did not answer the question clearly about who he thinks is a hero nowadays. He just gives examples of hero in history. The impact of everyday hero may not reach the achievement of a hero in history, but I really think the impact of all the everyday heroes affect as equally as the hero in traditional way.
ReplyDelete