Here’s the my rough draft of my senior exit project. I don’t have the intro, conclusion, or a couple of other paragraphs, but now you can just get a sneak peek. The works cited page is attached, if you are interested. Read it if you dare!
(Intro)
The idea to make a clear and precise formula that nearly all heroes follow is not something new. In fact, one of the most famous examples of an already written hero cycle is the one created by Joseph Campbell. In his world-renowned book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell sets up and explains how every hero follows the same basic path until he/she winds up back at the beginning and another cycle begins. “The mythical hero…is lured…to the threshold of adventure…journeys through a world of unfamiliar yet strangely intimate forces…undergoes a supreme ordeal…” and then returns back to his home either a hero and changed person or a coward and disgrace (Campbell 211). The “threshold of adventure” (Campbell 211) discussed in the passage is the line that separates the average from the great. Every hero, if he wants to become a true hero, must pass through it in order to cross the line from a normal human to an extreme being that is capable of achieving such greatness. Once the hero-to-be has crossed over the threshold mark, there must be challenges, “tests” (Campbell 210), or “trials” (Campbell 81) to try to hinder the hero’s progress. These obstacles are there to help weed out even more people from the already small number of beings that were able to pass the great line. After the challenges are dealt with in some sort of fashion, a transformation takes place that “signifies that the hero is a superior man” (Campbell 148). The full potential of the person has finally been revealed and he can now begin his journey home to either help his society or continue on with his life however he may choose. This theory stands strong for almost every myth but it does exclude a lot those who do not choose to follow the “good” path or complete the cycle.
These people who crossed the line that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary but never returned as heroes are often forgotten or talked about in less-than-respected tones. However, they were able to go where normal humans couldn’t, and therefore processed the ability to be great, and so something should be said for them. Fyodor Dostoevsky finally gives this unique set of people a name in his classic book, Crime and Punishment. According to an article the main character, Raskolnikov, writes, “’all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’’” groups (Dostoevsky 259). “Ordinary” (Dostoevsky 259) men are those who “live under control and love to be controlled” (Dostoevsky 261). They are the average, everyday people who “’have no right to transgress the law” nor the ability (Dostoevsky 259). They are the ones who never pass through Campbell’s “threshold of adventure” (211). On the other hand, those who are “extraordinary” “’have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way’” (Dostoevsky 259). Simply, “’the law is not for them’” (Dostoevsky 259). These are the potential heroes, or villains, in the world who are not always “’bound to commit breaches of morals’”, but do process the ability to “’overstep…obstacles’” in order to achieve their goals (Dostoevsky 260). This theory shows that one does not necessarily have to be good in order to be seen as a great person, one just has to be great to be seen as a truly good hero or an evil villain.
Both Campbell and Dostoevsky have amazing theories the help everyone understand the seemingly unexplainable; how heroes and great people are created. However, Campbell only focuses on those who are good and are eventually called heroes and Dostoevsky only talks about those who have already passed the line onto the extraordinary side. When these two theories from two different men, cultures, and times, are combined though, a new, more in-depth formula is created. The circular path Campbell presented is gone and now a new, pyramid-like shape takes its place. This three-step pyramid follows all of the basics of a hero’s journey, but also shows alternative routes people could follow. The first step on the pyramid is for the ordinary people, the “’simple’ people inherently incapable” (Hourihan 65) of rising above, who will witness the rise of the others and will only be able to go as far as the laws will allow them. The next step is for the extraordinary people. There is no real way to tell who’s going to become an extraordinary person; no “’signs at their birth’” or “’external definition,’”(Dostoevsky 262) but “it is obvious that the Great Man may differ from the ordinary man in degree of his gift or in kind” (Lehman 17). He may have just a “native original insight,” (Carlyle and Niemeyer 2) “extra-sensory perception,” (Hourihan 65) or some other intellectual, but seemingly invisible trait about him. So in order to make it to the second step, one must recognize their call to the threshold or line and be able to overstep it on their own. Once there, a person can either achieve some kind of positive goal that benefits society while maintaining their honor and become a hero, or fail to complete one of those tasks and just continue to live (or die) as an extraordinary being. For those few who do make it to the highest step of the pyramid, the name “hero” can finally be given to them justly and their story will probably be written into history to be forever remembered.
For those who have noticed, almost every reference to mankind has either used the word “man” or simply the pronoun “he”. This is purposely done, but not to prove a point of inferiority. When talking about mankind as a whole, women and men should be seen as equal. However, in this particular theory of heroes and extraordinary people, history has only provided male examples. Women were oppressed, put under a separate set of rules, and restricted to “limited domestic roles” (Hourihan 4) for thousands of years. It wasn’t until the 20th century that women were finally seen as full human beings and not just property in many countries. Because of these challenges, the true heroines of time have not been able to come to full light. Yes, there were incredible women in history and many of them were probably on the extraordinary step of the hero pyramid, but none of them were ever able to really overcome the last step into heroism. It’s not because they were women and lacked the ability physically or mentally, but because their societies and the separate rules men forced upon them limited them. Plus, the women who did overstep a law or rule were usually only breaking glass-ceilings and rarely broke the same moral or ethical laws that define extraordinary people and heroes. Even the women who did commit these sorts of crimes were instantly punished by death or some other extreme, whether or not they were right or justified, and were never able to reach the highest step to be seen as true heroes. Some people go as far as to say that these revolutionary women “are little more than honorary men who undertake male enterprises in a male context and display ‘male’ qualities…” (Hourihan 68). Women just haven’t had enough time in history to reach the final level and join their companions as heroes.
The same is true when talking about other races. The majority of people who are seated at the top of the pyramid are white men. This again, is not pointed out to offend anyone, but to clarify why this is so. The classic hero used in western literature is almost always “white, male, British, American, or European, and usually young” (Hourihan 9) because it was believed that “the whites are…morally superior” (Hourihan 59). Even in those few stories that did feature a “colored” character, authors only felt comfortable to say that “while black men could be noble…they could not be heroes” (Hourihan 62). For this particular theory, heroes are needed. And there are examples of ethnic heroes in the world, just like there are of women, but the most famous stories unfortunately feature only Caucasian men. In a few decades or so, hopefully this will change. The world is always looking for the next new hero and no one knows what it will look like until that time comes. Until then, though, people must make do with what they have and concentrate on the messages of heroes and not on the race or gender.
One of the most famous and simplest examples of a person who did make it to the top of the pyramid and became a legendary hero is none other than Robin Hood, or Robin of Locksley to some. This timeless tale tells the story of an “outlaw” who is constantly being chased for “robbing the rich” but is remembered as a hero because his actions were done only “to feed the poor” (Robin Hood 1973). Robin Hood starts off his heroic journey, depending on which version is watched/ read, as a generally ordinary man living in a corruptive time and place. He makes his first steps onto the extraordinary side when he both realizes Prince John is an evil man whose taxes are bringing more harm to the people of Nottingham than good and when he decides to act upon the injustice. To be extraordinary, a person can be identified “not by the words he thought were great, but by actions…which were great” (Carlyle and Niemeyer 112). Many people can see and realize something is wrong, but only those who do something about it can be considered extraordinary. After his enlightenment, Robin Hood becomes an extraordinary man and “outlaw” and is then able to commit the very basic crime, stealing, in order to save his people. Of course, when asked, “Are we good guys or bad guys?” by his companion Little John, Robin does say that they “never rob. [They] just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it” (Robin Hood 1973). What then pushes Robin to the final step of heroism is the fact that he was able to bring a positive outcome to his town and remained noble while achieving it. “Today, the concept of ‘greatness’ entails being noble” (Nietzsche 446). That means that one must remain good and just to become great. If Robin began taking profits or over-doing his job, he would lose his nobility and therefore his spot on the hero’s step. The good done is very evident in this myth, seeing how everyone in the town, even the minstrel Alan-A-Dale, insisted that “it’s a good thing he did” and “someday [Robin] will be called a great hero” (Robin Hood 1973). He may have stolen and committed a criminal act, but because he was an extraordinary man, and eventually a hero, he could justify it.
On the other side of that, though, there are some people who cannot justify their acts and can never become heroes. In the Rob Zombie movie The Devil’s Rejects, a family of serial killers is being pursued by the police from all over the state. These ‘Rejects’ are just plain evil and wrong in everything they do and everyone wants to see them put in jail and have justice prevail. It’s a good place for a great man to emerge, so the movie introduces John Wydell, the sheriff of police, who joins in the search for these killers. He takes his step from the ordinary into the extraordinary when he says he’ll hunt down the killers and bring them to justice. Now, not every policeman, fireman, or soldier is an extraordinary person just because of their title or job, but in emergency situations, many do make it to the next step of the hero pyramid. So now Wydell is an extraordinary person “who will accept no authority but [his] own” (Gane and Piero 115) and basically has a “perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes” (Dostoevsky 259). There are lines which everyone shouldn’t and, including the extraordinary crowd, can’t cross, but after a while, Wydell gives up on that idea. “I tried to walk the line but now I realize there is no line. Now we here, we are playin’ on a level that most will never see” (The Devil’s Rejects 2005). His brother was one of the many people killed by the ‘Rejects’ and so Wydell becomes obsessed with revenge more than justice. He over-uses his extraordinary abilities in order to capture the criminals, and also uses them for personal vendettas instead of thinking about the greater good. That decision to become a “devil slayer” (The Devil’s Rejects 2005) and rise above even the police cost him his honor and, in the end, his chance to make it to the hero stature. “A hero [is] a wise, gifted, noble-hearted man” (Carlyle and Niemeyer 28) and by the end of the film, Wydell possessed not one of those qualities. He still made it to the second step, but that was the highest up he’d ever go in his life.
Life isn’t always so clean-cut and easy to understand, though. There are times when the best option isn’t necessarily a ‘good’ idea. In the 1962 novel, Fail-Safe, the fictional president of the United States has to risk everything in order to keep the country from a home-front war. After a “mechanical failure,” (Burdick and Wheeler 193) a small group of bomber planes start traveling towards Russia to bomb Moscow. The President (who is never named) tries his absolute hardest to convince the Russian Premier Khrushchev that America is not attempting to “provoke war” (Burdick and Wheeler 193). Khrushchev, of course, is unable to accept this catastrophe as just an accident and tells the President he will have to fire missiles back at the United States to justify his country’s loss unless America can come up with a better idea. So it all comes down onto the President’s shoulders and he unfortunately has no other choice but to command another set of American planes to drop 4 bombs onto New York City. It was “the most sweeping and incredible decision any man had ever made, and it was a decision which he hated” (Burdick and Wheeler 266) but it was the only one he had. In this instance, the President became an extraordinary man when he saw the country needed a strong leader and accepted his call to become president. Once there, he was given opportunities that no other man could ever dream of having, like being able to command bomber planes, but he did have to use these wisely and always for the good of the people. He is a hero because “he can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice” (The Dark Knight 2008). He essentially killed an entire city, including his own family, but he did it all for the country he loved and “what is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil” (Nietzsche 444). No one ever wants to have to sacrifice anything, but only a great hero will find the strength in himself to do what is right and necessary for everyone.
So what happens when an extraordinary man fails to have a positive outcome but is able to keep his honor his whole life? Well, the lack of a good end result eliminates them from ever becoming a hero, but their honor is always noted. Unfortunately, that’s the story of Brutus, the “noblest Roman of them all,” (240) in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Brutus actually starts out his journey before the play even begins and is already extraordinary when he is first introduced. Everyone in Rome knows that “Brutus is noble, wise, valiant, and honest,” (Shakespeare 124) so saying he’s also extraordinary isn’t really a huge leap. Now, there are some other issues in Brutus’s story that also explain why he wasn’t able to justify his action of murdering Caesar. It’s really Cassius’s idea to kill Caesar, not Brutus’s, and Cassius manipulated Brutus in believing that committing this crime was necessary and “so full of good regard” (Shakespeare 130). An extraordinary man has the ability and the responsibility to look “through the show of things into things” (Carlyle and Niemeyer 45) and the fact that the Brutus was not able to see past Cassius’s deception may have actually caused Brutus to temporarily lose his extraordinary title. So then the conspirators went on and they “slew” (Shakespeare 138) Caesar only to have to turn around and flee “like madmen through the gates of Rome” (Shakespeare 155). Because Brutus was not extraordinary at the time, was under the control of Cassius, and tricked into thinking this was all “for the/ good of Rome,” (Shakespeare 138) he couldn’t justify his crime and became a just criminal. It should be noted that he did believe he was doing a good deed, “but thought is one thing, the deed is another, and the image of the deed still another” (Nietzsche 150). Caesar had yet to become tyrant so there were other actions that could have happened; murder wasn’t the only way to save Rome. Poor Brutus was never able to reach that hero status everyone believed he would have, but he did stay true to his original words, so therefore noble and extraordinary, and “I say great men are still admirable” (Carlyle and Niemeyer 11).
Now, the next heroes are even more controversial than the first few. These two men are actual murderers who are able to stay within their rights and go just far enough to become heroes. The movie phenomenon The Boondock Saints shows what happens when two brothers are somehow given the ability to kill those they deem wrong, how they are able to justify their actions, and how others react to them. Connor and Murphy start out as regular Irish guys who, while living in a mob and crime infested Boston, receive a message in a dream that tells them to “destroy all that which is evil” “so that which is good may flourish” ( The Boondock Saints 1999). This is their “call to adventure” (Campbell 210), a rare instance where it really is someone calling to them, and their step onto the extraordinary side. They decide to listen to their dream and during the next few days, Connor and Murphy find a few mob bosses and other bad men, kill them all, and “fix the situation with an iron fist” (The Boondock Saints 1999). At first their actions are seen only as murders, but then people start to see that only the criminals and corrupt are being removed from the streets and start to believe in these ‘saints’. There is one FBI agent, though, who follows all of their moves and struggles with their ideas of bettering the world versus his duties to the law. “What they do is wrong and I should arrest them…technically” “but in this day and age I believe what they do is… necessary. I feel it is… correct” (The Boondock Saints 1999). They “did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right” (National Treasure 2004) and that’s what makes them heroes. It was clear that the public was just going to sit around and wait for the mobs to destroy the city, so the brothers took the law into their own hands and tried to save the their home. That’s what “establishes the hero as superior to his adversaries, even though he might be officially a criminal;” (Hourihan 149) a reason to fight and a reason to save, and that’s why “the Boondock Saints” are more than just extraordinary men.
(More in-depth analysis of Raskolnikov and Crime and Punishment)
(A real life example of a soldier or someone)
(conclusion)
Works Cited
The Boondock Saints. Dir. Troy Duffy. By Troy Duffy. Perf. Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flannery, and Norman Reedus. Franchise Pictures, 1999. DVD.
Burdick, Eugene, and Harvey Wheeler. Fail-safe. Hopewell, N.J.: Ecco, 1999. Print.
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Third ed. Novato, Calif.: New World Library, 2008. Print. Bollingen Ser. XVII.
Carlyle, Thomas, and Carl Niemeyer. Thomas Carlyle on Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1966. Print.
The Dark Knight. Dir. Christopher Nolan. By Jonathon Nolan. Perf. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, and Michael Caine. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008. DVD.
The Devil’s Rejects. Dir. Rob Zombie. Perf. Sid Haig. Lions Gate Films, 2005. DVD
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Joseph Frank. Crime and Punishment. Trans. Constance Garnett. New York: Bantam, 2003. Print.
Gane, Laurence, and Piero. Introducing Nietzsche. Ed. Richard Appignanesi. Totem, 2008. Print.
Hourihan, Margery. Deconstructing the Hero: Literary Theory and Children’s Literature. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.
Lehman, B. H. Carlyle’s Theory of the Hero: Its Sources, Development, History, and Influence on Carlyle’s Work: a Study of a Nineteenth Century Idea. Durham, N.C.: Duke UP, 1928. Print.
National Treasure. Dir. Jon Turteltuab. By Jim Koaf, Oren Aviv, and Charles Segars. Perf. Nicolas Cage. Walt Disney Pictures, 2004. DVD.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Portable Nietzsche. Trans. Walter Arnold. Kaufmann. New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin, 1982. Print.
Robin Hood. Dir. Wolfgang Reitherman. By Larry Clemmons and Ken Anderson. Perf. Brian Bedford and Phil Harris. Walt Disney Productions, 1973. Videocassette.
Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s, 2002. Print.
Abunny13's Blog 
