Heroes

Abstract

Evolution of a phenomenon over time Some authors believe that homosexuality is not a kind of conduct, as commonly supposed, but a psychological condition (Woggon, 1981). Thus, it is important to understand that the genuine homosexual condition or inversion, as it is often termed. This condition is something for which the subject is in no way responsible. Some literature suggests that homosexuality in itself it is morally neutral. Like the condition of heterosexuality, however, it tends to find expression in specific sexual acts; and such acts are subject to moral judgment (McNeill, 1966).

A major premise established in contemporary literature is the concept that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, as opposed to simply being heterosexual or homosexual. It is possible that this is mainly because increased attention has been paid to the attraction and not merely the action. Braverman (1973) has examined a scale developed by Kinsey, who thought that homosexuality is a normal manifestation of human sexuality. This scale operationalizes the continuum. People are rated on a scale of zero to six.

Zero representing exclusive heterosexual inclinations and six exclusive homosexual inclinations. Those who don’t fall into either extreme feel a mixture of both to varying degrees. This middle group is theoretically bisexual. However, people who are close to either extreme tend to be absorbed into that respective category. This absorption leaves only those closer to the centre in the bisexual group. Most research conducted has grouped people into these three categories. The Causes of Homosexuality Fathers, on the other hand, were thought to prefer the other children.

In doing so, fathers failed to protect the child from the destructive influence of the mother. The researchers espousing biological and genetic causes of homosexuality were considered to be fringe in those times. Even so, there were studies corroborating such causes. Kallman (1952) conducted a study in which male homosexual monozygotic twins were found to be significantly more similar (in terms of homosexual tendencies) than dizygotic twins. These results were not taken to mean that genetic composition was a necessary condition for the development of homosexuality. Rather, it was generally hought by proponents, that a hereditary physical trait played a role in the cultural shaping of a homosexual. In other words, if a young male or female exhibited physical characteristics associated with the opposite gender that individual would have been treated as if they were homosexual. This would in turn influence their development (a self-fulfilling prophecy). Silberner (1984) referred to a study conducted by the State University of New York, in which researchers found a physical correlate to homosexual behavior. They went further to conclude that biological markers for sexual orientation may exist.

Even so, researchers made it clear that findings did not focus on definite causes of homosexuality. However, it was admitted that there was a real possibility that there is a biological element of the phenomenon. Even into the 1990’s this vein of research has continued. For example, Bower (1993) identified that significant progress had been made in the pursuit of identifying a gene that may influence some instances of male homosexuality. It was suggested that a gene within a small segment of the X chromosome (passed from mother to son), contributes to the sexual orientation of a subset of homosexual men.

Interestingly, a tendency to focus on male homosexuals in scientific research can be seen at this stage. Although an exhaustive list of studies on homosexuality cannot be provided in this forum (nor would it be practical), from a review of the available literature, this is confirmed. The APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, “… omosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality” From the premises established in this section, a holistic illustration of world-views regarding homosexuality, can be detailed. World Views of Homosexuality Secular As discussed previously, the first half (and a little beyond) of the 20th century spawned varying views of homosexuality (constitutional, developmental and genetic were the main ones). However, the worldviews resulting from such were congruent in the main.

This is primarily because of the fact that these theories were aiming to explain the occurrence of a class of aberration/disorder. Consequently, claims, such as homosexuality being classified as a serious psychiatric and social problem (Bieber, 1969), were commonplace in academic literature and reverberated in the wider society. The passage of time into the final quarter of the last century, realized a progressively softer position regarding homosexuality, by both from the academic and wider community. This softening can be observed as being simultaneous with stances adopted by the APA.

After the organization’s actions in 1973 and 1975 concerning acceptance of homosexuality, the literature had been littered with expressions of the wide variability in the social acceptance of homosexual activity (Greenberg & Bystryn, 1982). Christian The ELCA encourages its congregations to welcome gay and lesbian persons as church members, but it does not allow for the approval or affirmation of gay or lesbian relationships. Specifically, the ordained, commissioned, and consecrated ministries…are open to homosexuals only it they remain celibate and no provisions exist for the blessing of same-gender unions (Childs, 2003, p. 32). From these official points of view, a sense of where Christianity stands with regard to homosexuality is only halfway complete (at best). Individual members of the Church, including clergymen, sometimes have conflicting views. As demonstrated, a plethora of worldviews exist, with regards to homosexuality. It is as a result of these, that there are various views of the role that psychology and counseling should play in the life of a homosexual and the phenomenon (homosexuality), as a whole.

Conclusion

Throughout the literature reviewed for this paper, the themes of variability and non-consensus are recurrent. There has been no conclusive study which has unearthed potential causes of homosexuality. Resultant worldviews are varied across and even within secular and religious sources, allowing for no clear-cut path for psychologists/counselors to take in dealing with the phenomenon. By looking at past and current events in the field, it appears as though distinct lines will be drawn, but in non-traditional ways, namely, within as opposed to without. This is with reference to the dichotomy within

Christian and secular views of homosexuality. It appears as though the only area of near-consensus is the view that homosexuals (distinct from homosexuality) are not to be condemned, or view as inherently pathological. Holding firm to this premise, further research and interest from the various interest groups may be beneficial to all.

References

1. A vicious intolerance. (2009, September 19). Economist, 392(8649). Authorized Version King
2. James Bartoli, E. , & Gillem, A. R. (2008). Continuing to depolarize the debate on sexual orientation and religious identity and the therapeutic process. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 202-209.
3. Benoit, M. (2005). Conflict between religious commitment and same-sex attraction: Possibilities for a virtuous response. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 309–325.
4. Bieber, I. (1969). Homosexuality. The American Journal of Nursing, 69(12), 2637-2641.
5. Bieber, I. , Dain, H. J. , Dince, P. R. , Drellich, M. G. , Grand, H. G. , Gundlach, R. H. , et al. (1962).
6. Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study. New York: Basic Books. Binder, C. V. (1977). Affection training: An alternative to sexual reorientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 2, 251-259.
7. Bower, B. (1993). Genetic Clue to Male Homosexuality Emerges. Science News, 144(3), 37.
8. Broman, C. L. (2003). Sexuality Attitudes: The Impact of Trauma. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(4), 351-357.
9. Brooke, H. L. (2005). “Gays, ex-gays, ex-ex-gays: Examining key religious, ethical, and diversity Issues”: A follow-up interview with Douglas Haldeman, Ariel Shidlo, Warren Throckmorton, and Mark Yarhouse. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 343-351.
10. Bullough, V. L. (1976). Sexual variance in society and history. New York: Wiley.
11. Campos, P. E. , & Goldfried, M. E. 2001). Introduction: Perspectives on gay, lesbian, and bisexual clients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 609-613.
12. Childs, J. M. (2003). Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 132.
13. Cianciotto, J. , & Cahill, S. (2006). Youth in the crosshairs: The third wave of ex-gay activism. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
14. Davison, G. C. (1976). Homosexuality: The ethical challenge. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 157-162.
15. Davison, G. C. (1978). Not can but ought: The treatment of homosexuality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 170–172.
16. Davison, G. C. , & Wilson, G. T. (1973). Attitudes of behaviour therapists toward homosexuality. Behavior Therapy, 4, 686-696.
17. Ellis, A. (1956). The effectiveness of psychotherapy with individuals who have severe homosexual problems. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20, 191-195.
18. Ellis, A. (1959). A homosexual treated with rational psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 338-343.
19. Ellis, A. (1965). Homosexuality: Its causes and cure. New York: Lyle Stuart.
20. Erzen, T. (2006). Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian conversions in the ex-gay movement. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
21. Freud, S. (1962). Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (J. Strachey, Trans. ). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1905).
22. Good, R. (2000). Human Behavioral Genetics/ Sexual Orientation. The American Biology Teacher, 62(5), 322-324.
23. Greenspoon, J. , & Lamal, P. A. (1987). A behavioristic approach. In L. Diamant (Ed), Male and female homosexuality: Psychological approaches (pp. 109-128). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
24. Hacking, I. (2002). How “Natural” are “Kinds” of Sexual Orientation?. Law and Philosophy, 21(1), 95-107.
25. Haldeman, D. C. (2004). When sexual and religious orientation collide: Considerations in working with conflicted same-sex attracted male clients. _The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 691-715. _
26. Hart, T. A. , & Heimberg, R. G. (2001). Presenting problems among treatment-seeking gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 615-627.
27. Herek, G. M. (2000). The Psychology of Sexual Prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 19-22.
28. James, S. (1978). Treatment of homosexuality: II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial. Behavior Therapy, 9, 28-36.
29. Jones, S. L. , & Yarhouse, M. A. (2007). Ex-gay? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
30. Kallmann, F. J. (1952). Comparative Twin Study on the Genetic Aspects of Male Homosexuality. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 115(1), 283-298.
31. Katz, J. (1995). Gay American history: Lesbians and gay men in the United States. New York: Thomas Crowell.
32. King, M. , Smith, G. , & Bartlett, A. (2004). Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950’s—an oral history: The experience of professionals. British Medical Journal, 328, 429-432.
33. Kinsey, A. C. et al. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co. , 610-666.
34. Langevin, R. (1983). Sexual strands: Understanding and treating sexual anomalies in men. New York: Erlbaum.
35. LeVay, S. (1996). Queer science: The use and abuse of research in homosexuality. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute Technology Press.
36. Maguire, D. (1983). The morality of homosexual marriage. A Challenge to Love: Gay and Lesbian Catholics in the Church (R. Nugent ed. ), New York: Crossroad
37. Martell, C. R. , Safren, S. A. , & Prince, S. E. (2004). Cognitive behavioural therapies with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. New York: Guilford Press.
38. Massett, L. (1969). Homosexuality: changes on the way. Science News, 96(24), 557-559.
39. McMinn, L. G. (2005). Sexual identity concerns for Christian young adults: Practical considerations for being a supportive presence and compassionate companion. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 368-377.
40. McNeill, J. J. (1966). The church and the Homosexual. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 42-66.
41. Moberly, E. (1983). Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic. Greenwood, SC: Attic Press.
42. Murphy, T. F. (1992). Redirecting sexual orientation: Techniques and justifications. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 501-523.
43. Murphy, T. F. (1997). Gay science: The ethics of sexual orientation research. New York: Columbia University Press.
44. Nicolosi, J. (1991). Reparative therapy of male homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
45. Nicolosi, J. , Byrd, A. D. , & Potts, R. W. (2000). Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088.
46. O’Leary, J. S. (1987). Sexual Orientation. The Furrow, 38(11), 680-685.
47. Phillips, J. C. (2004). A welcome addition to the literature: Non-polarized approaches to sexual orientation and religiosity. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 771-777.
48. Ponticelli, C. M. (1999). Crafting stories of sexual identity reconstruction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 157-172.
49. Safren, S. A. , & Rogers, T. (2001). Cognitive behavioural therapy with gay, lesbian, and bisexual clients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 629-643.
50. Shidlo, A. , & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumer’s report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.
51. Silberner, J. (1984). Hormone Markers for Homosexuality? Science News, 126(13), 198-199.
52. Silverstein, C. (1991). Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds. ), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 101-114).
53. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Silverstein, C. (2007), Wearing two hats: The psychologist as activist and therapist. J_ournal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11_(3/4), 9-35.
54. Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? Two hundred participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417.
55. Stevenson, I. , & Wolpe, J. (1960). Recovery from sexual deviations through overcoming nonsexual neurotic responses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 737-742.
56. Stevenson, M. R. (1988). Promoting Tolerance for Homosexuality: An Evaluation of Intervention Strategies. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 500-511.
57. Tan, E. (2008). Mindfulness in sexual identity therapy: A case study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 274-278.
58. Thomson, & Devine. (1998, May 5). Homosexuality: biologically or environmentally constructed. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
59. Wolkomir, M. (2001). Emotion work, commitment, and the authentication of the self: The case of gay and exgay Christian support groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30, 305-334.
60. Wolkomir, M. (2006). Be not deceived: The sacred and sexual struggles of gay and ex-gay Christian men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
61. Yip, A. K. T. (1994, June 23). The Development of Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement within the Christian community in Britain. Lecture presented at Organizing Sexuality Confernce, University of Amsterdam.
62. Yip, A. K. T. (1997). Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back. The British Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 113-127.

In what ways can Dorothy be described as a feminist hero? In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum has made sure there is a feminist hero in his book. This is because everyone should see an example of a good feminist hero, especially around the time when this book was written; in 1900, it was very rare to read a book with any sort of feminism in it. Dorothy throughout the book, shows many heroic acts supporting the idea that she is a feminist hero. When L. Frank Baum is talking about Dorothy in the book, she is always leading the rest of the characters.

During the book whenever the characters come across danger Dorothy is usually the one to stand up for them and not just thinking of herself. Dorothy is always helping the characters out instead of waiting for one of the male characters to help them instead. When L. Frank Baum is describing Dorothy and her friends, Dorothy is always described as independent and competent, the reasons why is because she leads and suggests the way to everyone so she doesn’t have to always rely on everyone else.

We are told how Dorothy discovers the tin wood man (p. 34), how Dorothy tells everyone that “we must cross this strange place in order to get to the other side” she says this without worrying and she is taking charge (p. 167) and how Dorothy builds everyone a warm fire (p. 50). In the book leadership plays a strong part of Dorothy’s characteristics as she is not always relying on others for direction. Throughout the story, we are lead to see that Dorothy is a strong, competent and independent character.

These are important qualities for any feminist to have, because if they weren’t strong or they were dependant on others, they wouldn’t be able to achieve anything in their lives and they wouldn’t be able to lead others. Dorothy always tries to help out even in dangerous situations, proving that she is not cowardly. There is evidence of this when Dorothy slaps the lion on the nose, after fearing for Toto’s safety (p. 3), she also speaks to the lion and sternly says ‘Don’t you dare bite Toto! You ought to be ashamed of yourself… ” (p. 43). Dorothy helps her friends to push the raft ashore, this put her life in danger but she still helped them (p. 60). These examples start to create an image of a character that is very brave and not in any way a cowardly or frightened person. By using these examples in the book, L. Frank Baum has created a brave and heroic main character for the story. This an be just of the features of a feminist hero because; if Dorothy is brave it means that she is not afraid to stand up for herself as well as her friends, meaning that Dorothy is mentally strong. Baum has described Dorothy as very kind to everyone and that she likes to help others, instead of waiting for one of the male characters to come and help instead. We can see examples of this when Dorothy asks the tin woodman “what can I do for you? ”, he is a complete stranger but this doesn’t bother her as she can see that he needs help (p. 5), when Dorothy helps free the scarecrow from the pole that he is stuck to and later befriending him (p. 22), when they are trying to cross the hill the lion and the tin woodman get knocked to the ground, ‘Dorothy ran down and helped the scarecrow to his feet. ’ (p. 208). These acts of kindness show that Dorothy is a very kind, caring and helpful girl and is always willing to help someone in need, no matter what. It doesn’t worry her that she is female and traditionally the male characters take charge and rescue everyone.

This is important because, if she didn’t help out and stood back for the male characters to help out then she wouldn’t be thought of as, a feminist because all the male characters would be in charge and in power not her, and if she wasn’t kind to others then no one would want to know her and she would have no one to help, stand up for or be a hero to. L. Frank Baum has made Dorothy an easy character to get along with so that people will want to get to know her and they will have a hero to look up to. Dorothy being helpful and kind is very important for her and is the main reason why everybody likes to be in her company.

In conclusion we can see that L. Frank Baum, throughout the story tells us of many heroic acts that Dorothy has achieved, proving that she is a feminist hero. During the book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy is always leading the rest of the characters, whenever the characters come across danger Dorothy always stands up for the others and Dorothy is always helping others instead of waiting for one of the male characters to help. Baum uses these examples to create a feminist hero for the story, instead of having the usual dominant male character.

Disney’s Hercules Disney’s Hercules, while not entirely true to the scripture he was first conceptualized in, is rife with the same heroic traits as his definitive counterpart. Throughout the course of the film, Hercules faces a series of challenges and events which test his strength and ability. Subsequently these events fulfill the majority of his heroic archetype. By Hercules’ masculine nature, divine parent, divine helper, trip to the underworld, and fulfillment of kleos (his immortal quest for glory), Hercules would have been considered a hero in Ancient Greek society despite the archetypical traits left unfulfilled in the film.

Hercules’ masculinity becomes majorly evident as a physical aspect after undergoing training with Philoctetes (Phil). His muscular personage is representative of man in a direct way. While he does not dominate his relationship with his love interest, Megara (Meg), by physical means he overshadows her and asserts masculinity. Hercules is also masculine in his bravery by the way he confronts challenges head on. In one instance, Hercules literally bashes the centaur, Nessus, with his head. In Hercules’ muscular build and his courageous albeit headstrong tendency, he is personified as a masculine hero.

Hercules actually has two divine parents, Zeus and Hera, in Disney’s rendition as opposed to only one in Greek myth. In this way the heroic notion of having a divine parent is fulfilled perhaps to a greater extent. Hercules’ father, Zeus, also plays a role as his divine helper, another trait of the hero archetype. Zeus fulfills this by revealing Hercules’ past to him and his relation to the gods, setting him off on his journey to heroism. In addition to Zeus, Hercules’ winged horse, also serves as a divine helper throughout the film. Pegasus assists Hercules in nearly all of his battles and takes his abilities to new heights.

Hercules makes his trip to the underworld in an attempt to rescue Megara from death itself. Hercules’ immortal quest for glory or kleos is fulfilled in many instances of the film. On multiple occasions Hercules slays fantastic creatures such as the Hydra and achieves his glory through the admiration of others. While enchanting the people of Thebes and creating some lasting effect in their continual praise, Hercules’ immortal quest for glory is cemented at the conclusion of the film when Zeus creates a constellation of him in the night sky.

Catherine: A Manipulative Caretaker In A Farewell to Arms, Frederic Henry is characterized initially by a sort of detachment from life-though well-disciplined and friendly, he feels as if he has nothing to do with the war. These feelings of detachment are pushed away when Henry falls in love with Catherine and begins to realize the hostile nature of the world. In this way, Henry serves the function of a character that becomes initiated in Hemingway’s philosophy of an indifferent universe and man’s struggle against it.

Due to the untimely death of a fiance previous to the events of this book, Catherine is initiated into Hemingway’s philosophy, and exemplifies the traits of the Hemingway code hero throughout the novel. She is characterized primarily by her disregard for social conventions as well as an unfaltering devotion to Henry. Catherine is defined as a code hero because of her honor, courage, and endurance in pain. Honor is defined as having a keen sense of ethical conduct. For Catherine, the ethical conduct is keeping Henry happy, and in doing so, she is keeping herself happy.

At first glance, Catherine Barkley appears to be an example of any man’s fantasy girl. She appears as a dull character that asks nothing of Henry and is only there to make him happy. Because of this, it is said that Catherine’s character is demeaning to women. Catherine Barkley’s basic approach to her relationship with Frederic shows her as being inferior. She appears to gladly accept a lower role in her relationship with Frederic. “I’ll do what you want and say what you want,” she tells him, “and then I’ll be a great success, won’t I” (Hemmingway105).

Her idea of a successful relationship, and of happiness, is based on making Frederic happy no matter what she has to do. Like the code hero, she handles conflicting needs with grace, giving to both, but shorting none. She uses Henry as a template to fulfill her need for her dead fiance. And because Henry is characterized as unemotional, it is effortless for her to use him as a template to mold him into the man she longs for. She enters the war as a nurse the same time her fiance enters as a soldier, but because he dies she longs for a clutch to keep track of reality.

She is always surrounded by wounded soldiers, which does not help her cope with the death of her fiance until Henry comes into her life. His unemotional attitude towards the world provides her with the perfect opportunity bring her fiance back to life—in her mind. In a conversation with Henry, Catherine forces words into his mouth, “Say, ‘I’ve come back to Catherine in the night’” (30). Henry instinctually repeats as she says without ever questioning her. He even says, “I thought she was probably a little crazy…I did not care what I was getting into” (30).

Even though he acknowledges the fact that she might be slightly deranged, he accepts her because he the type of man to gamble. In another instance, Catherine reassures herself that her love will not abandon her again. “You’re so lovely and sweet. You wouldn’t go away in the night, would you? ” (197). Because she loses her love once already, she is unwilling to allow that to happen again. Also, by loving Henry, she saves her from going crazy with grief. When everything is exploding all around them, everything takes on more urgency. In her mind, as well as his, it is normal that she feels so intensely for Henry.

And she doesn’t fall apart without him when they are separated, but just keeps on trucking and hoping. She does not need Henry for anything but love. Although, on the surface, Catherine seems to be the perfect male fantasy, she is in fact quite the opposite. In addition to her honorable acts, she displays courage. Even Ernest Lockridge, author of “Faithful in Her Fashion: Catherine Barkley, the Invisible Hemingway Heroine” says, “Catherine frequently displays wit, intelligence, cool irony, and, facing death, she displays dignity and courage—qualities that seems contradictory to the fawning, submissive Catherine” (Lockridge 172).

Hemmingway portrays courage in Catherine when she tries to console Henry about her death. “I’m not brave anymore, darling. I’m all broken. They’ve broken me. I know it now” (Hemmingway 323). Catherine is clearly in fear of death, but she is not trying to run or hide from it. She faces death and tries to console Henry by telling him she is not going to die. After undergoing a caesarian section and giving birth to a stillborn baby boy, Catherine proves just how brave she is. Though she knows she is dying, she still has the dignity and strength to accept such a fate. In face, she finds herself trying to comfort her distraught lover once again.

With death approaching, Catherine’s final words to Frederic Henry suggest she possesses some sense or understanding of her own mortality and of what is soon to come. She says, “I’m not a bit afraid. It’s just a dirty trick” (331). The “it” Catherine refers to is presumably death, but in fact, the indefinite may be referring to life, a process Catherine views as a “rotten game” (31), since so much about it is left to chance and death is always the end. Catherine stood brave in the face of a battle with her own body. Like the soldiers, neither her bravery, nor Henry’s love, could save her from death.

In Henry’s mind, the death of the soldiers and the death of Catherine are parallel tragedies, which cannot be separated from each other. By weaving the tragedies together, he memorializes both such tragedies, and can perhaps hope to heal a bit of his pain. Critics may argue that Catherine is a clutch for Henry to cope with war, but clearly throughout the novel, Henry is more attached to her than she is to him. Frederic says, “When I saw her, I was in love with her. Everything turned over inside of me” (Hemmingway 91). He is truly falling in love with her and who she is, but she, on the other hand only loves him for being alive.

He is, in fact, her tool to endure the emotional pain for the loss of her fiance. Once again Ernest Lockridge says, “To preserve her fantasy, Catherine strives to isolate the relationship from others. She speaks Frederic Henry’s name only once…by worrying that people will suspect an affair…she will not marry Frederic Henry” (Lockridge 174). When Frederic first meets her she laments that she did not marry her fiance before he died. She says that they were engaged for eight years and that they grew up together. She tells Frederic she did not marry her fiance because she thought that it would trap him.

She feels she will do the same to Henry. Frederic Henry does want to be married but Catherine thinks this would keep them from being together during the war. When he pressures her, she says, “We’re really married. I couldn’t be any more married. ” She keeps up this attitude until near the end of her pregnancy, when she says, “I suppose if we have this child, we should really get married” (Hemmingway 115). Frederic says, “Let’s get married now” (293). But Catherine refuses again and claims to want to wait until after the baby is born. She wants the commitment of marriage, but is very suspicious of it as an institution.

Also, Catherine, in her mind, envisions Henry as her dead fiance, so to her she is still completely faithful but in reality, she is with a man that she has not truly come to know. She is at a fragile state where if she acknowledges the death of her fiance, she will be shattered. Her mechanism of coping with the pain of losing a loved one is by replacing him with another body but not in spirit. On a physical sense, she endures pain by being away from Henry as well as the occurrence where she is in labor. While in labor, Catherine is in pain, but she is telling Henry to eat so he is not harmed from hunger. She says, “That was a very big one.

Don’t you worry, darling. You go away. Go have another breakfast” (317). Even with painful contractions, she is more concerned with Henry’s appetite than her own comfort. Catherine has a high endurance for pain, both emotionally and physically. She creates coping mechanisms for both so that she is able to live in reality without seeming insane. Traditionally, Hemingway’s heroes are male, and to interpret Catherine as a code hero was inadmissible. Catherine was thought as an undeveloped character in the novel, merely an idealized projection of male desire. Upon closer examination, however, Catherine does share characteristics of the code hero.

Hemingway’s code hero is a skilled professional. Catherine is a nurse who is skilled in her profession. The code hero lives with courage in a dangerous world. Catherine demonstrates courage when she and Frederic row across the lake to escape into Switzerland, a very dangerous feat, and especially when she tries to deliver their baby, finally realizing that she will die. The code hero also lives in a random universe, but chooses to control himself and endure reality. Catherine cannot control events when she goes into labor, but she endures the pain with dignity until her death.

Catherine endures in other ways, as well. She experiences the death of a fiance and faces great fear as an unmarried nurse when she learns she is pregnant. Throughout all of these times, however, Catherine does not feel sorry for herself, and she does not break. Like a code hero, she endures. Works Cited Hemingway, Ernest. A Farewell to Arms. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print. Lockridge, Ernest. “Faithful in Her Fashion: Catherine Barkley, the Invisible Hemingway Heroine. ” The Journal of Narrative Technique, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Spring 188), pp 170-178

Comparison between Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins using the stages of Jason Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces

Introduction

It is no doubt that Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins are two of the most well known heroes today. Both were introduced as heroes from literary works but their popularity was skyrocketed when they were featured in a full length movies.

The first hero was created by J.K. Rowling in her Harry Potter series, the son of two powerful mages who died protecting him from a very powerful evil wizard. He was marked with a lightning scar in his forehead and he became famous in the wizard world.

The latter was created by J.R.R Tolkien in his Lord of the Rings epic tale trilogy, the Hobbit who was the successor of a very powerful item – the One Ring. Bilbo Baggins, Frodo’s uncle, decided to left their home, The Shire, in search of adventure and decided to leave everything he owned to his nephew, including the ring of power. And with this Frodo’s world was changed drastically.

Using Jason Campbell’s hero formula, we can view how these heroes would fit in each of Campbell’s hero stages. The two have many aspects that are common and different. The biggest difference is that Harry Potter has to undergo all these stages each time for every title of J.K Rowling’s series but for the purpose of this essay we would focus on the first work, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

The Hero Stages

Introduction of the hero

This is the first stage and this is where the hero is introduced and can be seen in his ordinary world and normal lifestyle before he embarks on his adventure.

Both heroes were presented at the start of their stories. For Frodo, he was introduced along with his home, The Shire, and his kin, Bilbo Baggins (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings) while for Harry we can glimpse his foster family and how he was being treated. Both have different circumstances wherein for Frodo his home was merry and blissful while for Harry he was maltreated and pathetic. (Rowling)

Off to Adventure

At this stage the hero is presented with an event that would make him decide to embark on his journey. This is where the journey begins and hardship for the hero starts.

For Frodo leaving his home was the hardest thing for him to do at this stage it was very abrupt and already filled with danger and uncertainty. As they run for their lives, together with his friends from his home, from Black riders who are in pursuit and hot on their heels (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings).

For Harry it was very much anticipated and welcomed although the main obstacle he experienced was the hindrance of his foster family to have him go. But the trip was filled with exciting things and developments. Harry had a glimpse in the magical world that he would be entering. (Rowling)

Mentors and friends

Usually our hero would not make it alone. He must have help from a very experienced character who would support and advice him. And if needed keep him on track of his quest and adventure.

This stage is true for both heroes but it was presented differently. The difference lies in their familiarity with these mentor type characters. Frodo already knew Gandalf the Grey Wizard beforehand while Harry has yet to meet the Hagrid and Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Professor Dumbledore. But still there were other influential characters that both will meet along the way and they would help define the character of our heroes.

The first threshold and test

At this point, our hero would be beset with trials and danger that they need to overcome. Usually this would be seen at the earlier part of the story. This stage would usually help our hero decide to embark on the journey.

Frodo’s first ordeal was surviving the Ringwraiths in their flight to escape from the Shire and eventually meeting Strider up to the formation of the Fellowship with Frodo accepting the most dangerous of task of destroying the One Ring (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings).

Harry on the other hand, his journey and entrance to Hogwarts and undergoing the House selection process seems to be his first obstacle that he needed to overcome (Rowling).

Innermost cave

The innermost cave is usually the part where our hero nearly reaches the climax of the adventure.  This is what he needs to overcome first before reaching  the grand battle or completion of his quest.

Frodo’s innermost cave would be the hardship and trials experienced  (Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) upon reaching Mount Doom with emphasis on the cave entrance guarded by the giant spider Shelob, Our hero would not be able to perform this feat if it was not for the support of his companion Sam (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

For Harry, finding the true identity of his enemy  Voldemort  in the personality of one of his professors, Professor Quirrel, and the trouble of going into his lair. With the help of his loyal friends they were able to reach it and come face to face with the enemy (Rowling).

Supreme ordeal

At this stage our hero have reached the climax of the adventure. This is usually the great battle with the evil enemy, the great big boss.

For Frodo it was a battle within himself. The hardest thing that Frodo ever did was to cause the destruction of the One Ring and fighting the temptation of having supreme power. His attachment to the ring may very well bring the ultimate evil back to their land. At this stage it was evident our hero lost since he decided to keep this power but its destruction was brought about by another character, Gollum, who was also tempted to the Ring. Their struggle for ownership resulted in the destruction of the Ring along with Gollum (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

Harry’s ordeal was his confrontation with Voldemort, using the body of Professor Quirrel, and surviving his first encounter with the arch-fiend since his parents died. The curse of the lightning scar proved to be his ultimate protection agains the arch-fiend and his friends were able to rescue him in time (Rowling).

Hero seizes the sword

The ultimate knowledge, weapon or artifact is obtained by the hero. But this “sword” does not always mean something beneficial as with the case of Frodo.

Frodo’s “sword” was something he lost, a part of him was destroyed along with the ring since he was reluctant to part with it and completion of his mission was by chance an accident. Having the resolve to overcome his addiction of the ring and rehabilitate his Uncle Bilbo became his motivation. (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

For Harry it was vindication, a magical experience and the resolve to become more powerful to defend not only himself but his friends from his nemesis next attack since it was confirmed that was not the last they have seen of Voldemort (Rowling).

Road back

Our hero starts back to journey home and return to their ordinary lives. This is the stage that pour hero comes back after attaining the needed quest item or answer.

For Frodo this stage was the start of his rehabilitation or cure from the Ring’s influence. Although tit was already destroyed, the Ring left a taint in Frodo’s soul which he needs to cleanse (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

For Harry it was back to school as usual. Although knowing that it was filled with threats of danger afterwards but the road back was a brisk stride.

Resurrection

This stage shows the life changing results of our hero’s adventure. This is where the effect of their quest is felt or seen.

For Frodo, there was a drastic change in his worlds. He has to permanently leave his home and be cured of the effects of his addiction for the one ring with the help of Gandalf and the elves. But to do this they have to leave Middle Earth and go back to the home of the elves where his recovery would take place (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

It was back to school again for Harry as they finish the remaining time in their first year in the but this time with greater confidence in his ability as a magician and greater trust in his friends and mentors (Rowling).

Return with the elixir

In the Lord of the Rings story, the destruction of the ultimate evil was the greatest good that Frodo gave Middle Earth but with a very high price to pay, his leaving his home the Shire and fighting the negative effects of his addiction to the one ring which has left him tainted (Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King).

For Harry Potter it was the knowledge of magic and hope of becoming a powerful mage and use his powers just like his parents – for the greater good. But we can also attribute the support and help of his loyal friends to overcome his coming trials and hurdles (Rowling).

The hero within us.

Both heroes may have undergone these stages but the difference lies in the effect of each of these hero stages to the character and as well as the readers. For The Lord of  the Rings epic, it was a triumphant moment with Frodo destroying the ring although it was devastating on his part

For Harry Potter in the Philosopher’s Stone title, it was like an ordinary year in his school life, filled with danger and adventure and of course wonderful magic everywhere

There maybe stages that we can glimpse in how heroes and patterns that we can discern from stories of heroes and villains. Stories might be seen as the same or similar due to these patterns but still each story is unique. Each character has their own unique personality, frailties and great moments. But these stories still inspire us and at the same time entertain us.

Campbell’s hero stages can be easily used to structure a literary work. But most readers look up to these heroes with them searching also for the hero within themselves. And would it be nice if we can dissect our lives into these Hero stages. That would be grand.

REFERENCES:

Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Bloomsbury, 1997.

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings. United Kingdom: Allen & Unwin, 1954.

—. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Allen & Unwin 1954.

—. . The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Allen & Unwin, 1954.

Some heroes will not be forgotten because they are written into textbooks for schools, Poe peel related to them ell others about their heroics and stories about them so people can know ho w heroic they were and as long as there is religion there will be the heroes to the religious that WI II be remembered. Some heroes will be remembered forever because they are written into text kooks for schools. The story of Achilles is remembered by tons of people because of TEX taboos. In history classes, kids are taught about the story of Achilles during history classes in mi del school and high school because he was a hero from thousands of years ago.

Achilles is a prime example of why people will remember some heroes through. People remember Moses FRR mom ancient Egypt through teaching from textbooks. In history classes and through chi arches an d religion, his story is taught to the younger generations about how he saved the Jews from slaver y and became a hero. When it comes down to it, it does not matter what era a hero is from, if t he deed of a hero is heroic enough, teachers will teach the next generations about that hero. Nielsen Heroes will be remembered because relatives of them will tell of their heroic efforts to people so they will know of them.

We know of hero’s who have died in battle because their relatives told others about what they did for their country. In WWW, the soldiers RSI who won the medal of honor, but died in battle are talked about by their families for their h Eric efforts. WWW hero’s are talked about and not forgotten because of their families. When a h age crisis that affects an entire nation occurs families of the hero’s who died in the crisis will remember them forever. The families of the hero’s from the 9/11 crisis remember their loved o one’s everyday and speak of their courageous efforts to save the wounded.

If it was not for those heroes, there would be hundreds of people who would not have survived the 9/11 crisis that did. There will be some heroes that will be remembered as long as there is religion n. The hero to the Christians and Jews, who is known as the messiah, is named Jesus. He s written about in bibles and known as a hero to the two religions because he died for them, too k away and forgave their sins. He died about two thousand years ago and is still remembered Todd ay through the holiday, Christmas. Abraham is known as the father of Christianity, Judaism, a ND Islam.

He intentioned to praise the lord and continued to teach his two sons about the 10 rd. His son Isaiah continued on the Jewish and Christian religions while the other son that Bra ham had with his slave had continued on the Islamic religion. If it was not for the faith of Abram am, three of the biggest religions in today’s world would not be around today but they still are and are taught to billions of people around the world. In conclusion, some heroes will be remembered forever because the relatives of the heroes will tell of their heroic efforts so people will know and because the her sees are written into textbooks for schools.

The Cherokee Removal Book Review The Cherokee Removal is a brief history with documents by Theda Perdue and Michael Green. In 1838-1839 the US troops expelled the Cherokee Indians from their ancestral homeland in the Southeast and removed them to the Indian Territory in what is now Oklahoma. The removal of the Cherokees was a product of the demand for land during the growth of cotton agriculture in the Southeast, the discovery of gold on the Cherokees land, and the racial prejudice that many white southerners had toward the Indians.

The Cherokees had lived in the interior southeast, for hundreds of years in the nineteenth century. But in the early eighteenth century setters from the European ancestry started moving into the Cherokees territory. From then on the colonial governments in the area began demanding that the Cherokees give up their territory. By the end of the Revolutionary War, the Cherokees had surrendered more than half of their original territory to the state and federal government.

In the late 1780’s the US began urging the Cherokees to stop hunting and their traditional ways of life and to instead learn about how to live, farm, and worship like Christian Americans. Despite everything the white people in Georgia and other southern states that abutted the Cherokee Nation refused to accept the Cherokee people as social equals and urged their political representatives to take the Cherokees land. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 gave Thomas Jefferson the chance to relocate the eastern tribes beyond the Mississippi River.

The War of 1812, with help from General Andrew Jackson help the United States to end what he called the “absurdity” of negotiating with the Indians tribes. From that point forward the Georgia politicians increasingly raised the pressure on the federal government to fulfill the Compact of 1802. In the agreement the federal government had to extinguish the Indian land title and remove the Cherokees from the states. The Cherokee government maintained that they constituted a sovereign nation independent of the American state and federal government. The Treaty of

Hopewell in 1785 established borders between the United States and the Cherokee Nation offered the Cherokees the right to send a “deputy” to Congress, and made American settlers in Cherokee territory subject to Cherokee law. With help from John Ross they helped protect the national territory. In 1825 the Cherokees capital was established, near present day Calhoun Georgia. The Cherokee National Council advised the United States that it would refuse future cession request and enacted a law prohibiting the sale of national land upon penalty of death.

In 1827 the Cherokees adopted a written constitution, an act further removed by Georgia. But between the years of 1827 and 1831 the Georgia legislature extended the state’s jurisdiction over the Cherokee territory, passed laws purporting to abolish the Cherokees’ laws and government, and set in motion a process to seize the Cherokees’ lands, divide it into parcels, and other offer some to the lottery to the white Georgians. Andrew Jackson was declared president in 1828 immediately declaring the removal of eastern tribes. In 1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which authorized the president to negotiate removal treaties.

In 1831 combined army, militia, and other volunteer forces began to move the tribes along one of several routes to two forts located in Indian Territory; Fort Gibson and Fort Townson. The last tribe to be moved was the Cherokees in 1838. During this move some tribes accepted bribes of money and or land; whole others didn’t and were forced under the threat of death. During the move there were several weigh states along the route, and from bad planning or lack of concern to malfeasant actions the Indians were not allowed or given access to proper food, medical supplies, warm clothing, nor were allowed to rest for any significant period of time.

This resulted in death of many of the tribal members. The Native Americans began to cal the trail, the “Trail where they Weeped/ Cried” and it was later changed to “The Trail of Tears” by modern translation. There were approximately eleven trails that took different tribes to different locations. They ranged from 200 to 900 miles and went through around fourteen states. There was an estimated 4,000 to 15,000 Cherokees deaths during these trails.