I have this handout from my senior high school English class and it contains many of the components of a hero.  The archetypes, if you will.  And I thought I would share it with you lovely people so that you could see it for yourself.
Those who have studied the myths of the world have recognized a pattern of events that unfold to encompass the personifaction of the convictions of a culture, acted out, one might say, by a hero.  Oedipus, it is said, is such a figure.  Lord Raglan presents the sequence of happenings as a pattern consistent of heros from many cultures (The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth, and Drama [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1956].

It is as follows:
(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin;
(2) His father is a king, and
(3) Often a near relative of his mother, but
(4) The circumstances of his conception are unusual,
(5) He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
(6) At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father, or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
(7) He is spirited away, and
(8) Reared by foster-parents in a far country.
(9) We are told nothing of his childhood, but
(10) On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
(11) After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
(12) He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
(13) Becomes king.
(14) For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
(15) Prescribes laws, but
(16) Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
(17) Is driven from the throne and city, after which
(18) He meets with a mysterious death,
(19) Often at the top of a hill.
(20) His children, if any, do not succeed him.
(21) His body is not buried, but nevertheless
(22) He has one or more holy sepulchers.
Talk about a gruesome image.  Probably why violence in Greek tragedies all happened off-stage.  Is this really necessary?  Maybe someone can learn something from it.
A quote with "quotes:"  Often described as a "method" of "analysis," a "type" of "critique," an "act" of "reading," or a "way" of "writing" (1815).  From the introduction on Jacques Derrida in our Lit Crit Anthology
I was reading Meghan's journal today and I came across an interesting passage.  She was talkingn about the canon (I think) and about the author.  She said something about Shakespeare's plays would be brilliant EVEN if we didn't know he wrote them.  This is the point of Foucault (and Barthes).  The work is what's important, not just the author's name.
Here's my favorite from John Donne, a Holy Sonnet:

Batter my heart, three-personed God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov'd fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you, enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
I've always liked this picture of Shakespeare.  It makes him seem more like a pirate than a dead white guy.
Back to the Lit Crit Journal Index
Sally Forth and Tally Ho!