The reason for this short blog is that this central event in the novel also plays an important role in the support for some of your theses about an important human character in the story. And there seems to be considerable disagreement about how Campbell (as cited in Hartmann & Blass, 2007, pp. 202 - 204) would see the shooting of Candy's dog.
- Would Campbell see any heroism in Carlson's act?
- Could Campbell see any heroism in the act itself or the wider series of events?
Since taking account of opposing arguments is an important part of supporting our own ideas, you might find if instructive to discuss these specific questions more informally here before finalising your first draft of the essay this evening. What do you think? How well can you address the contrary opinion of others?
__________
Reference
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books.
And although I only hinted at it, there is also, not surprisingly, a variety of opinion as to what the deed at the end of the novel tells us about the characters involved in that awful event and their status as heroes.
ReplyDeleteI think whether the event is heroic or not depends on each character. In case of Candy, he is my topic, the event is forced him a heroic act becauce he doesn't want it, but have to allow it by others. In here, I wonder that a forced sacrificeing heroic action could be a heroic action. According to Campbell's defenition terms, the willingness is not relevant. Just a person does heroic acts, then he/she is a hero. If it is right interpretation of Campbell, Candy is a hero(so, my essasy is wrong, I didn't care about it becasue the general inference tells me the unwillingness sacrificing is not included, but Campbel doesn't metion it about the willingness). I'm still confused that heroic charactersic with deeds because his descritpons of a hero is not simple characterstics, it could be an act which have done in the present perfect tense.
ReplyDeleteI like Katie's thoughtful questions.
DeleteIt seems that we might need a very careful analysis of exactly what Campbell's very briefly stated ideas entail, both of what might follow from them, and what they might require.
And Katie seems to me have successfully hit on one of the important considerations: Does willingness matter? What do Campbell's ideas in the very short excerpt from the interview tell us about this?
I am inclined to agree with Katie's intuition, but does Campbell?
It is also good to see this very careful, focussed analysis of the text, on what it does and does not say.