------ 1

Emily -------

Jackie Burr, Instructor

English 1010, Section 7

11 November 2017

The Dichotomy in American Heroes

In “The Thematic Paradigm” by Robert B. Ray, the author explains the conflict of

America’s two favorite archetypal heroes: “the outlaw hero and the official hero” (451). The

outlaw hero is “the adventurer, explorer, gunfighter, wanderer [or] loner” (451). Examples of this

that the author mentions are Huckleberry Finn and Davy Crockett. The official hero is the

“teacher, lawyer, politician, farmer or family man” (451). Examples of this include Atticus Finch

and George Washington. America’s love of these two opposites has formed an oxymoron that

America resolved at a cultural level. Ray asserts that this dichotomy was overcome in cinema by

the creation of two-sided characters. The essay is not written effectively because Ray’s specific

topic is unclear throughout the essay. Additionally, Ray attempts to use ample amounts of

examples for his evidence, but his repetition of the same examples for similar ideas becomes

redundant. Lastly, he uses formal tone to try to make his claim sound legitimate, but it is

misplaced in such an informal topic.

At first glance it appears Ray’s main emphasis is American cinema. The first sentence of

the essay is “The dominant tradition of American cinema consistently found ways to overcome

dichotomies” (450). From this sentence, it would appear that Ray is going to talk about movies.

The first sentence of the third paragraph is “The movies traded on one opposition in particular,

American culture’s traditional dichotomy of individual and community that had generated the

most significant pair of competing myths: the outlaw hero and the official hero” (451). Again,
 ------ 2

the topic as declared by this introductory sentence would be dichotomies in movies. However, he

goes on, inconsistently, to mention literature and even historical figures as his main examples

later in the essay. This incongruency makes the topic of the essay unclear and hard to follow. For

example, Ray’s two favorite outlaw heroes would appear to be Huck Finn and Henry David

Thoreau, neither of which originated in a movie, and both of whom remain today more popular

in writings than in movies. It appears that Ray is using them, along with several others, as

examples of Hollywood or cinema, which is not only incorrect, it confuses the reader.

Another reason Ray’s topic is unclear is because he focuses much of the essay trying to

convince the readers that this dichotomy between outlaw and official heroes exists and that these

two form a contradiction. Ray divides his discussion of the differences between the outlaw and

the official hero into three well-defined sections with numbers attached: aging, society and

women, and politics and the law. Over half of his essay appears to be focused on that, and none

of these three sections refers to the general topic of the composite hero in movies at the

beginning. Just when the reader thinks that the topic is the official vs outlaw hero, Ray moves

into the ways America has blurred the lines between the two types of heroes. Then, he abruptly

shifts to the reluctant hero which doesn’t fall under any of the two previous topics. Then in his

conclusion, he finally refers to his introduction about the composite, or two-sided, hero in

American cinema, which, in reality, he never talked about in the body of his essay.

Ray tends to mention the same characters or stories multiple times. For example, Ray

mentioned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at least six times. There are two main reasons

why Ray would do this. First, Ray could be using this as evidence. This repetition made his

claim seem less justifiable because it made the reader believe the outlaw hero wasn’t as common

as Ray claimed it was. If there are so many outlaw heroes, then Ray should use different heroes
 ------ 3

each time instead of the same few repeatedly. Second, Ray might be mentioning Huck to explain

the text. If this is the case, it wasn’t done well. Ray needs to expound on the story more. For

example, in the text he says, “From Huck to Holden Caulfield, children in American literature

were privileged, existing beyond society’s confining rules” (451). Ray needs to explain why a

homeless boy is privileged to his audience.

Ray’s tendencies to mention too many stories too often causes more problems than being

redundant, it also risks repetitively mentioning movies and books the audience isn’t acquainted

with. Someone who hasn’t read Huckleberry Finn or has never seen Destry Rides Again would

be confused and could feel left out. That is why giving a general description of the point, then

listing movies where it takes place would be more effective. The reader, even if they didn’t know

any of the examples, would at least understand it, and most readers would relate because most of

them should be acquainted with at least one of the examples listed.

Ray’s evidence that the outlaw hero and the official hero dominate cinema is to cite large

amounts of movies that contain them. However, Ray did this far too often. This redundancy

makes the reading of Ray’s essay tedious and monotonous. The stories and characters he alludes

to include “Davy Crockett, Jesse James, Huck Finn…Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,

Lee…Holden Caulfield, Intruder in the Dust. To Kill a Mockingbird… [and] On the Road” all on

page 451 alone. Some of these he mentions in parenthesis which is much better because they act

as his evidence. However, he imbeds so many of them into the text, it makes the paragraph more

difficult to read. There should be just enough imbedded examples to help expound and explain

his text, and his evidence should be in parenthesis or crafted to flow better with the rest of the

essay.
 ------ 4

Ray also misuses formal tone in such an informal topic. America’s favorite heroes and

characters isn’t a topic that warrants serious formal language and tone. Ray says, “In contrast to

the outlaw heroes, the official heroes were preeminently worldly, comfortable in society, and

willing to undertake even those public duties demanding personal sacrifice” (453). This sentence

would be perfect if contrasting politicians, world leaders, or even CEOs, but it is not effective

when describing movie characters. On top of that, “preeminently worldly” and comfortable in

society” have so many meanings and connotations attached to them that the meaning is unclear.

It isn’t immediately obvious whether by “worldly” Ray means experienced or materialistic

because they both fit in the context of the essay.

Throughout the essay Ray quotes professionals, but often these quotes are long and out-

of-place, so that it feels like he is using them to take up space rather than enhance his claim. The

first quote he uses is by Erik Erikson, a famous psychologist. It is a longer quote that basically

rephrases Ray’s previous paragraph. This formality is unnecessary and awkward. The quote

could work if the content and ideas didn’t feel like a repeat.

Although the transition between and among the paragraphs is confusing, several of them

are effective and coherent individually. For example, on the end of page 454 Ray has a paragraph

discussing the different mottos of the outlaw and official heroes. These two different kinds of

mottos are popular and repeated often in popular culture. However, when Ray puts them side by

side, the reader realizes that they contradict each other. This paragraph has a clear purpose and

an effective audience appeal. Another effective and well-developed paragraph is on pages 455-

456 where Ray discusses that to resolve the conflicting heroes, Americans blur the lines between

the two. Everyone knows about Washington’s cherry tree, Ray uses a cultural image to prove

that America loves imperfect heroes.

 ------ 5

One of the themes of the book 1984 by George Orwell is the concept of “doublethink” or

the idea that people can believe two contradictory things at the same time. The topic of

America’s love of both the outlaw hero and the official hero simultaneously is fascinating.

Unfortunately, the use of formal tone, redundant examples, and an unclear topic makes Robert B.

Ray’s “The Thematic Paradigm” ineffective and unappealing to his audience.

 ------ 6

Works Cited

Ray, Robert B.. “The Thematic Paradigm.” Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular

Culture for Writers. 8th Edition, ed. Sonia Maasik, Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford/St.

Marin’s, 2015, 450-458. Print