Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Emily -------
11 November 2017
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.