Last Wednesday in class we discussed how we, as Americans, find Florence Scala's story so appealing because the "reluctant hero story" archetype it follows is a story born out of our own country's experiences in World War 2. Just as Scala was dragged into becoming the leader of the Taylor Street Activists because of her outstanding moral compass, so too was America, a country that wanted to stay out of the war until it just couldn't turn it's back on the Nazi party's atrocities anymore (or so we like to tell it). What I realized after this discussion, though, is that many popular story archetypes like that of the reluctant hero are based upon America's own experiences in wars, dating all the way back to the first one it ever fought.
One example is the ever-popular "underdog story" (which Scala's also overlaps into), a story in which the protagonist is just an average person who comes up against exceptional odds and prevails. Some examples of underdog stories are the films Million Dollar Baby and Rudy, as well as the ancient tale of David & Goliath, and while the religious history may be the first and best example of an underdog story, the reason Americans have such an affinity for this story is because our country's origin is an underdog story itself.
I'm not going to recap the events of the American Revolution because there is nothing I could say that you shouldn't already know (or can't find with a quick Google search), yet it is worth noting the similarities between this story and the typical underdog story as we know it today. First are the characters; the David and the Goliath. In this case, David is represented by a large group of American colonials who were sick of the oppression of their colonial masters, and Goliath is represented by the mighty Great Britain, a country whose grandeur and power are so imperative that the country's name was fitted with an adjective to display those qualities, a country with an empire upon which the sun never set. Surely a country with such cosmic power would have no trouble quashing a little bit of colonial rabble-rousing taking place across the pond. Second is the setup; of course, any good underdog story shows the protagonist enduring a life (or just a short period of time, for the sake of brevity) of inadequacy and oppression in order to establish their role as the underdog in the first place. The antagonist in an underdog story is usually given less of an introduction because all that needs to be said about them is that "they are the opposite of the underdog" and that "they are bad." In the case of the American Revolution, however, the antagonist has a much longer setup than that of the underdog (Great Britain's history is obviously much longer than America's). The hardship of the underdog in this case is the British oppression of the 13 colonies politically, socially and economically, culminating in the passing of the intolerable acts in order to keep America under stricter British rule. Third and lastly is the confrontation, the climactic battle between the two main characters to prove that the underdog had it in them the whole time. Victory in this confrontation always grants the underdog some degree of glory and self-affirmation, and in the case of the United States, also a country. The confrontation here is easily defined as the Revolutionary War itself, starting when the founding fathers declared their independence and ending when both parties signed the Treaty of Paris. The underdog, the ragtag band of American colonials, ended up founding the most powerful country in the world.
This is just one example of a story archetype that became popular with Americans because of it's roots in American history, though there are many more being repurposed in popular culture today. What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.
No comments:
Post a Comment