Forget everything you thought you believed about your hero. Written in 1962, Daniel Boorstin’s, From Hero to Celebrity: The Human Pseudo- Event, a classic piece of cultural criticism, comments on the rise of celebrity and the unfailing decline of the hero. Traditional heroes are believed to have reached their status because they achieved greatness or great accomplishments in their own life times. Boorstin argues that unlike the celebrity, famous people were heroic, “admire for his courage, nobility, or exploits” (46). But, in an intriguing section of his text, Boorstin suggests that with scrutinization, greatness can posthumously be taken back. With further thought, it’s clear that Boorstin introduces this tension to argue humans alone cannot
…show more content…
His arguments are advanced by his choices of words. Boorstin writes, “Under the hot glare of psychology and sociology the heroes’ heroic qualities have been dissolved into a blur of environmental influences and internal maladjustments” (52). His phrasing of “under the hot glare” dramatizes the decline of the hero and suggests this phenomenon happened with ease. Next, words such as “dissolve” and “blur” prone us to assume that heroes can be broken down and destroyed quickly. And so, it’s a logical transition to then believe, that heroes are not just humans. Finally, in describing Charles Sumner, Boorstin he adds a eulogizing poem from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: “So when a great man dies...the light he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men” (53) further dramatizes Sumner’s demise. Next, in stating facts about Sumner and others, Boorstin is both concise and clear. He writes, “From the excellent scholarly biography by David Donald in 1960, Sumner emerges with barely a shred of nobility” (53). His conclusions are disputable, and yet he does not allow for us to question his statements. Finally, Boorstin does not use a first person narrative, but uses the pronoun “We” throughout his essay. This establishes a personal connection with the reader. We come to accept his conclusions, because Boorstin includes us in his arguments. His intentional syntax is to convince reads and further his …show more content…
In one particular section of his critique, Boorstin introduces the idea that heroes are not just people, but symbols of time periods, ideals, or morality. Boorstin asserts, “... human models are more vivid and more persuasive than explicit moral commands” (48). Heroes have “stood the test of time” because they are not mere humans: they have been built up and made to represent something of great influence. While some people believe greatness and heroic people are just a thing of the past, Boorstin compels us to question whether greatness ever existed in the first place. We all have flaws. Viewing all famous people with a critical mind and an increased attention on their personality, the development of new heroes has stunted and former heroes have dissolved. To be known for your personality is to become a celebrity. And a celebrity, “...is always a contemporary...the creature of gossip, of public opinion, of magazines, newspapers...the passage of time...destroys the celebrity”
His arguments are advanced by his choices of words. Boorstin writes, “Under the hot glare of psychology and sociology the heroes’ heroic qualities have been dissolved into a blur of environmental influences and internal maladjustments” (52). His phrasing of “under the hot glare” dramatizes the decline of the hero and suggests this phenomenon happened with ease. Next, words such as “dissolve” and “blur” prone us to assume that heroes can be broken down and destroyed quickly. And so, it’s a logical transition to then believe, that heroes are not just humans. Finally, in describing Charles Sumner, Boorstin he adds a eulogizing poem from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: “So when a great man dies...the light he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men” (53) further dramatizes Sumner’s demise. Next, in stating facts about Sumner and others, Boorstin is both concise and clear. He writes, “From the excellent scholarly biography by David Donald in 1960, Sumner emerges with barely a shred of nobility” (53). His conclusions are disputable, and yet he does not allow for us to question his statements. Finally, Boorstin does not use a first person narrative, but uses the pronoun “We” throughout his essay. This establishes a personal connection with the reader. We come to accept his conclusions, because Boorstin includes us in his arguments. His intentional syntax is to convince reads and further his …show more content…
In one particular section of his critique, Boorstin introduces the idea that heroes are not just people, but symbols of time periods, ideals, or morality. Boorstin asserts, “... human models are more vivid and more persuasive than explicit moral commands” (48). Heroes have “stood the test of time” because they are not mere humans: they have been built up and made to represent something of great influence. While some people believe greatness and heroic people are just a thing of the past, Boorstin compels us to question whether greatness ever existed in the first place. We all have flaws. Viewing all famous people with a critical mind and an increased attention on their personality, the development of new heroes has stunted and former heroes have dissolved. To be known for your personality is to become a celebrity. And a celebrity, “...is always a contemporary...the creature of gossip, of public opinion, of magazines, newspapers...the passage of time...destroys the celebrity”