A Rhetorical Analysis Of Hero Inflation By Nicholas Thompson

Hero Inflation

Nicholas Thompson wrote his article Hero Inflation in January 2002 which was not long after the tragedy of the September 11, 2001. It is not surprising that the argument of the article focuses on the way this tragedy influenced American society and its understanding of heroism. Despite the fact that the author's claim that it is not wise to apply the title of heroes to firemen and rescue workers who executed their duties in the World Trade Center after the terrorist attack may seem rude and morally inappropriate, the way Thompson supports his argument provokes interest in its reader, since it calls to reconsider the common approach towards heroism. This is the attribute of the article that has provoked my personal interest as

He does not simply lists the three elements of a hero, but also traces back their origins and attempts to explain why they are important nowadays. All in all, the author's thesis about the nature and purpose of heroes for any society can be put in a short and simple proposition: heroes are role models (Thompson). From this thesis it is easy to logically conclude that the development of the image of a hero in America, and its being associated with people who transformed the world in a courageous manner. Thompson also describes the rise of the fourth element of a hero as an objective process and supports this argument by noticing the fact that “books about overcoming adversity clog the bestseller lists, and perseverance during illness – any illness – is grist for the heroic mill”

The use of ethos is to be seen in the author's reference to the experience and legacy of Ancient Greece concerning the definition of a hero. Along with the already mentioned contribution this reference makes to the logical support of Thompson's argument, it also appeals to the great cultural authority and value we give to Ancient Greece. Another example of appeal to authority in the article is the use of the quotation of Emerson in the last line of the article. This appeal to authority of the prominent American philosopher seems to be called to perform double function. On the one side, it supports the author's mode of thinking about the issue. On the other side, it shelters Thompson from possible accusation in cynicism because he approaches the delicate issue of the memory and contemplating of the victims of the attack at September 11, 2001 (bearing in mind that the article was published only four months after the tragedy) in distinctly dry and unemotional manner. Therefore, the appeal to authority helps Thompson to justify this approach to some extend in the eyes of