"Humanism is about reading, it is about perspective. It is also the practice of identities...." -Edward Said
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Castro's Curveball by Tim Wendel - Humanities I
Does a novel need a hero/heroine? What types of characters are there? Is a character subservient to plot? Discuss the hero/heroine’s powers and accomplishments in Castro's Curveball.
I would like to start by saying not all novels need a hero or heroine. If the story does not need a hero or heroine then they should not have one. For instance, you need a hero or heroine in a murder mystery novel. Many fantasy novels and sci-fi novels can also have heroes as well. Many books like autobiographical and biographical books do not have heroes or heroines. I think some novels do not need heroes or heroines therefore they do not have them. I think that in 'Castro's Curveball' Fidel was a hero. I think that the quality of bravery shows a sign of you being a hero. The way Fidel fought for his country displayed the bravery of a hero. To start a revolution to me shows a sign of heroism. I also believe that another quality of a hero is to be helpful. Another hero of 'Castro's Curveball' was Billy. I thought Billy was a hero because of the way he helped Fidel with his baseball skills. I think that there are many different qualities that can make a person a hero. So in conclusion, I do not think all novels need a hero or heroine.
I think that not all novels really need a hero. If the book does not have a huge conflict going on, then there should not be a hero. There are novels that do not require a hero or heroine to be present because it does not call for one. If a book does need a heroine or hero, then the characters are mostly known but never really discovered. Like superman, he was a hero but no one knew his real identity. I think that the hero’s are unsuspected, they never really cause problems and are never noticed because their quite. A character does not always have to be subservient, he can be the meanest and roughest person in a city but not driven by evil. When I use the word evil, I mean that the characters do not always have be bad, they might have a reputation as a bad person, but it doesn’t mean there always the villain. I think that Castro is more the courageous and determined hero, he focuses on his objective because he believes in it. The same thing that Lauryn was saying, I also believe that to be a hero, you really have to change the things you go against, to be a hero is to start a revolution to make everything balanced and as one. A book can have more than one hero, but the one that is indomitable and unremitting is at the top, the best.
When describing a novel, the word hero is not always appropriate. The word protagonist is more general. The protagonist is the character we follow in the story. A hero has to be heroic. We have to like the hero. We don't have to like the protagonist. In many novels and movies, there are antiheroes. An antihero is a protagonist, but not necessarily a hero. The antihero is not always sympathetic and he or she maybe does things that we wouldn't do or we don't think are right. But, we still follow the character and we want him or her to win. Billy in 'Castro's Curveball' is an antihero. I found myself not always agreeing with his actions. He does not do anything heroic in the usual sense, but he is still the character we root for. He does not do very much that is heroic. He does try to get Malena out of Cuba, but he fails. The hero usually succeeds at his quest. The antihero fails. Lauryn and Reale both said that Castro was a hero. I am not sure that he was a hero. He was certainly courageous because he started a revolution, but was he a hero. He made several big mistakes. He wanted to be a hero, but he couldn't really do it. His cause was good, but they say that the ends do not justify the means. Fidel Castro did terrible things on his way to power and, in the end, did what Billy predicted would happen. He replaced a bad government with an equally bad government: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 'Catro's Curveball' does not have any heroes in the traditional sense. But it does have characters for us to follow and care about. A story does not need a hero, but it needs characters the reader can care about. Without that, the story won't work.
I would like to start of by saying that I haven’t yet completed this book but so far it seems very interesting because it discusses many different topics all at the same time. For example, it talks about the life of a baseball player while also portraying a love story. However personally, I would have not drawn my attention to this novel if I wasn’t told to do so. I feel that if a novel contains a hero, then it would be more intriguing to the audience because it would leave the readers with suspense throughout the book. However, i agree with lauryn whittaker when she stated that all books do not necessarily have to include a hero or heroin it its story. Depending on what the stories are about, i think that the story can still portray the same message without an hero. In Castro's curveball, i feel that Billy was a hero because he assited Fidel in baseball.
Many of my peers have touched upon very important topics for this discussion. There are two points that I will make regarding Castro as a hero. If hero is defined simply as the character that goes through the motions in a hero's journey such as the adventure and return, then he is not. Castro was an important character in the book, but not a hero, or necessarily an antihero. In the novel, he was shown to be a proud and somewhat foolish man, but at the same time he was also intelligent and clever. Regardless of his personal traits he did not resemble a hero. However, the reader is not immediately given an entire summary or the unbiased details of the life of Castro. Therefore, I may be wrongfully judging when I say that Castro was not a hero in the book. In contrast to that idea, there is also a large part of me that says Castro was a hero. Simply because the book does not focus on him mainly does not mean that he was not, in fact, a real hero. Castro understood the pains of his people in Cuba and took active steps to better his homeland. A powerful revolutionary and a desperate community resulted badly. Castro gathered the trust of those around him, and then thrust them towards the revolution, which did not end properly. Although Castro made serious mistakes, and today is still a very hated man, he went through the actions of a hero by doing more than what was expected of him. He stood up against an oppressive government and demanded change. In conclusion, there are facts that should determine if someone is a hero or not, but in the end it comes down to the basics. Castro is a hero, a corrupt and cruel dictator who led his people to a terrible fate, but nonetheless he still stood up for his peoples rights. Perhaps Castro is not portrayed as the classic hero in 'Castro's Curveball', or as a hero at all, but in reality he played the part.
I have to disagree with Lauryn and Reale on whether heroes are needed in a novel. Without heroes in a story, the story would be bland, dull, and no one would want to read the book. With a hero, the author can give us a person whom we can support and genuinely want to see through to the end. This hero doesn't even have to have the traits that we associate with "heroes". This is because there are many types of heroes, such as the antihero, who don't have "heroic" traits, but are still considered heroes in their own right. One example of such a hero is Shrek, who was smelly, rude, and overall not really pleasant. However, we all really liked him as a hero and went to finish the movie to see what happened to him. So all the main character of a novel may not seem to be a hero, as long as you support him he will be considered as such. And as long as he's the main character, then he is needed in the story.
A novel does not always need a hero or a heroine. The novel just needs characters that we can look up to or find something in common with. A hero has many definitions. This means that we all have our own opinions on what characteristics make a hero. A hero is not defined by who they are, but what they do. A hero also does not have a gender or an age. One person in Castro’s Curveball that might be a hero is Papa Joe. I don’t think he is a hero because he doesn’t do anything heroic. He can make many hopeful baseball players stars. He is a baseball scout that has the power to make or break a baseball player’s career. Though he may not be the most pleasant person, he is a subservient character because in the end, he is someone that a minor league baseball player wants in his life. Just because he can do all of these things, does not make him a hero. He didn’t do anything that was inconceivable. However, he is someone that is very important to this story, because without him, Castro would not have been discovered. He is not a hero, but he is a salient character.
In class, we learned what the qualities is to be a hero, and I honestly don't think that every novel has or needs a hero. However, there is always someone that changes their mind about a certain action or does something to better their life. For example, when we read "The Epic of Gilgamesh", we all learned that Gilgamesh was a hero because of the journey he embarked upon. He was a brave and courageous character, which not all characters in books have. If I were to read a book I picked up from the library, most likely there would be nothing in it about heroes. Like Reale said, unless there's a major conflict, then the book doesn't really need a hero. Normally when the book is an adventurous book, it contains a hero. Sometimes reading books about heroes and their journey can be extremely boring. The author normally writes the book so everyone could enjoy it. In that case, they write the book so it appeals to the reader and doesn't bore them. Basically I'm trying to say that every novel does not need a hero because stories are written to keep the reader interested. And in my opinion, some heroes make the story boring.
I do think that every book needs a hero or a heroine. In some novels you might not be able to quickly identify exactly who is the hero or heroine. There is always something that would give you a hint who was the hero out of the character. You can identify hero or heroine by special qualities that they carry throughout the book. Hero or heroine do things out of the goodness of the heart, they do not look for anything in return. In Castor’s Curveball, I believed that the hero was Fidel. He risked his life for what he think was right for his people and his country. He did this out the goodness of his heart and not because he wanted something in return. The hero could be the main characters, or it may also be the smallest character in the book, but most of the times the hero is one of the main characters in the book. It can also be more than one hero in the book. Every novel has a hero. The hero’s heroic action might not be as extreme as others but it was still heroic. I believe that you can not write a book with out a hero.
I do not feel that every novel needs a hero. In fact most novels that I have read do not have a "hero". I feel that heroes are more likely to be found in stories such as myths or fairytales. Then again, what is a hero? As we discussed in class there are many ways one can be classified as a hero. Some of which, are being courageous or strong. I feel that in earlier days the gods were seen as heroes, because of their super strength or power. In modern day I feel that it is not your strength or power that makes you a hero, but the act that you pursue. I feel that in this novel Castro possessed both some heroic and non-heroic traits. In certain parts of this novel Castro exhibited some heroic-like characteristics, such as intelligence. I do in fact feel that Castro played a very important role in the novel Castro’s Curveball. Aside from the book having his name in the title, Castro had one of the biggest roles in the book. Without his character, this novel could not be.
I agree with the intelligent points Ndia and Ashley made. A hero, although thoroughly discussed in class, still has a somewhat unclear definition. In humanities a hero is someone who does things honestly and without a need for anything in return. Others consider a hero as being strong and mighty, but this classification brings up questions. Must a hero be strong? Can you have a hero that is weak, but has a good heart? My answer to all these is that a hero is only defined by what they do, not superficial things such as appearance and money. In the story Fidel Castro seems to act rightly by standing up for his people. In the end, however, he failed at most everything he intended to do, including making a new government. Billy, on the other hand, is not really a hero. In the book he only acts for himself, or does his responsibilities. He is a good father, but that is just another job. The only real contribution he had to anyone else was assisting Fidel in baseball. This action can hardly be considered as heroism, however. Just because Billy is not a hero does not mean that he is not a good person. He never neglected any duty brought to him, and he never intentionally hurt anyone. A hero does not necessarily fit a certain category, or a size or shape. A hero is someone who acts for others, a selfless and moral person.
Thank you Izzy for agreeing with the point I brought up. After reading through everyone’s responses I think that we have all, for the most part, come to one conclusion, that the hero in this novel is in a way unknown. All of the characters in the novel did possess some heroic characteristics, but did not use them correctly. As many students have brought up, Castro was a very intelligent person, but he I feel that he sometimes he took his knowledge for granted. Then again being a hero all depends on your own personal definition of a hero. For example, I define a hero as a person who completes a noble task, or helps others. Where as others may see a hero as a person with super powers, such as Superman or Spiderman. When I was younger I thought that a hero was someone who fought crime and solved mysteries. I am not saying that those are not ways one can be defined as a hero, but now that I have matured I know that those are not the only types of heroes.
Every novel ventures out in its own individual direction. One author may view a subject a certain way, while another can write on the same topic from an entirely different perspective, both conveying the same message from two separate points of view. At the same time, the readers receive the message in different ways. Determining the hero-heroine and the criminal/villain would depend upon which side the reader is for and which one he/she is against. In writing a novel, the presence of a hero/heroine is always there. The little things one character does for another can make him a hero in his own way. On a larger scale, I would say that every novel does not require a hero. An author may depict a character that does deeds that are above and beyond what is determined to be necessary and can, therefore, be thought to be praiseworthy. This character may be considered one reader’s hero, even though he is not the overall hero in the novel. I believe that an author does not need to have the intention of placing a hero/heroine in his/her novel, but the reader’s understanding of the book may create a hero out of a character.
In the novel, Castro’s Curveball, there are two separate plots going on at the same time. Each plot involves many characters that vary in their attitudes and also in their personalities. Some of the characters, like Malena, were faithful and loyal. And then there are other characters, like Castro, who faithful and loyal, but are also mischievous. There were some other characters, such as Señor Canillo that were backstabbers. The characters Lionel and Larrando were spies. In the second plot which is to rediscover the past, Evangelina was a leader. Cassandra was a very anxious individual, and Billy was a wishy-washy and somewhat fearful older man. No matter their role, each character, somehow, played into the plots of the story. In the plot dealing with the revolution to overthrow the government, Arturo was subservient to the plot. Arturo was able to help Castro early on in the story, and his death upset the hearts of some of the characters, but he was not a dominant character or of great importance to the plot, as a whole. Regardless of his/her individual importance in the story, each character added flavor, so to speak, to the novel in his or her own unique way.
I agree with Kyndall when she stated that the story had two different plots. I really did not recognize that untl she pointed it out. When you look back on what you read you do realize that there is two different plots. I also recognized that the two plots seem like they took place in two different parts of Billy's life. I think having two plots to one story is very clever. I do not know why this technique was so clever to me. I also think that in each plot of the story their is a different hero. In the part of the book where Billy is older, I believe his daughter Cassie was a hero. I think Cassie was a hero because she bought her father back to Cuba to recconect with his past. In the section of the book earlier in Billy's lifetime I still believe he and Castro were heroes. So in conclusion I agree with Kyndall.
I agree with Kyndall about different authors. Authors can write about different subjects and have different point-of-views, while trajecting the same message. An author might write a book with an evildoer and a hero, but depending on your perspective of the book and its characters, you will relate to which ever characters you choose to. I also think that there will be characters that are not too evil or not too nice, but just in between. It doesn’t matter who you relate to, the evildoer, the hero, or the characters in between because you will have your own reasons. In a book, the hero or evildoer might not be obvious to you, but as you read the book, you will figure out who is who. However, I still think that the hero and evildoer in any story can’t be defined by one definition. After reading some of the other postings, I still think that everyone has their own definition of what characteristics make a hero. Evildoers also have their own definitions, depending on who is defining that character. After reading over my own posting, I don’t think there is a specific definition for the word heroic either. It all depends on what you think a heroic act is. Depending on what a person does to help another, will determine if that act was heroic or not. I think a hero is determined by the act they perform and how they do it.
In the story, "Castro's Curveball", there were many different types of characters. These types of characters are the heroes, the secondary, the betrayer, and the miscellaneous characters. The hero/main character was Billy, who might not be considered a hero by some but is certainly the main character of the book. There is also the secondary characters of Castro and Mandela, who are important in the story, but are not studied as in-depth as the main character. Additionally, there are what I call the "tragic" characters, who are innocent, heartwarming characters whose lives are tragically cut short in the story. An example of this character is Arturo, who was killed when the bell was taken by the government. Then like Kyndall said, there are the "betrayer" characters who betrays the main and/or secondary character(s). An example of this would be Senor Canillo and Papa Joe, who both betrayed Billy’s trust in them. And finally, there are the miscellaneous characters, these are the characters in a book who do not fit clearly into any of the above categories. These might be the people a character might bump into at the market, a henchmen they kill, or any other very minor character that a character some how interacts with.
I would like to start off by saying that a story does not always need a hero, and often they do not contain one. However, I agree with Nick. There is always a protagonist or a main character for us to follow throughout the story. Often we are made to like this character, though sometimes not. However, the word hero is not always accurate when used to describe this main character. Sometimes he does not follow the hero’s cycle that all heroes must go through to become a hero. In other stories, the main character is simply a bad guy who could not ever be a hero. For example, in The Godfather Don Vito Corleone is the main character that we follow through the book. However, he could never be called a hero because he is gangster who commissions killings and business takeovers. In this book, I believe that Fidel Castro started out as a hero and then turned into a bad guy. When he started the revolution, he was a hero because he was trying to replace a corrupt and evil government with a better government. His intentions were good, but when he actually established his government, it turned out to be just as bad as the previous government.
I feel that out of all the comments that have been posted on this blog, Kyndall and Izzy have made me realize more things. Kyndall has made me realized something I had not about Castro's character and the book as a whole. For example, I never looked at this story as having two separate plots. While reading I saw it as being one plot, with a lot of subplots. On the other hand Izzy also brought up some major points of the story's plot. She brought up how one of the characters, Fidel Castro, attempted at some heroic acts, but in the end did not succeed. In a way I feel that all of the characters in Castro’s Curveball failed at at least one task.
I truly feel as if every novel does not need a hero or heroine. But when reading a book, although not away, a hero is usually spotted. Some people say, a novel is not a novel without something courageous, or someone courageous is taken place. That is not true. Above, Reale stated that if a book does not have a big conflict then there should not be a hero. I do not quite agree with that. I say that because in the smallest conflict there can be a hero. A person can simply be a hero just by turning in an object to the lost and found, that small little incident can lead up to a bigger conflict if not chosen upon correctly. A hero to someone is not a hero to somebody else. Saying that, some students feel as if that Fidel isn’t a hero, some students do. That is because he does not meet their expectations of a hero. Nicholas stated that Castro made plenty of mistakes, well that is apart of the hero’s journey. You make mistakes, but when making that mistake you shall learn from it and that’s apart of transitioning to a new and mature person.
Obviously, based on many of my peers' comments, a story usually has a main character, but that person may not necessarily be a hero. Castro and Billy both are ordinary human beings with flaws and talents. In comparison, they are not very different from each other. They both want one main thing in life. For Billy it was to remain a baseball star or to have his love, Malena. For Fidel it was to overthrow the government in order to save his people from an unjust lifestyle. This novel relates to real life because the conflicts that the characters are going through can correlate to everyday life. Everyone has problems, and often, we all need someone to look up to, that knows what to do. This person is a hero. I do not think that many people looked up to Billy, perhaps some other baseball players. Fidel, on the other had, and still has, hundreds of thousands of followers. Fidel's ideas were bigger and more elaborate than Billy's in the novel. Billy was not interested in Cuba's political situation, which is nothing negative, but more people can relate to and agree with someone working for them. Fidel, in essence, was working for the people. Both characters had heroic moments, and both have heroic qualities, but even those things do not automatically qualify someone to be a real Hero.
For starters I would like to say that I agree and disagree with some of the things my peers stated. I honestly believe all novels do not necessarily need a hero; moreover they need a role model or someone that the reader can either relate to, or find some type of connection whether good or bad with. Sometimes in books we find that everyone fails, and majority of the time hero's are made out to be these, "super-powered or extra strength having people, who can do the unthinkable," and in every story you don’t come across that. For instance someone simply making it through a rough childhood can be considered, a "role model" but not a hero, because, as said before, a hero does the unexpected, and not the expected. When referring to Castro’s Curveball, I would have to agree with my peer Nick, that both Fidel and Billy were both heroes and “role model’s”. Because, as Nick stated, it takes a lot of bravery and boldness to fight for your country and to start a revolution. Not only do you have to persuade the ones who have no type of opinion or concerns on what is going on in their country but you also have to stand up to those who totally disagree with what you are fighting for. Then there’s Billy, who simply went out and taught Fidel how to become a better baseball player. Although in my opinion these aren’t heroic actions, they are indeed actions which should be noticed, as something everyday people just don’t choose to do.
I felt that there was more than one hero in Castro’s Curveball. Each of the three main characters were heroes/heroines in their own unique way. Castro was a hero because he went against the odds. He was not afraid to make the effort to make those things he believed in a reality. Despite the hard times that Castro had to face as well as the few times when he suffered defeat, Castro continued to push through to accomplish the goals he had set for himself. I felt that Malena was a heroine in the story. She risked her life to ensure that every second of the action, in the history they were making, was captured on her camera. I also thought of Billy as a hero in the story. He learned to swallow his pride and to follow his heart’s calling. Billy also pushed himself to stand up to the fear he had of returning to Cuba. Each hero/heroine found his/her strong point and let it lead and guide them. In Billy’s case, not only did his strength guide him, but he also allowed his fear to motivate him and push him to strive to operate at his fullest potential. Each of the characters and their accomplishments brought the novel and its message together.
Starting off this paragraph, I would like to say that seeing other classmate’s thoughts helped me come to a conclusion or either rethink mine. Isabella stated that Billy isn’t a hero. I agree. It’s true that he only acted for himself. Yes, he did help Fidel in baseball, but it is not quite heroic. Most heroes are heroes because of their non-selfless actions or how brave and courageous they are. Ndia stated the hero in this novel is somewhat unknown. That could be true or it could just be that there’s more than one hero and those heroes might not equal up to everyone else’s qualities of a hero. Most of the characters in this novel acted upon some heroic acts, but unfortunately that couldn’t end as they should have been ended. I think everyone has agreed that people have their own heroes. So therefore, there are plenty of heroes in Castro’s Curveball, but those heroes could never end their journey successfully. Just as in The Epic of Gilgamesh, sure Gilgamesh wanted to be a hero, but he had to complete all of the cycles in a hero’s journey. That is something the heroes in this novel certainly could not do!
In the novel “Castro’s Curveball”, I think some the characters have power over each other. By this I mean that one character might be able to control another with emotions, feelings, or talent. For example, Papa Joe had the power to control Billy and all of the other baseball hopefuls. Without Papa Joe, Billy would not have been in the minor leagues. When Billy had to go after Fidel Castro with Melena, he went willingly because of Melena. However, I think if Melena did not go with him, he would have gone anyway. Like I wrote before, Papa Joe had the power to make or break a baseball player’s career. I think Billy would have gone along with anything, just so he could have been successful. Another character that had control over Billy is Melena. Billy is so blinded by her winsomeness, that he sometimes even forgot why he went on the trip with her. However, I think Fidel Castro is the one with the most power to control the people around him. He has control over his adherents because his words convinced and educated them. I also think he had some control over Papa Joe. Papa Joe would have waited as long as possible in his office until Castro showed up because he couldn’t pass up such a good baseball player. In conclusion, I would like to say that the way I use the word “control” does not mean to use force or to persuade someone intentionally, but I use the word to show excessiveness. By using this word, I would like to convey the in “Castro’s Curveball”, there are some characters that had what others wanted, but could not have, so that character used what they had to their advantage.
In some ways I agree with the points that Logan had made. The book has many different types of characters that you can address. Like Logan stated, the book consist of, main characters, secondary characters, and other that fall towards the end. I believe that Castro was one of the main characters. Along with Castro, Billy can be considered as a main character. Mandel was more considered as a secondary character. She was important towards telling the story but not as important as Billy and Castro. Even though there was not many main characters ever character was needed and important in telling a story. Each character provides something to the story. Like I stated in the earlier blog every story has a hero, and with each hero comes a bad guy or villain. In this story it is no different. I would consider the government as that can villain. In a way I disagree with Alicia. A heroes and a remodel can be compared somewhat as the same, but they still have their difference. In order to be a role model you have to have a role someone can look up to, like some heroes. The role also most of the time does something special, like an action to be considered as on. Why can’t that action be a heroic one? If they do all the steps and have all the qualities that there is to be a hero, they can be consider as a hero.
I believe a novel has heroes so that the plot has a central focus. The use of a hero in a story gives a theme to a novel, provides the story some direction, and the characters a focus point. A plot moves only in the direction of the hero, or the characters in some stories, and the focus of the characters in the novel. I think a character is important to a plot because it gives the novel structure. There are many different characters in a story. You have the enemy, who does not want the hero to succeed. You also have mentors that help the hero along its journey, who are the threshold guardians in the Hero's Journey. The guardians watch over the hero until it is time to let them defend themselves. The enemy is always looking for the main character to fall into temptation where they have to make a tough decision. In Castro’s Curveball, the hero is Fidel Castro. He is a strong political activist in Havana, Cuba, but his initial conflict is whether or not to trust Billy and prepare to play minor league baseball in the United States. I would consider that an accomplishment.
I think that a novel does not need a hero, but one is always present. By this I mean that every novel does not need to have a hero to be interesting, because some novels don't, but every novel has a character who can be interpreted as a hero. In Castro's Curveball, for instance, there is not a character who represents the webster dictionary definition of a hero. However, both Billy and Castro can be interpreted as being a hero in different ways. Even the simplest stories follow the same pattern. For instance, The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger is the simple story of a boy just killing time by living his life. Now this boy has no heroic traits. He, in fact, is the opposite of a hero, ordinary. But, this boy can be considered a hero because of the personal journey he took when he was killing time by living. The same idea is applied to Castro's Curveball. Billy is not an especially heroic person. However, he can be considered a hero. This is because he spent his life fighting for his dream. He was going to be a baseball player, no matter what it took. This is a strength that enables a person to be their own personal hero, even if they dont know they are doing it.
While reading wat my peers have said, i began to rethink my position on this topic. I agree with isabella when she stated that billy was not in fact a hero. Although he did help fidel, i do not feel that thiz was an heroic act. Theis was to help his carrer and he wasnt jepordizing hos life or seeking for a treasure. This act waz more of a good deed instead of an heroic action because he couldve said no and fidel coundve found somebody else to help him practice. Therfore, i agree with isabella and shane. Heroisnm is when you do something that may risk ypur life but may save someone else. However, i do feel that billy ahd the characteristics of an hero in which he was caring,respcetful and wise.
I do not think that every novel needs a hero or heroine. I agree with both Tiara F. and Lauryn when they state that, it depends on what the story is about. I agree with them because, I also think that the story can still send an important message without a hero or heroine inside the story. I also think that if the story is not based on an heroic action, than it does not need or may not contain a hero or heroine. I actually believe that all novels cannot contain a hero or a heroine. I say this because there is not a character in every story that does something heroic, therefore, they cannot be called a hero or heroine.
I agree and disagree with Tiara. This is because although Billy was not a traditional hero in helping Fidel, he was a hero. You said that to be a hero, you have to risk your life to save someone else's. Does that include your career? Billy risked his career to help Fidel get into the big leagues. I know this may seem the exact opposite of what you said, so let me explain. If Castro was a complete disaster on the field during training, Billy would have been blamed. In a way, Fidel's success determines Billy's success. So, Billy risked his career to ensure someone else's future. As you said, there are two sides to the story. You could say that Billy only did this to get ahead in his life. If Billy hadn't been tempted by the option of playing in America, he probably would not have helped to train Fidel. This makes him greedy and absolutely not a hero. However, there is another side of Billy we have yet to explore, Billy the American and Billy father, not Billy the baseball player. Billy had the courage to take his daughter back to Cuba after living in America for his later years. He had the drive and trust in his daughter that he was doing the right thing in going back to his second home of Havana. Billy is quite the father. His love for his daughter is apparent from the beginning of the book through the end. To be able to overcome the death of his wife and be his daughter's support system is another way in which Billy can be thought of as a hero.
Perhaps a novel does not necessarily require a hero. It is always enjoyable to have a hero in the story so that the reader can have someone who they are in favor of and without the hero, the story is dull and somewhat meaningless. I do not think that the character is essentially subservient to the plot, but rather that the two compliment each other. Without the plot, there are no characters and without the characters there is not plot or action in the story. A novel needs both aspects in order to survive. In this particular novel it is hard to say whether Fidel Castro or Billy Bryan is the hero. I think that in terms of the typical hero, Castro was most similar to a hero because of his charm and wit. However later in the novel, it did not seem as though he was so much of a hero anymore because of the way in which he eventually governed his country. Personally, Billy was not much of a hero. He seemed clumsy and he was a person who seemed to run away from his problems. He was easily angered and when he left Cuba, I expected him to stay with Malena because she was not leaving, however he left her behind. Although he did attempt to get Malena out of Cuba to save her, he did not succeed, and normally a hero succeeds. However, I do admire the change in Billy’s character from partying in the thick of Havana nights to being concerned about the revolution. It was hard to say whether it was genuine interest, his love for Malena, or the chance of signing Castro to the major leagues to make himself look good; perhaps a combination of the three.
Castro's Curveball. No, every story does not need a hero. A hero is usually depicted as being a superfically envisionment of ourselves. A hero can be anyone. A hero can take any shape, color, size or form. A hero to me is a person who make a difference. Not only in the lives around them, but also in their own. I think often the meaning of the word hero is greatly misunderstood. Most believe a hero must be strong, invincible, immortal and beautiful. But a hero has every day problems. I disagree with Ashley, because anyone can be a hero in a story.
In regards to some of my peer’s comments, I have become conscious of the fact that there may indeed be two coexisting plots within the novel. Like Kyndall said, both Billy and Castro were going after two separate goals. Castro wanted to, in a sense, revive his country and Billy wanted to be in the major leagues and be recognized for his talents. However, I am still failing to see many of these hero traits within Billy that my peers speak of. When helping Castro, I do not believe that he would have ever given the revolution much thought if Castro was not such an excellent baseball player. It is clear that as Billy went to more meetings and fell more in love with Malena, he did seem to become more aware. However, a hero should want to be in favor of a cause because he feels it is right in his mind, not to encourage someone to try to help themselves, which is what I feel that Billy did with Castro. There was even a point in the novel when Billy said that he felt a hint of envy after Castro signed the contract with Papa Joe. Although his envy was understandable, and he can still be considered a hero despite this, I do not think that his actions were particularly heroic. It was as if he was always induced in order to do something. For example, his return trip to Cuba after so many years was stimulated by the discovery of his scrap book by his daughter. If not for that instance, I do think that he would have ever returned.
continuation of character discussion...................... I agree with both Ida and Kendall. They both made interesting points that spark my interest. The story does seem to have multiple plots, but what really got me thinking was the way the story depicted heroism. In the beginning of the story the book focused more on Castro accomplishments and acknowledgments, but seldom showed he had flaws. The book discussed his heroism and duty, but later loses interest in his qualities nad focuses on his imperfections. While doing this the reader got to see how normal and imperfect a hero could be. Like I stated before in previous text, anyone can be a hero and make mistakes becsause they are human.
Going back to what I stated before, as I was reading my peer’s opinions, a hero is what you make him or her to be. Still, they have to hold the characteristics of a hero, which is mainly braveness, courage, and cannot be selfish at all. It seems as if everyone is disputing on whether Billy Bryan is the hero or Fidel Castro. To be honest, now that I have heard my peer’s responses and thought over my opinions and thoughts, I am confused on whether there are any heroes in this novel. Both characters made heroic acts but that is all. If it were for that, everyone is a hero because there has been one time that someone was brave or courageous. Basically, what I am trying to say is, if a criminal were to rob a bank to get money for a homeless man of what sort, despite of all the consequences, would that person be called a hero? No. Same way with the Billy character, he did one good deed but that does not consider him as a hero! So to come to a conclusion, I am not sure if there are any heroes in this novel.
Yes, I think characters can be subservient to the plot. I agree with Malika that some characters have power over each other. Characters can control each other with emotions, feelings, money, power and fame like Papa Joe had the power to control Billy and other baseball hopeful.
The novel Castro’s Curveball has many different types of characters. The main character’s name was Billy. I find him to be the main character because he is given the most character development out of all the other characters of the novel. Castro and Mandela are important in the story, but are not given the same amount of character development as the Billy. There are also characters that are loving, caring, and innocent characters whose lives are tragically cut short in the story. They help move the story along. And finally, there are the characters that do not fit entirely with the other sections. These characters also help move the story on, such as the first person to die in a movie or extras. I think that a story does not need a hero, such as this book, but most stories do anyways. These, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh give us the triumph of the hero against evil. When those components do not exist, the story gains more room for the thought of the reader. Slaughterhouse Five, for example, does not have a traditional hero. It has a man going through a journey, but no hero or heroin is involved.
At first I believed all stories needed a hero, but after I read the other student's postings I realized that the main character in each story isn't a hero. A hero is someone who is admired for the good deeds they did and is regarded as a model or an ideal of the way a person should be. Not every novel has a character that fits that description; therefore, novels don't need a hero or a heroine. I agree with the other students when they say that Billy and Castro are heroes. Billy is a hero because he helped Fidel to hone his baseball skills so that he could go to America to play and represent his country and pave the way for other Latino people who wanted to play baseball back then, as well as in the future. He helped to change Castro’s view on baseball and give him a chance for something better. Castro is a hero because he’s risking his life for his country. He wants a revolution so that his hometown can become a better place. Even though when he was in charge, Cuba was as bad as it was before, he fought for something, and even though it didn’t work out as hoped, he’s still a hero for trying.
I think that the point of Castro's Curveball may be that there are no heroes, at least, not the publicized heroes: the people who are supposed to be heroes. An example of those types of heroes were the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. This was portrayed in the film "Flags of Our Fathers." Because they were there at the right place at the right time, they became famous. They didn't consider themselves heroes. There were other men they knew who did heroic things, but they weren't called heroes. They were still fighting and dying in the war. The men who had raised the flag hadn't even raised the important flag. The men who had raised the first flag had been forgotten. The famous flag was only a replacement. The point of the film was that Heroes (with a capital H) are an invention of the media. Real heroes are ordinary people. In Castro's Curveball, Fidel Castro was not a real hero. He was made into a hero. I think that the point of the book is that the names of real heroes don't make headlines. Real heroes are people like Malena, not Castro.
I agree with LauRyn, not all novels have a hero or heroine. A hero or heroine is a person of distinguished courage or ability, who is admired for his or her brave deeds and noble qualities. Fidel Castro is considered a hero too many because he fought for his country. Even though there is not always a hero or heroine in some novels, there is always a main character. A main character is someone who is either narrating or incessantly the main point in a novel. Such as, The Catcher in the Rye, in this novel Holden Caulfield was the main character because he narrated the story. In Castro’s Curveball, I believe that there was more than one hero. Overall, any novel that has multiple heroes is a good book. It most books heroes are classified as men. Women rarely get credit for there bravery in a novel unless it is a novel written by a women.
I do believe that in a novel, a character can be subservient to the plot. A character can be placed in a story just to help the plot move along. These people in a story are usually the "tragic" and miscellaneous characters. These characters are almost by their definition subservient to the plot. "Castro's Curveball" is a novel that has many characters that are subservient to the plot. One example of a subservient character in "Castro's Curveball" is Arturo, who was briefly introduced to us and then killed. It seems the only reason for Arturo's existence is to awaken Billy to Castro's cause. Once Arturo is dead, he's dead and we rarely hear about him again. Another example of a character subservient to the plot is Malena's landlady, Senora Garcia. Senora Garcia appears for a tiny portion of the story, which seems to be devoted to showing Billy’s growing attraction to Malena and what he would do for her. A book can have characters that are needed for the very “core” or “substance” of the book, like Billy or Castro, but it can also have characters that are simply used for plot advancement. “Castro’s Curveball” is unusual in that the author seems to make both types of characters touch us, not just the “stars of the show’, so to speak.
I agree with Nick, a hero/heroine is an ordinary person. Most people, including myself have been led to believe that a hero must be this notorious person who is known by everyone. That isn’t the case; a hero can be defined as an ordinary person and later commit a heroic act and become notorious. An example of a hero is Superman, he is just your everyday guy but when danger lurks the town he comes and commits his act of bravery. It seems like Superman would be an anonymous hero because little people know that his true identity is Clark Kent. It interests me how he can take his suite and glasses off and put on his Superman attire and nobody knows who he is. In the novel Castro was a hero and so was Billy. Castro has helped his country and Billy has helped Castro, that is what makes him a hero.
After viewing some of the points that few of my peers have made, I would like to say that, in this book, there seems to be, not Heroes, but, people who are willing to push past the limits in order to get what they desire. I believe that, if anything the characters in this book, aren’t being heroic but simply courageous. Of course heroes are courageous, but they are courageous in a way that simple people are not. And simple people are courageous in a way heroes see as being “normal” actions. I believe that Malena had to have been the most courageous of them all because her career, her job, her passion, put her life on the line. She did the unthinkable and she exceeded the limits. I honestly agree with my peer Nick, that at the same time this book may also be relaying a message that clearly states, “Real heroes don’t make headline.” Although some do, the real ones, who do whatever it takes to accomplish their task don’t, because its something they choose to do on a daily basis, and not because he or she was asked to, its something that simply comes from the heart!
I agree with Shanae’s last comment. Being a hero, and doing a good deed are two different things. When we hear the word hero we often think of Superman. Superman is not a real person, he’s a fictional character who was made to capture the attention of public viewers. If you look up the word hero, you will find that it means a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. In my opinion, a hero is a male or female, that takes the initiative to stand up and do what’s right, no matter what the outcome is. There are various definitions to define the word hero, but I believe you have to look deep into your soul to really capture an understanding of the word. A hero or a heroine is an ordinary individual. They are not born into the world crowned as a hero, but gain that title by showing they are one. Often you hear people saying “You are my hero”. This is an expression that is often used as a thank you for when a person does a good deed for someone else. I believe everyone is a hero in their own way. Either you’ve committed a brave act to help someone else, or one day you will accomplish something that enables you to be called a hero. You don’t have to jump in front of a moving vehicle to be called a hero. You can just simply do something as sincere as giving a miserable person a compliment which kept them from committing suicide. I believe you can be a hero without even knowing it, just because you did the smallest thing that made a big difference in someone’s life!
I'll begin by saying that, I agree with most of my peers because I also don't think all novels need or have a hero or heroes. Most novels or plays don’t always, necessarily, have heroes they usually have a protagonist, the character or characters we follow throughout the story. I disagree with what Nick said because we, as readers, don't have to like the hero. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh was a very selfish king and wasn’t liked by many people and just because he came back from his journey a hero doesn’t, necessarily, mean that he was liked by readers because many people have different opinions on what makes a hero, they decide if they like the heroes qualities or not . I think a protagonist, in a way, could be a hero because some attempt to do something unique like Billy. At the beginning of the novel, Billy did something very unique, during the game, he stole base and was heading for the home plate, when his opponents reacted very quickly and beat him to home plate by about four steps. Just because Billy didn’t win the game for his team, I think he was heroic because he had the courage and mind set to help out his team. If a book doesn’t have a hero it should, at least, have characters that readers could connect with or follow, this makes novels more interesting for readers.
I am neutral when it comes to Sherwood’s comment. I feel as if the question “Does a novel need a hero/heroine” is very contradicting. Most of my peers have stated that a hero is an ordinary person, or a hero has many different definitions. There have also been comments where people have been confused about the definition of a hero in general. If you just ask the question “Does a novel need a hero/heroine” I won’t be able to give you a complete answer. My reason for this is because the person I consider a hero, might not be considered a hero in someone else’s eyes. A novel needs a variety of characters that can represent something different, but yet can be relatable. You don’t need a man in a tight costume to make the novel a good novel. You need characters of diverse backgrounds, or either different experiences, that can come together in unity. There are many people who can be considered a hero, but yet have not been, or may never be properly recognized. For instance, there are many people who are rich and famous, and have no talent whatsoever, and there are extremely talented people who will never be discovered. A hero is not just the physical attributes that enable you to lift a building off a small child, but the state of mind that encourages you to do so.
I am glad that LauRyn started this forum because it gave each of us a chance to see what a hero is or what he can be simply by their willingness to do for others. I have learned that Castro is a hero but so is Billy because Castro is a hero to the Cubans,but Billy is a hero to Castro which is expressed by both Malena Faseca and Papa Joe. They believe that Billy used his good judgment when he asked Castro to practice with him. Billy believes that Castro can be in the major leagues and he wants to help him to get there. This is accomplishment for Billy and Castro because he wants to open his heart and mind into a new challenge. I think that takes real bravery to face his enemy as well as Castro did. In this novel they will grow mentally, physically, and respect each other. These characteristics are why I consider Castro and Billy heroes in this novel.
Most of my peers said that Fidel Castro was considered as a hero in the book, but why? What made everyone think he could be considered as a hero? A hero is someone who’s noble, brave, and courageous. In my opinion, Castro described none of those characteristics. Even though he might have done a couple things for Cuba doesn’t necessarily make him a hero. Even if the people did consider him as a hero, after a while he failed because the country had an economic situation. Is he still considered a hero then? Many people don’t even remember the good things he did. They remember him because of the bad or because he was in jail for fifteen years. That’s the kind of stuff people remember him for. So that’s not heroic at all. Like Nick said the Iwo Jima is something heroic because the war was fought for our freedom. People risked their lives to get what we deserved, and we succeeded. As for Castro, he fought to gain independence for Cuba, but along the way he messed up. To me it seems like he was doing this for himself, so that he could have total power and control. When you are thinking about doing something for yourself it’s not heroic. Doing something for other people or for your country is.
I would first like to start off by saying that there have been some interesting comments and some have made me ponder. This means that these discussions have been stimulating. Well anyway, I wholly agree with Rakiya about Castro not being a hero. I know that we discussed in class that a hero was someone who sacrificed their lives, blah, blah. I don't think Castro fit the description of a hero, at least not the one we discussed in class. Castro did fight for a cause and even started a revolution, but in the story it says that Castro didn't better things for Cuba or its government. In my opinion I think the hero in the story was Malena. On page 151, paragraph four it says, "Heroism was about doing the small things, day after day after day, that can heal a people and hold a country together." That is exactly what Malena did. Although, she didn't save anyone it was the small things that she did. Sometimes heroes come in small packages and what I think made Malena a hero was her way of expressing herself through photography. In the story it was her photos that let the world know what was going on and what things Cuba was going through. Her doing something so small changed Cuba. Not to, mention as little as photography seems, doing something like this in the Revolution was considered very dangerous. I don't mean to stray away from the questions, but this is something I felt strongly about. A lot of people said Castro, but I guess in some form you could say he was one.
I would like to elaborate a little more on Rakiya’s comment. I personally don’t believe that Fidel Castro was a hero myself, but to others he was. I asked my father, who is from Havana, Cuba, what he thought about Fidel Castro. In his opinion he was a hero, and pushed himself to the limit. After hearing this I carefully analyzed once more the definition of a hero. Is Fidel Castro a hero to my father because they are from the same background, and can relate? Is Fidel Castro not a hero to me because he’s a man from another background with more life experiences? People have the tendency to connect better with people who they can relate to. Are heroes determined by the actual content of their character, or their connection with people? Now I am no longer sure of what my opinion is on Castro. Part of me loves him for standing up for Cuba, while the other half of me is confused. I think that is possible for people to chose who they want to call a hero, depending on if that particular person has done something for them. For instance, some of my peers may not consider Castro a hero even though he did stand up for Cuba. While I may somewhat consider him a hero, only because he did stand up for the place where my roots are. This is one of the many reasons why the definition of a hero is so compromising.
I kind of agree and disagree with Rakiya. After reading her point of view I kind of altered my thoughts of Castro being a hero. I thought that Castro did have heroic qualities such as being brave and courageous. Even though Castro did fail at times he kept trying again. I think perserverence is a heroic quality. Now that I have read her point of view I agree with her in some ways. For an example, when Rakiya said doing something for yourself is not heroic that is true. Doing something for yourself does not show selflessness it shows selfishness which is not a heroic quality at all. Reading some of my peers' points I have come to the realization that Castro did not resemble a hero as much as I thought he did. I still say think that he is somewhat a hero, but he is not as much as a hero as I thought he was. Even if you have heroic qualities that does not make you a hero.
This topic is very debatable. Many people are seeing things differently and normally I would agree with my peers, but I still haven’t seen it the same way they are seeing it. I still don’t think Billy or Castro were heroes. They did do some things in the book that seemed friendly or nice, like when Billy helped Castro improve his curveball, but I don’t think that’s heroic. However, Malena could have been a heroine in a way. She was brave and courageous. She risked her life by taking pictures of the revolution Castro started, which could have led her to death. She basically put her life on the line for history. That’s something most people won’t do, unless they are serving in the war.
Billy, I can’t really describe who his character was. He was very nice, but also depressed because his wife had died. He seemed to like playing baseball, and would do what ever he could to impress his boss and stay on the team. He set out for a mission that he would not give up on because otherwise, he thought, he would lose his career, which made him a very diligent person.
In most books there is always someone who is subservient to the plot. Without that person or people the book might not make any sense. The shortest sentence a character says could tell the whole story. One character was Senora Garcia, which was Malena’s landlord. She helped Billy realize that he did have feelings for Malena, which helped him get closer to her. In the end, Malena and Billy ended up starting a relationship, and she had his baby.
I would have to agree with most of my peers who fell that all novels should always have a hero. If a novel doesn’t have a hero, agreeing with Younese, then the book will be just tedious and boring. I think a hero can be and can play in any type of novel whether its an autobiography or a mystery. Like LauRyn said, a hero can be a mystery but that’s not the only type of book a hero can be in. A hero might play a better role in a mystery than in any other type of book but that’s not the only book it can be located in. A hero is a person who is respected for what he or she does during life taking situations without being rewarded for his or her duty. For example, when I was younger, my favorite cartoon hero was Batman. I was about five years old so I didn’t know the real definition of a hero. My definition of a hero was a person who saves people, but now I fully understand the true meaning of a hero. Types of various types of heroes, as described by Younese, and various types of books they can be found in.
I would like to first start off by saying; I no longer believe there was any sort of hero in this book at all. As I read and considered my peers point of view, we all seem to believe that there’s one character in the book that does, the total extreme. But when honestly thinking about the whole situation, everyone in the book did something for their own benefit. No one really took a risk that was brought upon them to benefit someone else, NOT including them. Whether it was some ones job or simply something someone did because they felt it was what needed was at that time. No one really jumped their selves out there and did what, “normal” people did. The only real reason why we give these characters so much credit for their little actions is because their actions seem so bold that none of us would really do exactly what they did. And just like anyone else we know, when we see someone do something plainly out of the blue, that we would never consider even attempting, we become so amazed, and excited with their actions that we automatically give them a bigger title than what is really needed. We give to much credit to those who do the littlest things, only because it’s all brand new to us. Before I thought, Malena was the only one who really was considered a hero because she put her life on the line so many times, that it didn’t make any sense. But yet, when you sit back and really think about it, she was just fulfilling her job, and doing what is required to the best of her ability. So would this really be considered heroic? Not at all. Overall, I would say that there really wasn’t any hero’s in the book, more ever there were people who were willing to exceed the limits, to get wherever the dreamed and desired of going!
After reading Rakiya’s latest posting my opinions have made a great expansion. I also think Malena can be considered a heroine. She had a great deal of courage and nobility. She had the bravery of risking her life, while not being selfish. In my opinion those are the qualities that define a hero.
I agree with Sherwood that we do not have to like the hero. That is true, but I think that there are different types of heroes. There is the type of hero who is the good guy who can do no wrong. We obviously like that hero. The type of hero we don't like is an antihero. The character can still do heroic things, but he is far from perfect. The antihero can be a jerk. The antihero can make mistakes. We don't always like the antihero. The hero does what we would do in that situation, or, atleast, what we would want to do. Superman doesn't always do what we would do. Come on, who here can fly around the world so fast that the world spins backwards and time reverses? I salute anybody who can do that. Good for you. For the rest of us, the hero is who we would want to be. We wish we could be like that. The antihero does not always do what we would do. Just like any other person, the antihero makes mistakes. The Hero (capital H again) is the godlike, almost supernatural figure. The antihero is a regular person. That does not mean that the character is not a hero. That doesn't mean we don't have to like the character. It just means that the antihero won't turn back time by flying around the world so fast that the earth reverses its rotation. That would have been an interesting ending for "Castro's Curveball."
There were many characters in "Castro's Curveball", such as Señor Canillo, Castro, Lionel, Larrando, Billy, Evangelina, Arturo, Melana etc. Lionel and Larranda were and acted like spies. Senor Canillo was a backstabber. Melana, like Castro was loyal, she was also trustworthy. Even though, Castro was loyal, he was also malicious. Billy was the main character and was a hero ,in his own way,that mainly thought about himself but also made his decision which he thought would help others, but his decisions usually didn't work. Evangelina was sort of a leader. Cassandra was a leader, in a way, but shined more as a anxious individual. Each Character played important roles that helped the overall meaning of the plot which was to overpowering the government . The characters that were subservient to the plot, I thought, were Billy, and Arturo. The reason I thought Billy and Arturo were subservient was because they both helped Castro and bettered his chances of becoming a contender in the American Major League. I agree with Kyndall, when she said regardless of the characters' individual importance in the story, each one added flavor to make the story unique.
As many of my peers and I said, there are lots of characters in different books. I think the characters depend on what type of novel it is or what kind of genre the novel is. If the novel is autobiography and it is nonfiction book, then the characters can’t be fictionist. The characters have to be as real as a normal human. They have to talk about realistic events and behave to those events as us humans do. For example, in Castro’s Curveball by Tim Wendel, when Billy and Papa Joe were talking on the phone, Papa Joe quoted “you know, the Dodgers may be ready to bring coloreds into the big leagues with this Robinson kid, but I doubt if the world in general is ready for that just yet.” When Papa Joe explained how the Dodgers were going to let a colored kid name Robinson in the league, I already knew that they were talking about the famous Jackie Robinson. The reaction of Papa Joe, when quoted the Dodgers letting Jackie Robinson play in the big league, was so realistic because back in those times was when whites and blacks did not like each other that well, so I took it as racism.
I agree with Nicholas. There are many different types of heroes. Nicholas stated that there is a hero, and there is an antihero. I believe the antihero is the more realistic hero. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, and should be entitled to have a second chance. Personally, I don’t like the word antihero because in my opinion it makes them seem less of a hero. Just because you may have failed your task, you can still be a hero/heroine because you had the faith to try.
I do believe that a novel needs a hero/heroine. Well actually when you think about it, it is a hero in every novel. Everybody doesn't have the same definition of a hero, but remember a hero doesn't have to do something huge it can be very small. A hero doesn't always have to put their lives in danger to help or save someone. I also agree with Logan about a novel being dull without a hero. Novels need heroes to give the book a thrill or send a message. I disagree with N'dia when she says that the novels she has read didn't have any heroes, but in any kind of literature there is always a hero. The novel may not be based around that person, but you have to read between the lines, there is always a hero. In "Castro's Curveball" there are four main characters. Castro is the character that wants to be the hero and has a strong interest in politics and had a good arm. Malena is the photographer who I believe is caught in a love triangle with Billy and Castro, but wants to help change Cuba's system. Billy’s character is a man who wants but doesn't want to do. For instance he wants to love Malena, but doesn't and wants baseball, but doesn't try hard enough. Papa Joe's character is exactly what his name is "papa". He has connections and determines the lives of his players. The character that is subservient to the plot is Malena. She is the character who helps end the story. As I mentioned before I believe Malena is the hero and although she didn't have much power she helped with the revolution and even stayed to better her country even though she knew she could die.
I would like to first say that, I believe that everyone made good comments on the book. With most of the comments I can see where people are coming from. Some of the comments had me go back and rethink everything over. Yes, a character can be subservient to the plot. The book would not be the same without it. I agree with Malika and Diara. In the book and life in general you always see a character or a person being subservient to a plot. For example in the story it is Billy and Papa Joe, and Senora Garcia and Billy. Nina has brought up a quote from the book and made me realize that Melana can be recognized as a hero. A hero does not have to do big and great things. The small things can make you be consider as a hero. Rakiya also point out to me, why is Fidel Castro considered as a hero. Early in one of my blogs I wrote that a hero does things because they know it is right and does not expect anything in return. Well, Fidel was expecting something in return, power. Throughout the story Fidel does show some heroic qualities. He express how courageous and determined he. Like Alicia said, in the book there are a lot of people that push past the limits. I have confused myself numerous of times, with people that push there selves with heroes.
Of course a hero or heroine is subservient to the plot because the hero or heroine is one of the most significant parts of the plot. The hero or heroine of the story has its own stages in the plot. For example, in an action movie, there is a couple who loves each other very much and plan on getting married. Somewhere in the movie the boyfriend kidnapped and held for ransom. Then the hero or heroine comes in and saved the boyfriend because if the kidnappers did not receive any money then they would have killed the boyfriend. Now the boyfriend is rescued and the couple is back together again. Then at the end of the movie, they get married. In that movie, the hero or heroine was the center attention in the movie because if it wasn’t for the hero or heroine saving the boyfriend from being killed, then the couple wouldn’t be able to marry each other. The ending would not be possible if there was no hero or heroine in the movie. So far in the novel, Castro’s Curveball by Tim Wendel, I cannot think the only heroic thing I’ve notice is when Billy was thinking to himself how he would be hero of the day if would score then everyone would be proud of him but then again that’s not a heroic thing because he wouldn’t have risk anything while doing his duty.
After reading some of my other peer’s comments, I now realize that Malena may have been considered a hero. However, it was difficult to tell whether or not she was because some of her actions did seem somewhat foolish. For instance, when Castro wanted her to do something for him, she agreed wholeheartedly pushed everything else that was happening in her life to the side. Nonetheless, when she took pictures of the scenes at the revolts, she must have had some courage in order to do that. Within this novel it was hard to choose an actual hero. All three of the main characters can be considered heroes, but there were also traits that were exposed that made them less heroic. As people have stated before, perhaps the story does not really need a hero. I do not know if I fully agree with this idea, but without a specific hero, the story is still somewhat interesting. Maybe it is because in most novels, we are so used to having a hero character or someone that is favored unanimously, that it is difficult to break out of the mindset of always having a hero in the story. In this book, I think that the reader was able to decide who they thought was the true hero rather than having it already chosen for them.
A novel does not need a hero. A hero is someone who protects and saves people or, in general, a person who takes up a cause that is deemed noble and admirable. A novel indeed needs a main character but this character does not necessarily need to be a hero. The noble’s necessity for a main character arises because the presence of this character facilitates the author to tell a story more elaborately by giving the reader one specific focus. This story does not need to have a hero because some stories are better told through the scope of non-heroic characters. For example, in the novel Of Mice and Men, criminals try to run away from their crimes and start a new life but one of the criminals ends up killing a girl and consequently the other one is forced to kill him. In this novel, Steinbeck does not provide a character who demonstrates any acts that would be considered heroic by his general readers. Instead of writing about a hero the author employs a plot about two criminals whose motive of action is not noble or altruistic by any means, but selfish at best. However, despite its lack of a hero, Of Mice and Men is still widely considered to be one of the best literary novels. Therefore, it is evident that a novel does not require a hero. I thought that Billy was sort of a hero because he helped castro on baseball and decided to look for him. There are many different things that make up a hero.
A novel contains many different kinds of characters. A protagonist is the main character of the story. He usually has an antagonist that is against him. The main character usually has a goal that he wants to accomplish. However, the antagonist presents conflict for the protagonist. For example, in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, The Finches are the protagonists who try to help Tom Robinson and the Ewells are the antagonists who try to accuse Tom Robinson of crime he did not commit. Tom Robinson is the supporting character who is the one that the protagonist is trying to save. The supporting character is usually not talked about that much in the novel but has a key role in the story that helps the main character in their goal. Some characters can be a symbol like Tom Robinson is a symbol of uncorrupted innocence. The setting can be an important character in the story. For example in the novel, Lord of the Flies, kids are trying to survive on an island with no food or water. They have to use the wisdom to figure out how they will survive. Billy was the protagonist of the story and Fidel was more of a supporter character because Billy trys to help him.
I would have to disagree with Miss Wade about Malena just doing her job. In the beginning, she was just doing her job, but then it became more than that. In the novel Malena fights with Castro to better Cuba. Although, photography was her job she used it to her advantage outside of work. Malena helped to publicize what was going on in the revolution. Without being able to visually see what was going on no one would know what was going on with the revolution. In the end Malena was tortured, almost killed because she had pictures that would let the world know what was going on in Cuba. Also, it's funny that Mark used the movie analogy because that is sort of what happened. When Malena was captured and tortured Castro and Billy went to go save her and they did, except she would not leave Cuba. Billy was heart-broken, but knew where Malena’s hearts was. She even switched identities with a lady in front of guards in an airport and gave up the chance to go to America, so she could stay in Cuba to help after they threatened to kill her and I thought that was very heroic. It may not seem heroic to others or fit their definition of a hero, but Malena fits the description for many definitions. Her part doesn't seem big at, but remember it is the small things that count. Also, does being publicized and starting a revolution make you a hero? Just because Castro did something big doesn't mean he should take all the credit, he just happened to be a hero who got more publicity and was wanted, by the government.
I agree with most of my peers because I also believe that not all novels need to have a hero or heroine. I used to believe that every story needed a hero. Now, I realize that is not true. I agree with both Tiara and Dominique when they stated that, it depends on what the story is about. If the story doesn't focus on an heroic action,than the story does not need a hero. I think that everyone thinks of a hero to be this wonderful, magnificent,and powerful person but in my opinion a hero is someone who goes above and beyond what is expected. They do things out of the kindness of their heart. I agree with Shanae when she stated that heroes are brave and are not selfish.
No, a character is not subservient to a plot. The plot tells the story because by storytelling the author can tell the theme that he wants to convey. A character is also important because the character can stand for something other that himself. They both can enhance the theme which is the point of literature. Without one or the other there are missing a half of the whole. A novel needs a plot and character to be a good novel. If it has only one it just would not be a good story. One can write a story with just characters but there would not be a lesson which that author wants. Without the plot the characters would have no purpose in the story. For example The color purple mutual constructed the strenght of a womanhood but without the characters it wouldn't have that theme. In castro curveball, without Billy and Fidel there would be no story so the plot and the character needs each other.
I would like to start off by stating that I do not believe that every novel needs a hero. Different people have different interpretations of heroes, so in a story what the author might describe as a hero could be the opposite to the reader. How LauRyn said earlier, many people might not think teaching someone to play baseball is heroic at all. I think that how Fidel Castro never gave up and fought for Cuba was a beautiful thing, he is definitely a hero in my book. In this case, I feel Billy was a hero because baseball became a massive part of Fidel Castro's life. When I think of Fidel Castro, now, I think of leader and baseball. Even though the results of the condition of his country Cuba didn't improve instantly and might of, in fact, worsened he still is considered a hero. Fidel Castro may not be your typical hero, but I applaud him for his courage and his drive. Fidel most diefinitely showed love and care for his homeland, Cuba. Fidel did something he felt was right and never gave up. He tried very hard to change the government and the overall condition of his country and that is a hero.
I agree with Nick, when he said that Castro wasn't truly a hero, but was made into a hero. The reason I agreed with his statement was because he, Castro, used the people around him as helpers to help push him closer and closer towards his goal. I also think that Melinda was a hero, but played behind the scenes because she was filming the events. I thought she was a hero because she fought for what she thought was right and because she was a photographer, she used that as an advantage to capture a major problem Cuba dealt with. Another reason, I thought, she was a hero, was because she risked her own life just to stay in Cuba after being threatened to get killed if she stayed. I disagree with Rakiya, when she said that Castro wasn't necessarily a hero, even though he was courageous enough to fight for his beliefs. My opinion was that even the littlest things a person does can be considered heroic. For example, the girl that warned every one in her town that a huge catastrophe was heading their way. I thought she was a hero because she saved, I believe, eight hundred people. A heroic deed is defined as an action done by a particular person and because heroes are unique in their own way, the things they did made them different than any other.
I would like to start off by saying that my peers are really makin me think long and hard about who the real hero in this story could be. As I stated before, Malena took pictures, showing that she was very brave and forgot about her own safety and really started to care about others. Yes I understand that Billy helped Fidel with his baseball skills but, does that really make you a hero? I help others a lot, but I don't think that makes me a hero because they were not in any type of danger. No, your not obligated to help but if you choose to then thats all on you and I don't think you should get the title as a hero even if the person you helped went on to do great things.
After rereading my notes and posting and my classmates’ postings, I disagree with what I had said before. I agreed with many others of the students such as Logan in saying Billy is the main character. I do not believe this is the case anymore. I believe that Castro and Billy are both main characters, unlike my response before saying that Castro being a minor character. This book shares many similarities with All the King’s Men. All the King’s Men revolves around a politician named Billy Stark, but is told by one of is friends in their point of view. I believe that Castro’s Curveball and All the King’s Men are similar in this case. Billy tells his and Castro’s story of playing ball, centering on Castro. Both Billy and Castro are friends, and they influence each other, much like Stark and his friend in All the King’s Men. I also believe that Melinda can be considered a main character as well. She follows the same pattern that Castro does. Other than these topics, I still stand with what I said before. Hero’s are not needed in novels. Neither Castro’s Curveball nor All the King’s Men have real heroes or heroines.
In the novel “Castro’s Curveball” I believe that there were two heroes, Fidel Castro and Billy Bryan. Fidel Castro has been a hero from the start, when growing up he was an unruly child who frequently fought. He also challenged the authority of the priests and vied for leadership among the students. In the novel Fidel strives for greatness, that is an indication of a hero.
Billy Bryan is also a hero because he is recently a single man who has faced a great deal of pain. Now that he is getting older, Billy has little to look forward to, but when he witnessed young Fidel throw a curveball he cannot help but to be amazed. He has become a big part of Fidel’s life, less of a coach and more of a companion. As he learns the game of baseball Fidel learns plenty from Billy and I think Billy has learned from Fidel too. Even though Fidel could have played in the Major Leagues, I think he is more idolized as revolutionist. Overall, I enjoyed the novel and look forward to meeting Tim Wendel.
From reading everyone else’s comments I believe that each character possessed heroic qualities or the potential to be considered a hero. I agree with Logan when he said the main hero is considered a hero. He also pointed out that just because you are the main character does not mean you are a hero. He pointed out that a main character is often considered heroic because he is the one first in line to do anything. Malena believed in Castro just as Billy Bryan did. Does her role played make her less or more of a hero? She is a hero as others have said because she puts everything a side to make sure Billy's plan for Castro went smoothly. Overtime, Billy became fond of Malena. She carries herself proudly. I believe Papa Joe was there to give Billy insight and encouragement about working with Castro. I believe Papa Joe and Malena made a huge impact on Billy Bryan. Billy is a hero because he was professional about the situation with Castro. He always empowered Castro, by believing he can make it into the minor league baseball. Billy was able to accept the differences that Cuba had in their culture.
75 comments:
I would like to start by saying not all novels need a hero or heroine. If the story does not need a hero or heroine then they should not have one. For instance, you need a hero or heroine in a murder mystery novel. Many fantasy novels and sci-fi novels can also have heroes as well. Many books like autobiographical and biographical books do not have heroes or heroines. I think some novels do not need heroes or heroines therefore they do not have them. I think that in 'Castro's Curveball' Fidel was a hero. I think that the quality of bravery shows a sign of you being a hero. The way Fidel fought for his country displayed the bravery of a hero. To start a revolution to me shows a sign of heroism. I also believe that another quality of a hero is to be helpful. Another hero of 'Castro's Curveball' was Billy. I thought Billy was a hero because of the way he helped Fidel with his baseball skills. I think that there are many different qualities that can make a person a hero. So in conclusion, I do not think all novels need a hero or heroine.
I think that not all novels really need a hero. If the book does not have a huge conflict going on, then there should not be a hero. There are novels that do not require a hero or heroine to be present because it does not call for one. If a book does need a heroine or hero, then the characters are mostly known but never really discovered. Like superman, he was a hero but no one knew his real identity. I think that the hero’s are unsuspected, they never really cause problems and are never noticed because their quite. A character does not always have to be subservient, he can be the meanest and roughest person in a city but not driven by evil. When I use the word evil, I mean that the characters do not always have be bad, they might have a reputation as a bad person, but it doesn’t mean there always the villain. I think that Castro is more the courageous and determined hero, he focuses on his objective because he believes in it. The same thing that Lauryn was saying, I also believe that to be a hero, you really have to change the things you go against, to be a hero is to start a revolution to make everything balanced and as one. A book can have more than one hero, but the one that is indomitable and unremitting is at the top, the best.
When describing a novel, the word hero is not always appropriate. The word protagonist is more general. The protagonist is the character we follow in the story. A hero has to be heroic. We have to like the hero. We don't have to like the protagonist. In many novels and movies, there are antiheroes. An antihero is a protagonist, but not necessarily a hero. The antihero is not always sympathetic and he or she maybe does things that we wouldn't do or we don't think are right. But, we still follow the character and we want him or her to win. Billy in 'Castro's Curveball' is an antihero. I found myself not always agreeing with his actions. He does not do anything heroic in the usual sense, but he is still the character we root for. He does not do very much that is heroic. He does try to get Malena out of Cuba, but he fails. The hero usually succeeds at his quest. The antihero fails.
Lauryn and Reale both said that Castro was a hero. I am not sure that he was a hero. He was certainly courageous because he started a revolution, but was he a hero. He made several big mistakes. He wanted to be a hero, but he couldn't really do it. His cause was good, but they say that the ends do not justify the means. Fidel Castro did terrible things on his way to power and, in the end, did what Billy predicted would happen. He replaced a bad government with an equally bad government: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
'Catro's Curveball' does not have any heroes in the traditional sense. But it does have characters for us to follow and care about. A story does not need a hero, but it needs characters the reader can care about. Without that, the story won't work.
I would like to start of by saying that I haven’t yet completed this book but so far it seems very interesting because it discusses many different topics all at the same time. For example, it talks about the life of a baseball player while also portraying a love story. However personally, I would have not drawn my attention to this novel if I wasn’t told to do so.
I feel that if a novel contains a hero, then it would be more intriguing to the audience because it would leave the readers with suspense throughout the book.
However, i agree with lauryn whittaker when she stated that all books do not necessarily have to include a hero or heroin it its story. Depending on what the stories are about, i think that the story can still portray the same message without an hero.
In Castro's curveball, i feel that Billy was a hero because he assited Fidel in baseball.
Many of my peers have touched upon very important topics for this discussion. There are two points that I will make regarding Castro as a hero. If hero is defined simply as the character that goes through the motions in a hero's journey such as the adventure and return, then he is not. Castro was an important character in the book, but not a hero, or necessarily an antihero. In the novel, he was shown to be a proud and somewhat foolish man, but at the same time he was also intelligent and clever. Regardless of his personal traits he did not resemble a hero. However, the reader is not immediately given an entire summary or the unbiased details of the life of Castro. Therefore, I may be wrongfully judging when I say that Castro was not a hero in the book.
In contrast to that idea, there is also a large part of me that says Castro was a hero. Simply because the book does not focus on him mainly does not mean that he was not, in fact, a real hero. Castro understood the pains of his people in Cuba and took active steps to better his homeland. A powerful revolutionary and a desperate community resulted badly. Castro gathered the trust of those around him, and then thrust them towards the revolution, which did not end properly. Although Castro made serious mistakes, and today is still a very hated man, he went through the actions of a hero by doing more than what was expected of him. He stood up against an oppressive government and demanded change.
In conclusion, there are facts that should determine if someone is a hero or not, but in the end it comes down to the basics. Castro is a hero, a corrupt and cruel dictator who led his people to a terrible fate, but nonetheless he still stood up for his peoples rights. Perhaps Castro is not portrayed as the classic hero in 'Castro's Curveball', or as a hero at all, but in reality he played the part.
I have to disagree with Lauryn and Reale on whether heroes are needed in a novel. Without heroes in a story, the story would be bland, dull, and no one would want to read the book. With a hero, the author can give us a person whom we can support and genuinely want to see through to the end. This hero doesn't even have to have the traits that we associate with "heroes". This is because there are many types of heroes, such as the antihero, who don't have "heroic" traits, but are still considered heroes in their own right. One example of such a hero is Shrek, who was smelly, rude, and overall not really pleasant. However, we all really liked him as a hero and went to finish the movie to see what happened to him. So all the main character of a novel may not seem to be a hero, as long as you support him he will be considered as such. And as long as he's the main character, then he is needed in the story.
A novel does not always need a hero or a heroine. The novel just needs characters that we can look up to or find something in common with. A hero has many definitions. This means that we all have our own opinions on what characteristics make a hero. A hero is not defined by who they are, but what they do. A hero also does not have a gender or an age. One person in Castro’s Curveball that might be a hero is Papa Joe. I don’t think he is a hero because he doesn’t do anything heroic. He can make many hopeful baseball players stars. He is a baseball scout that has the power to make or break a baseball player’s career. Though he may not be the most pleasant person, he is a subservient character because in the end, he is someone that a minor league baseball player wants in his life. Just because he can do all of these things, does not make him a hero. He didn’t do anything that was inconceivable. However, he is someone that is very important to this story, because without him, Castro would not have been discovered. He is not a hero, but he is a salient character.
In class, we learned what the qualities is to be a hero, and I honestly don't think that every novel has or needs a hero. However, there is always someone that changes their mind about a certain action or does something to better their life. For example, when we read "The Epic of Gilgamesh", we all learned that Gilgamesh was a hero because of the journey he embarked upon. He was a brave and courageous character, which not all characters in books have. If I were to read a book I picked up from the library, most likely there would be nothing in it about heroes. Like Reale said, unless there's a major conflict, then the book doesn't really need a hero. Normally when the book is an adventurous book, it contains a hero. Sometimes reading books about heroes and their journey can be extremely boring. The author normally writes the book so everyone could enjoy it. In that case, they write the book so it appeals to the reader and doesn't bore them. Basically I'm trying to say that every novel does not need a hero because stories are written to keep the reader interested. And in my opinion, some heroes make the story boring.
I do think that every book needs a hero or a heroine. In some novels you might not be able to quickly identify exactly who is the hero or heroine. There is always something that would give you a hint who was the hero out of the character. You can identify hero or heroine by special qualities that they carry throughout the book. Hero or heroine do things out of the goodness of the heart, they do not look for anything in return. In Castor’s Curveball, I believed that the hero was Fidel. He risked his life for what he think was right for his people and his country. He did this out the goodness of his heart and not because he wanted something in return. The hero could be the main characters, or it may also be the smallest character in the book, but most of the times the hero is one of the main characters in the book. It can also be more than one hero in the book. Every novel has a hero. The hero’s heroic action might not be as extreme as others but it was still heroic. I believe that you can not write a book with out a hero.
I do not feel that every novel needs a hero. In fact most novels that I have read do not have a "hero". I feel that heroes are more likely to be found in stories such as myths or fairytales. Then again, what is a hero? As we discussed in class there are many ways one can be classified as a hero. Some of which, are being courageous or strong. I feel that in earlier days the gods were seen as heroes, because of their super strength or power. In modern day I feel that it is not your strength or power that makes you a hero, but the act that you pursue. I feel that in this novel Castro possessed both some heroic and non-heroic traits. In certain parts of this novel Castro exhibited some heroic-like characteristics, such as intelligence. I do in fact feel that Castro played a very important role in the novel Castro’s Curveball. Aside from the book having his name in the title, Castro had one of the biggest roles in the book. Without his character, this novel could not be.
I agree with the intelligent points Ndia and Ashley made. A hero, although thoroughly discussed in class, still has a somewhat unclear definition. In humanities a hero is someone who does things honestly and without a need for anything in return. Others consider a hero as being strong and mighty, but this classification brings up questions. Must a hero be strong? Can you have a hero that is weak, but has a good heart?
My answer to all these is that a hero is only defined by what they do, not superficial things such as appearance and money. In the story Fidel Castro seems to act rightly by standing up for his people. In the end, however, he failed at most everything he intended to do, including making a new government.
Billy, on the other hand, is not really a hero. In the book he only acts for himself, or does his responsibilities. He is a good father, but that is just another job. The only real contribution he had to anyone else was assisting Fidel in baseball. This action can hardly be considered as heroism, however. Just because Billy is not a hero does not mean that he is not a good person. He never neglected any duty brought to him, and he never intentionally hurt anyone.
A hero does not necessarily fit a certain category, or a size or shape. A hero is someone who acts for others, a selfless and moral person.
Thank you Izzy for agreeing with the point I brought up. After reading through everyone’s responses I think that we have all, for the most part, come to one conclusion, that the hero in this novel is in a way unknown. All of the characters in the novel did possess some heroic characteristics, but did not use them correctly. As many students have brought up, Castro was a very intelligent person, but he I feel that he sometimes he took his knowledge for granted. Then again being a hero all depends on your own personal definition of a hero. For example, I define a hero as a person who completes a noble task, or helps others. Where as others may see a hero as a person with super powers, such as Superman or Spiderman. When I was younger I thought that a hero was someone who fought crime and solved mysteries. I am not saying that those are not ways one can be defined as a hero, but now that I have matured I know that those are not the only types of heroes.
Every novel ventures out in its own individual direction. One author may view a subject a certain way, while another can write on the same topic from an entirely different perspective, both conveying the same message from two separate points of view. At the same time, the readers receive the message in different ways. Determining the hero-heroine and the criminal/villain would depend upon which side the reader is for and which one he/she is against. In writing a novel, the presence of a hero/heroine is always there. The little things one character does for another can make him a hero in his own way. On a larger scale, I would say that every novel does not require a hero. An author may depict a character that does deeds that are above and beyond what is determined to be necessary and can, therefore, be thought to be praiseworthy. This character may be considered one reader’s hero, even though he is not the overall hero in the novel. I believe that an author does not need to have the intention of placing a hero/heroine in his/her novel, but the reader’s understanding of the book may create a hero out of a character.
In the novel, Castro’s Curveball, there are two separate plots going on at the same time. Each plot involves many characters that vary in their attitudes and also in their personalities. Some of the characters, like Malena, were faithful and loyal. And then there are other characters, like Castro, who faithful and loyal, but are also mischievous. There were some other characters, such as Señor Canillo that were backstabbers. The characters Lionel and Larrando were spies. In the second plot which is to rediscover the past, Evangelina was a leader. Cassandra was a very anxious individual, and Billy was a wishy-washy and somewhat fearful older man. No matter their role, each character, somehow, played into the plots of the story. In the plot dealing with the revolution to overthrow the government, Arturo was subservient to the plot. Arturo was able to help Castro early on in the story, and his death upset the hearts of some of the characters, but he was not a dominant character or of great importance to the plot, as a whole. Regardless of his/her individual importance in the story, each character added flavor, so to speak, to the novel in his or her own unique way.
I agree with Kyndall when she stated that the story had two different plots. I really did not recognize that untl she pointed it out. When you look back on what you read you do realize that there is two different plots. I also recognized that the two plots seem like they took place in two different parts of Billy's life. I think having two plots to one story is very clever. I do not know why this technique was so clever to me. I also think that in each plot of the story their is a different hero. In the part of the book where Billy is older, I believe his daughter Cassie was a hero. I think Cassie was a hero because she bought her father back to Cuba to recconect with his past. In the section of the book earlier in Billy's lifetime I still believe he and Castro were heroes. So in conclusion I agree with Kyndall.
I agree with Kyndall about different authors. Authors can write about different subjects and have different point-of-views, while trajecting the same message. An author might write a book with an evildoer and a hero, but depending on your perspective of the book and its characters, you will relate to which ever characters you choose to. I also think that there will be characters that are not too evil or not too nice, but just in between. It doesn’t matter who you relate to, the evildoer, the hero, or the characters in between because you will have your own reasons.
In a book, the hero or evildoer might not be obvious to you, but as you read the book, you will figure out who is who. However, I still think that the hero and evildoer in any story can’t be defined by one definition. After reading some of the other postings, I still think that everyone has their own definition of what characteristics make a hero. Evildoers also have their own definitions, depending on who is defining that character.
After reading over my own posting, I don’t think there is a specific definition for the word heroic either. It all depends on what you think a heroic act is. Depending on what a person does to help another, will determine if that act was heroic or not. I think a hero is determined by the act they perform and how they do it.
In the story, "Castro's Curveball", there were many different types of characters. These types of characters are the heroes, the secondary, the betrayer, and the miscellaneous characters. The hero/main character was Billy, who might not be considered a hero by some but is certainly the main character of the book. There is also the secondary characters of Castro and Mandela, who are important in the story, but are not studied as in-depth as the main character. Additionally, there are what I call the "tragic" characters, who are innocent, heartwarming characters whose lives are tragically cut short in the story. An example of this character is Arturo, who was killed when the bell was taken by the government. Then like Kyndall said, there are the "betrayer" characters who betrays the main and/or secondary character(s). An example of this would be Senor Canillo and Papa Joe, who both betrayed Billy’s trust in them. And finally, there are the miscellaneous characters, these are the characters in a book who do not fit clearly into any of the above categories. These might be the people a character might bump into at the market, a henchmen they kill, or any other very minor character that a character some how interacts with.
I would like to start off by saying that a story does not always need a hero, and often they do not contain one. However, I agree with Nick. There is always a protagonist or a main character for us to follow throughout the story. Often we are made to like this character, though sometimes not. However, the word hero is not always accurate when used to describe this main character. Sometimes he does not follow the hero’s cycle that all heroes must go through to become a hero. In other stories, the main character is simply a bad guy who could not ever be a hero. For example, in The Godfather Don Vito Corleone is the main character that we follow through the book. However, he could never be called a hero because he is gangster who commissions killings and business takeovers. In this book, I believe that Fidel Castro started out as a hero and then turned into a bad guy. When he started the revolution, he was a hero because he was trying to replace a corrupt and evil government with a better government. His intentions were good, but when he actually established his government, it turned out to be just as bad as the previous government.
I feel that out of all the comments that have been posted on this blog, Kyndall and Izzy have made me realize more things. Kyndall has made me realized something I had not about Castro's character and the book as a whole. For example, I never looked at this story as having two separate plots. While reading I saw it as being one plot, with a lot of subplots. On the other hand Izzy also brought up some major points of the story's plot. She brought up how one of the characters, Fidel Castro, attempted at some heroic acts, but in the end did not succeed. In a way I feel that all of the characters in Castro’s Curveball failed at at least one task.
I truly feel as if every novel does not need a hero or heroine. But when reading a book, although not away, a hero is usually spotted. Some people say, a novel is not a novel without something courageous, or someone courageous is taken place. That is not true. Above, Reale stated that if a book does not have a big conflict then there should not be a hero. I do not quite agree with that. I say that because in the smallest conflict there can be a hero. A person can simply be a hero just by turning in an object to the lost and found, that small little incident can lead up to a bigger conflict if not chosen upon correctly. A hero to someone is not a hero to somebody else. Saying that, some students feel as if that Fidel isn’t a hero, some students do. That is because he does not meet their expectations of a hero. Nicholas stated that Castro made plenty of mistakes, well that is apart of the hero’s journey. You make mistakes, but when making that mistake you shall learn from it and that’s apart of transitioning to a new and mature person.
Obviously, based on many of my peers' comments, a story usually has a main character, but that person may not necessarily be a hero. Castro and Billy both are ordinary human beings with flaws and talents. In comparison, they are not very different from each other. They both want one main thing in life. For Billy it was to remain a baseball star or to have his love, Malena. For Fidel it was to overthrow the government in order to save his people from an unjust lifestyle.
This novel relates to real life because the conflicts that the characters are going through can correlate to everyday life. Everyone has problems, and often, we all need someone to look up to, that knows what to do. This person is a hero. I do not think that many people looked up to Billy, perhaps some other baseball players. Fidel, on the other had, and still has, hundreds of thousands of followers. Fidel's ideas were bigger and more elaborate than Billy's in the novel. Billy was not interested in Cuba's political situation, which is nothing negative, but more people can relate to and agree with someone working for them. Fidel, in essence, was working for the people.
Both characters had heroic moments, and both have heroic qualities, but even those things do not automatically qualify someone to be a real Hero.
For starters I would like to say that I agree and disagree with some of the things my peers stated. I honestly believe all novels do not necessarily need a hero; moreover they need a role model or someone that the reader can either relate to, or find some type of connection whether good or bad with. Sometimes in books we find that everyone fails, and majority of the time hero's are made out to be these, "super-powered or extra strength having people, who can do the unthinkable," and in every story you don’t come across that. For instance someone simply making it through a rough childhood can be considered, a "role model" but not a hero, because, as said before, a hero does the unexpected, and not the expected. When referring to Castro’s Curveball, I would have to agree with my peer Nick, that both Fidel and Billy were both heroes and “role model’s”. Because, as Nick stated, it takes a lot of bravery and boldness to fight for your country and to start a revolution. Not only do you have to persuade the ones who have no type of opinion or concerns on what is going on in their country but you also have to stand up to those who totally disagree with what you are fighting for. Then there’s Billy, who simply went out and taught Fidel how to become a better baseball player. Although in my opinion these aren’t heroic actions, they are indeed actions which should be noticed, as something everyday people just don’t choose to do.
I felt that there was more than one hero in Castro’s Curveball. Each of the three main characters were heroes/heroines in their own unique way. Castro was a hero because he went against the odds. He was not afraid to make the effort to make those things he believed in a reality. Despite the hard times that Castro had to face as well as the few times when he suffered defeat, Castro continued to push through to accomplish the goals he had set for himself. I felt that Malena was a heroine in the story. She risked her life to ensure that every second of the action, in the history they were making, was captured on her camera. I also thought of Billy as a hero in the story. He learned to swallow his pride and to follow his heart’s calling. Billy also pushed himself to stand up to the fear he had of returning to Cuba. Each hero/heroine found his/her strong point and let it lead and guide them. In Billy’s case, not only did his strength guide him, but he also allowed his fear to motivate him and push him to strive to operate at his fullest potential. Each of the characters and their accomplishments brought the novel and its message together.
Starting off this paragraph, I would like to say that seeing other classmate’s thoughts helped me come to a conclusion or either rethink mine. Isabella stated that Billy isn’t a hero. I agree. It’s true that he only acted for himself. Yes, he did help Fidel in baseball, but it is not quite heroic. Most heroes are heroes because of their non-selfless actions or how brave and courageous they are. Ndia stated the hero in this novel is somewhat unknown. That could be true or it could just be that there’s more than one hero and those heroes might not equal up to everyone else’s qualities of a hero. Most of the characters in this novel acted upon some heroic acts, but unfortunately that couldn’t end as they should have been ended. I think everyone has agreed that people have their own heroes. So therefore, there are plenty of heroes in Castro’s Curveball, but those heroes could never end their journey successfully. Just as in The Epic of Gilgamesh, sure Gilgamesh wanted to be a hero, but he had to complete all of the cycles in a hero’s journey. That is something the heroes in this novel certainly could not do!
In the novel “Castro’s Curveball”, I think some the characters have power over each other. By this I mean that one character might be able to control another with emotions, feelings, or talent. For example, Papa Joe had the power to control Billy and all of the other baseball hopefuls. Without Papa Joe, Billy would not have been in the minor leagues. When Billy had to go after Fidel Castro with Melena, he went willingly because of Melena. However, I think if Melena did not go with him, he would have gone anyway. Like I wrote before, Papa Joe had the power to make or break a baseball player’s career. I think Billy would have gone along with anything, just so he could have been successful.
Another character that had control over Billy is Melena. Billy is so blinded by her winsomeness, that he sometimes even forgot why he went on the trip with her. However, I think Fidel Castro is the one with the most power to control the people around him. He has control over his adherents because his words convinced and educated them. I also think he had some control over Papa Joe. Papa Joe would have waited as long as possible in his office until Castro showed up because he couldn’t pass up such a good baseball player. In conclusion, I would like to say that the way I use the word “control” does not mean to use force or to persuade someone intentionally, but I use the word to show excessiveness. By using this word, I would like to convey the in “Castro’s Curveball”, there are some characters that had what others wanted, but could not have, so that character used what they had to their advantage.
In some ways I agree with the points that Logan had made. The book has many different types of characters that you can address. Like Logan stated, the book consist of, main characters, secondary characters, and other that fall towards the end. I believe that Castro was one of the main characters. Along with Castro, Billy can be considered as a main character. Mandel was more considered as a secondary character. She was important towards telling the story but not as important as Billy and Castro. Even though there was not many main characters ever character was needed and important in telling a story. Each character provides something to the story. Like I stated in the earlier blog every story has a hero, and with each hero comes a bad guy or villain. In this story it is no different. I would consider the government as that can villain.
In a way I disagree with Alicia. A heroes and a remodel can be compared somewhat as the same, but they still have their difference. In order to be a role model you have to have a role someone can look up to, like some heroes. The role also most of the time does something special, like an action to be considered as on. Why can’t that action be a heroic one? If they do all the steps and have all the qualities that there is to be a hero, they can be consider as a hero.
I believe a novel has heroes so that the plot has a central focus. The use of a hero in a story gives a theme to a novel, provides the story some direction, and the characters a focus point. A plot moves only in the direction of the hero, or the characters in some stories, and the focus of the characters in the novel. I think a character is important to a plot because it gives the novel structure. There are many different characters in a story. You have the enemy, who does not want the hero to succeed. You also have mentors that help the hero along its journey, who are the threshold guardians in the Hero's Journey. The guardians watch over the hero until it is time to let them defend themselves. The enemy is always looking for the main character to fall into temptation where they have to make a tough decision. In Castro’s Curveball, the hero is Fidel Castro. He is a strong political activist in Havana, Cuba, but his initial conflict is whether or not to trust Billy and prepare to play minor league baseball in the United States. I would consider that an accomplishment.
I think that a novel does not need a hero, but one is always present. By this I mean that every novel does not need to have a hero to be interesting, because some novels don't, but every novel has a character who can be interpreted as a hero.
In Castro's Curveball, for instance, there is not a character who represents the webster dictionary definition of a hero. However, both Billy and Castro can be interpreted as being a hero in different ways.
Even the simplest stories follow the same pattern. For instance, The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger is the simple story of a boy just killing time by living his life. Now this boy has no heroic traits. He, in fact, is the opposite of a hero, ordinary. But, this boy can be considered a hero because of the personal journey he took when he was killing time by living.
The same idea is applied to Castro's Curveball. Billy is not an especially heroic person. However, he can be considered a hero. This is because he spent his life fighting for his dream. He was going to be a baseball player, no matter what it took. This is a strength that enables a person to be their own personal hero, even if they dont know they are doing it.
While reading wat my peers have said, i began to rethink my position on this topic. I agree with isabella when she stated that billy was not in fact a hero. Although he did help fidel, i do not feel that thiz was an heroic act. Theis was to help his carrer and he wasnt jepordizing hos life or seeking for a treasure.
This act waz more of a good deed instead of an heroic action because he couldve said no and fidel coundve found somebody else to help him practice. Therfore, i agree with isabella and shane. Heroisnm is when you do something that may risk ypur life but may save someone else. However, i do feel that billy ahd the characteristics of an hero in which he was caring,respcetful and wise.
I do not think that every novel needs a hero or heroine. I agree with both Tiara F. and Lauryn when they state that, it depends on what the story is about. I agree with them because, I also think that the story can still send an important message without a hero or heroine inside the story. I also think that if the story is not based on an heroic action, than it does not need or may not contain a hero or heroine. I actually believe that all novels cannot contain a hero or a heroine. I say this because there is not a character in every story that does something heroic, therefore, they cannot be called a hero or heroine.
I agree and disagree with Tiara. This is because although Billy was not a traditional hero in helping Fidel, he was a hero. You said that to be a hero, you have to risk your life to save someone else's. Does that include your career? Billy risked his career to help Fidel get into the big leagues. I know this may seem the exact opposite of what you said, so let me explain.
If Castro was a complete disaster on the field during training, Billy would have been blamed. In a way, Fidel's success determines Billy's success. So, Billy risked his career to ensure someone else's future.
As you said, there are two sides to the story. You could say that Billy only did this to get ahead in his life. If Billy hadn't been tempted by the option of playing in America, he probably would not have helped to train Fidel. This makes him greedy and absolutely not a hero.
However, there is another side of Billy we have yet to explore, Billy the American and Billy father, not Billy the baseball player. Billy had the courage to take his daughter back to Cuba after living in America for his later years. He had the drive and trust in his daughter that he was doing the right thing in going back to his second home of Havana. Billy is quite the father. His love for his daughter is apparent from the beginning of the book through the end. To be able to overcome the death of his wife and be his daughter's support system is another way in which Billy can be thought of as a hero.
Perhaps a novel does not necessarily require a hero. It is always enjoyable to have a hero in the story so that the reader can have someone who they are in favor of and without the hero, the story is dull and somewhat meaningless. I do not think that the character is essentially subservient to the plot, but rather that the two compliment each other. Without the plot, there are no characters and without the characters there is not plot or action in the story. A novel needs both aspects in order to survive.
In this particular novel it is hard to say whether Fidel Castro or Billy Bryan is the hero. I think that in terms of the typical hero, Castro was most similar to a hero because of his charm and wit. However later in the novel, it did not seem as though he was so much of a hero anymore because of the way in which he eventually governed his country. Personally, Billy was not much of a hero. He seemed clumsy and he was a person who seemed to run away from his problems. He was easily angered and when he left Cuba, I expected him to stay with Malena because she was not leaving, however he left her behind. Although he did attempt to get Malena out of Cuba to save her, he did not succeed, and normally a hero succeeds. However, I do admire the change in Billy’s character from partying in the thick of Havana nights to being concerned about the revolution. It was hard to say whether it was genuine interest, his love for Malena, or the chance of signing Castro to the major leagues to make himself look good; perhaps a combination of the three.
Castro's Curveball. No, every story does not need a hero. A hero is usually depicted as being a superfically envisionment of ourselves. A hero can be anyone. A hero can take any shape, color, size or form. A hero to me is a person who make a difference. Not only in the lives around them, but also in their own. I think often the meaning of the word hero is greatly misunderstood. Most believe a hero must be strong, invincible, immortal and beautiful. But a hero has every day problems. I disagree with Ashley, because anyone can be a hero in a story.
In regards to some of my peer’s comments, I have become conscious of the fact that there may indeed be two coexisting plots within the novel. Like Kyndall said, both Billy and Castro were going after two separate goals. Castro wanted to, in a sense, revive his country and Billy wanted to be in the major leagues and be recognized for his talents. However, I am still failing to see many of these hero traits within Billy that my peers speak of. When helping Castro, I do not believe that he would have ever given the revolution much thought if Castro was not such an excellent baseball player. It is clear that as Billy went to more meetings and fell more in love with Malena, he did seem to become more aware. However, a hero should want to be in favor of a cause because he feels it is right in his mind, not to encourage someone to try to help themselves, which is what I feel that Billy did with Castro. There was even a point in the novel when Billy said that he felt a hint of envy after Castro signed the contract with Papa Joe. Although his envy was understandable, and he can still be considered a hero despite this, I do not think that his actions were particularly heroic. It was as if he was always induced in order to do something. For example, his return trip to Cuba after so many years was stimulated by the discovery of his scrap book by his daughter. If not for that instance, I do think that he would have ever returned.
continuation of character discussion......................
I agree with both Ida and Kendall. They both made interesting points that spark my interest. The story does seem to have multiple plots, but what really got me thinking was the way the story depicted heroism. In the beginning of the story the book focused more on Castro accomplishments and acknowledgments, but seldom showed he had flaws. The book discussed his heroism and duty, but later loses interest in his qualities nad focuses on his imperfections. While doing this the reader got to see how normal and imperfect a hero could be. Like I stated before in previous text, anyone can be a hero and make mistakes becsause they are human.
Going back to what I stated before, as I was reading my peer’s opinions, a hero is what you make him or her to be. Still, they have to hold the characteristics of a hero, which is mainly braveness, courage, and cannot be selfish at all. It seems as if everyone is disputing on whether Billy Bryan is the hero or Fidel Castro. To be honest, now that I have heard my peer’s responses and thought over my opinions and thoughts, I am confused on whether there are any heroes in this novel. Both characters made heroic acts but that is all. If it were for that, everyone is a hero because there has been one time that someone was brave or courageous. Basically, what I am trying to say is, if a criminal were to rob a bank to get money for a homeless man of what sort, despite of all the consequences, would that person be called a hero? No. Same way with the Billy character, he did one good deed but that does not consider him as a hero! So to come to a conclusion, I am not sure if there are any heroes in this novel.
Yes, I think characters can be subservient to the plot. I agree with Malika that some characters have power over each other. Characters can control each other with emotions, feelings, money, power and fame like Papa Joe had the power to control Billy and other baseball hopeful.
The novel Castro’s Curveball has many different types of characters. The main character’s name was Billy. I find him to be the main character because he is given the most character development out of all the other characters of the novel. Castro and Mandela are important in the story, but are not given the same amount of character development as the Billy. There are also characters that are loving, caring, and innocent characters whose lives are tragically cut short in the story. They help move the story along. And finally, there are the characters that do not fit entirely with the other sections. These characters also help move the story on, such as the first person to die in a movie or extras. I think that a story does not need a hero, such as this book, but most stories do anyways. These, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh give us the triumph of the hero against evil. When those components do not exist, the story gains more room for the thought of the reader. Slaughterhouse Five, for example, does not have a traditional hero. It has a man going through a journey, but no hero or heroin is involved.
At first I believed all stories needed a hero, but after I read the other student's postings I realized that the main character in each story isn't a hero. A hero is someone who is admired for the good deeds they did and is regarded as a model or an ideal of the way a person should be. Not every novel has a character that fits that description; therefore, novels don't need a hero or a heroine. I agree with the other students when they say that Billy and Castro are heroes. Billy is a hero because he helped Fidel to hone his baseball skills so that he could go to America to play and represent his country and pave the way for other Latino people who wanted to play baseball back then, as well as in the future. He helped to change Castro’s view on baseball and give him a chance for something better. Castro is a hero because he’s risking his life for his country. He wants a revolution so that his hometown can become a better place. Even though when he was in charge, Cuba was as bad as it was before, he fought for something, and even though it didn’t work out as hoped, he’s still a hero for trying.
I think that the point of Castro's Curveball may be that there are no heroes, at least, not the publicized heroes: the people who are supposed to be heroes. An example of those types of heroes were the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. This was portrayed in the film "Flags of Our Fathers." Because they were there at the right place at the right time, they became famous. They didn't consider themselves heroes. There were other men they knew who did heroic things, but they weren't called heroes. They were still fighting and dying in the war. The men who had raised the flag hadn't even raised the important flag. The men who had raised the first flag had been forgotten. The famous flag was only a replacement. The point of the film was that Heroes (with a capital H) are an invention of the media. Real heroes are ordinary people.
In Castro's Curveball, Fidel Castro was not a real hero. He was made into a hero. I think that the point of the book is that the names of real heroes don't make headlines. Real heroes are people like Malena, not Castro.
I agree with LauRyn, not all novels have a hero or heroine. A hero or heroine is a person of distinguished courage or ability, who is admired for his or her brave deeds and noble qualities. Fidel Castro is considered a hero too many because he fought for his country. Even though there is not always a hero or heroine in some novels, there is always a main character. A main character is someone who is either narrating or incessantly the main point in a novel. Such as, The Catcher in the Rye, in this novel Holden Caulfield was the main character because he narrated the story. In Castro’s Curveball, I believe that there was more than one hero. Overall, any novel that has multiple heroes is a good book. It most books heroes are classified as men. Women rarely get credit for there bravery in a novel unless it is a novel written by a women.
I do believe that in a novel, a character can be subservient to the plot. A character can be placed in a story just to help the plot move along. These people in a story are usually the "tragic" and miscellaneous characters. These characters are almost by their definition subservient to the plot. "Castro's Curveball" is a novel that has many characters that are subservient to the plot. One example of a subservient character in "Castro's Curveball" is Arturo, who was briefly introduced to us and then killed. It seems the only reason for Arturo's existence is to awaken Billy to Castro's cause. Once Arturo is dead, he's dead and we rarely hear about him again. Another example of a character subservient to the plot is Malena's landlady, Senora Garcia. Senora Garcia appears for a tiny portion of the story, which seems to be devoted to showing Billy’s growing attraction to Malena and what he would do for her. A book can have characters that are needed for the very “core” or “substance” of the book, like Billy or Castro, but it can also have characters that are simply used for plot advancement. “Castro’s Curveball” is unusual in that the author seems to make both types of characters touch us, not just the “stars of the show’, so to speak.
I agree with Nick, a hero/heroine is an ordinary person. Most people, including myself have been led to believe that a hero must be this notorious person who is known by everyone. That isn’t the case; a hero can be defined as an ordinary person and later commit a heroic act and become notorious. An example of a hero is Superman, he is just your everyday guy but when danger lurks the town he comes and commits his act of bravery. It seems like Superman would be an anonymous hero because little people know that his true identity is Clark Kent. It interests me how he can take his suite and glasses off and put on his Superman attire and nobody knows who he is. In the novel Castro was a hero and so was Billy. Castro has helped his country and Billy has helped Castro, that is what makes him a hero.
After viewing some of the points that few of my peers have made, I would like to say that, in this book, there seems to be, not Heroes, but, people who are willing to push past the limits in order to get what they desire. I believe that, if anything the characters in this book, aren’t being heroic but simply courageous. Of course heroes are courageous, but they are courageous in a way that simple people are not. And simple people are courageous in a way heroes see as being “normal” actions. I believe that Malena had to have been the most courageous of them all because her career, her job, her passion, put her life on the line. She did the unthinkable and she exceeded the limits. I honestly agree with my peer Nick, that at the same time this book may also be relaying a message that clearly states, “Real heroes don’t make headline.” Although some do, the real ones, who do whatever it takes to accomplish their task don’t, because its something they choose to do on a daily basis, and not because he or she was asked to, its something that simply comes from the heart!
I agree with Shanae’s last comment. Being a hero, and doing a good deed are two different things. When we hear the word hero we often think of Superman. Superman is not a real person, he’s a fictional character who was made to capture the attention of public viewers. If you look up the word hero, you will find that it means a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, and strength. In my opinion, a hero is a male or female, that takes the initiative to stand up and do what’s right, no matter what the outcome is. There are various definitions to define the word hero, but I believe you have to look deep into your soul to really capture an understanding of the word. A hero or a heroine is an ordinary individual. They are not born into the world crowned as a hero, but gain that title by showing they are one. Often you hear people saying “You are my hero”. This is an expression that is often used as a thank you for when a person does a good deed for someone else. I believe everyone is a hero in their own way. Either you’ve committed a brave act to help someone else, or one day you will accomplish something that enables you to be called a hero. You don’t have to jump in front of a moving vehicle to be called a hero. You can just simply do something as sincere as giving a miserable person a compliment which kept them from committing suicide. I believe you can be a hero without even knowing it, just because you did the smallest thing that made a big difference in someone’s life!
I'll begin by saying that, I agree with most of my peers because I also don't think all novels need or have a hero or heroes. Most novels or plays don’t always, necessarily, have heroes they usually have a protagonist, the character or characters we follow throughout the story. I disagree with what Nick said because we, as readers, don't have to like the hero. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh was a very selfish king and wasn’t liked by many people and just because he came back from his journey a hero doesn’t, necessarily, mean that he was liked by readers because many people have different opinions on what makes a hero, they decide if they like the heroes qualities or not . I think a protagonist, in a way, could be a hero because some attempt to do something unique like Billy. At the beginning of the novel, Billy did something very unique, during the game, he stole base and was heading for the home plate, when his opponents reacted very quickly and beat him to home plate by about four steps. Just because Billy didn’t win the game for his team, I think he was heroic because he had the courage and mind set to help out his team. If a book doesn’t have a hero it should, at least, have characters that readers could connect with or follow, this makes novels more interesting for readers.
I am neutral when it comes to Sherwood’s comment. I feel as if the question “Does a novel need a hero/heroine” is very contradicting. Most of my peers have stated that a hero is an ordinary person, or a hero has many different definitions. There have also been comments where people have been confused about the definition of a hero in general. If you just ask the question “Does a novel need a hero/heroine” I won’t be able to give you a complete answer. My reason for this is because the person I consider a hero, might not be considered a hero in someone else’s eyes. A novel needs a variety of characters that can represent something different, but yet can be relatable. You don’t need a man in a tight costume to make the novel a good novel. You need characters of diverse backgrounds, or either different experiences, that can come together in unity. There are many people who can be considered a hero, but yet have not been, or may never be properly recognized. For instance, there are many people who are rich and famous, and have no talent whatsoever, and there are extremely talented people who will never be discovered. A hero is not just the physical attributes that enable you to lift a building off a small child, but the state of mind that encourages you to do so.
I am glad that LauRyn started this forum because it gave each of us a chance to see what a hero is or what he can be simply by their willingness to do for others. I have learned that Castro is a hero but so is Billy because Castro is a hero to the Cubans,but Billy is a hero to Castro which is expressed by both Malena Faseca and Papa Joe. They believe that Billy used his good judgment when he asked Castro to practice with him. Billy believes that Castro can be in the major leagues and he wants to help him to get there. This is accomplishment for Billy and Castro because he wants to open his heart and mind into a new challenge. I think that takes real bravery to face his enemy as well as Castro did. In this novel they will grow mentally, physically, and respect each other. These characteristics are why I consider Castro and Billy heroes in this novel.
Most of my peers said that Fidel Castro was considered as a hero in the book, but why? What made everyone think he could be considered as a hero? A hero is someone who’s noble, brave, and courageous. In my opinion, Castro described none of those characteristics. Even though he might have done a couple things for Cuba doesn’t necessarily make him a hero. Even if the people did consider him as a hero, after a while he failed because the country had an economic situation. Is he still considered a hero then? Many people don’t even remember the good things he did. They remember him because of the bad or because he was in jail for fifteen years. That’s the kind of stuff people remember him for. So that’s not heroic at all. Like Nick said the Iwo Jima is something heroic because the war was fought for our freedom. People risked their lives to get what we deserved, and we succeeded. As for Castro, he fought to gain independence for Cuba, but along the way he messed up. To me it seems like he was doing this for himself, so that he could have total power and control. When you are thinking about doing something for yourself it’s not heroic. Doing something for other people or for your country is.
I would first like to start off by saying that there have been some interesting comments and some have made me ponder. This means that these discussions have been stimulating. Well anyway, I wholly agree with Rakiya about Castro not being a hero. I know that we discussed in class that a hero was someone who sacrificed their lives, blah, blah. I don't think Castro fit the description of a hero, at least not the one we discussed in class. Castro did fight for a cause and even started a revolution, but in the story it says that Castro didn't better things for Cuba or its government. In my opinion I think the hero in the story was Malena. On page 151, paragraph four it says, "Heroism was about doing the small things, day after day after day, that can heal a people and hold a country together." That is exactly what Malena did. Although, she didn't save anyone it was the small things that she did. Sometimes heroes come in small packages and what I think made Malena a hero was her way of expressing herself through photography. In the story it was her photos that let the world know what was going on and what things Cuba was going through. Her doing something so small changed Cuba. Not to, mention as little as photography seems, doing something like this in the Revolution was considered very dangerous. I don't mean to stray away from the questions, but this is something I felt strongly about. A lot of people said Castro, but I guess in some form you could say he was one.
I would like to elaborate a little more on Rakiya’s comment. I personally don’t believe that Fidel Castro was a hero myself, but to others he was. I asked my father, who is from Havana, Cuba, what he thought about Fidel Castro. In his opinion he was a hero, and pushed himself to the limit. After hearing this I carefully analyzed once more the definition of a hero. Is Fidel Castro a hero to my father because they are from the same background, and can relate? Is Fidel Castro not a hero to me because he’s a man from another background with more life experiences? People have the tendency to connect better with people who they can relate to. Are heroes determined by the actual content of their character, or their connection with people? Now I am no longer sure of what my opinion is on Castro. Part of me loves him for standing up for Cuba, while the other half of me is confused. I think that is possible for people to chose who they want to call a hero, depending on if that particular person has done something for them. For instance, some of my peers may not consider Castro a hero even though he did stand up for Cuba. While I may somewhat consider him a hero, only because he did stand up for the place where my roots are. This is one of the many reasons why the definition of a hero is so compromising.
I kind of agree and disagree with Rakiya. After reading her point of view I kind of altered my thoughts of Castro being a hero. I thought that Castro did have heroic qualities such as being brave and courageous. Even though Castro did fail at times he kept trying again. I think perserverence is a heroic quality. Now that I have read her point of view I agree with her in some ways. For an example, when Rakiya said doing something for yourself is not heroic that is true. Doing something for yourself does not show selflessness it shows selfishness which is not a heroic quality at all. Reading some of my peers' points I have come to the realization that Castro did not resemble a hero as much as I thought he did. I still say think that he is somewhat a hero, but he is not as much as a hero as I thought he was. Even if you have heroic qualities that does not make you a hero.
This topic is very debatable. Many people are seeing things differently and normally I would agree with my peers, but I still haven’t seen it the same way they are seeing it. I still don’t think Billy or Castro were heroes. They did do some things in the book that seemed friendly or nice, like when Billy helped Castro improve his curveball, but I don’t think that’s heroic. However, Malena could have been a heroine in a way. She was brave and courageous. She risked her life by taking pictures of the revolution Castro started, which could have led her to death. She basically put her life on the line for history. That’s something most people won’t do, unless they are serving in the war.
Billy, I can’t really describe who his character was. He was very nice, but also depressed because his wife had died. He seemed to like playing baseball, and would do what ever he could to impress his boss and stay on the team. He set out for a mission that he would not give up on because otherwise, he thought, he would lose his career, which made him a very diligent person.
In most books there is always someone who is subservient to the plot. Without that person or people the book might not make any sense. The shortest sentence a character says could tell the whole story. One character was Senora Garcia, which was Malena’s landlord. She helped Billy realize that he did have feelings for Malena, which helped him get closer to her. In the end, Malena and Billy ended up starting a relationship, and she had his baby.
I would have to agree with most of my peers who fell that all novels should always have a hero. If a novel doesn’t have a hero, agreeing with Younese, then the book will be just tedious and boring. I think a hero can be and can play in any type of novel whether its an autobiography or a mystery. Like LauRyn said, a hero can be a mystery but that’s not the only type of book a hero can be in. A hero might play a better role in a mystery than in any other type of book but that’s not the only book it can be located in. A hero is a person who is respected for what he or she does during life taking situations without being rewarded for his or her duty. For example, when I was younger, my favorite cartoon hero was Batman. I was about five years old so I didn’t know the real definition of a hero. My definition of a hero was a person who saves people, but now I fully understand the true meaning of a hero. Types of various types of heroes, as described by Younese, and various types of books they can be found in.
I would like to first start off by saying; I no longer believe there was any sort of hero in this book at all. As I read and considered my peers point of view, we all seem to believe that there’s one character in the book that does, the total extreme. But when honestly thinking about the whole situation, everyone in the book did something for their own benefit. No one really took a risk that was brought upon them to benefit someone else, NOT including them. Whether it was some ones job or simply something someone did because they felt it was what needed was at that time. No one really jumped their selves out there and did what, “normal” people did. The only real reason why we give these characters so much credit for their little actions is because their actions seem so bold that none of us would really do exactly what they did. And just like anyone else we know, when we see someone do something plainly out of the blue, that we would never consider even attempting, we become so amazed, and excited with their actions that we automatically give them a bigger title than what is really needed. We give to much credit to those who do the littlest things, only because it’s all brand new to us. Before I thought, Malena was the only one who really was considered a hero because she put her life on the line so many times, that it didn’t make any sense. But yet, when you sit back and really think about it, she was just fulfilling her job, and doing what is required to the best of her ability. So would this really be considered heroic? Not at all. Overall, I would say that there really wasn’t any hero’s in the book, more ever there were people who were willing to exceed the limits, to get wherever the dreamed and desired of going!
After reading Rakiya’s latest posting my opinions have made a great expansion. I also think Malena can be considered a heroine. She had a great deal of courage and nobility. She had the bravery of risking her life, while not being selfish. In my opinion those are the qualities that define a hero.
I agree with Sherwood that we do not have to like the hero. That is true, but I think that there are different types of heroes. There is the type of hero who is the good guy who can do no wrong. We obviously like that hero. The type of hero we don't like is an antihero. The character can still do heroic things, but he is far from perfect. The antihero can be a jerk. The antihero can make mistakes. We don't always like the antihero. The hero does what we would do in that situation, or, atleast, what we would want to do. Superman doesn't always do what we would do. Come on, who here can fly around the world so fast that the world spins backwards and time reverses? I salute anybody who can do that. Good for you. For the rest of us, the hero is who we would want to be. We wish we could be like that.
The antihero does not always do what we would do. Just like any other person, the antihero makes mistakes. The Hero (capital H again) is the godlike, almost supernatural figure. The antihero is a regular person.
That does not mean that the character is not a hero. That doesn't mean we don't have to like the character. It just means that the antihero won't turn back time by flying around the world so fast that the earth reverses its rotation. That would have been an interesting ending for "Castro's Curveball."
There were many characters in "Castro's Curveball", such as Señor Canillo, Castro, Lionel, Larrando, Billy, Evangelina, Arturo, Melana etc. Lionel and Larranda were and acted like spies. Senor Canillo was a backstabber. Melana, like Castro was loyal, she was also trustworthy. Even though, Castro was loyal, he was also malicious. Billy was the main character and was a hero ,in his own way,that mainly thought about himself but also made his decision which he thought would help others, but his decisions usually didn't work. Evangelina was sort of a leader. Cassandra was a leader, in a way, but shined more as a anxious individual. Each Character played important roles that helped the overall meaning of the plot which was to overpowering the government . The characters that were subservient to the plot, I thought, were Billy, and Arturo. The reason I thought Billy and Arturo were subservient was because they both helped Castro and bettered his chances of becoming a contender in the American Major League. I agree with Kyndall, when she said regardless of the characters' individual importance in the story, each one added flavor to make the story unique.
As many of my peers and I said, there are lots of characters in different books. I think the characters depend on what type of novel it is or what kind of genre the novel is. If the novel is autobiography and it is nonfiction book, then the characters can’t be fictionist. The characters have to be as real as a normal human. They have to talk about realistic events and behave to those events as us humans do. For example, in Castro’s Curveball by Tim Wendel, when Billy and Papa Joe were talking on the phone, Papa Joe quoted “you know, the Dodgers may be ready to bring coloreds into the big leagues with this Robinson kid, but I doubt if the world in general is ready for that just yet.” When Papa Joe explained how the Dodgers were going to let a colored kid name Robinson in the league, I already knew that they were talking about the famous Jackie Robinson. The reaction of Papa Joe, when quoted the Dodgers letting Jackie Robinson play in the big league, was so realistic because back in those times was when whites and blacks did not like each other that well, so I took it as racism.
I agree with Nicholas. There are many different types of heroes. Nicholas stated that there is a hero, and there is an antihero. I believe the antihero is the more realistic hero. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, and should be entitled to have a second chance. Personally, I don’t like the word antihero because in my opinion it makes them seem less of a hero. Just because you may have failed your task, you can still be a hero/heroine because you had the faith to try.
I do believe that a novel needs a hero/heroine. Well actually when you think about it, it is a hero in every novel. Everybody doesn't have the same definition of a hero, but remember a hero doesn't have to do something huge it can be very small. A hero doesn't always have to put their lives in danger to help or save someone. I also agree with Logan about a novel being dull without a hero. Novels need heroes to give the book a thrill or send a message. I disagree with N'dia when she says that the novels she has read didn't have any heroes, but in any kind of literature there is always a hero. The novel may not be based around that person, but you have to read between the lines, there is always a hero. In "Castro's Curveball" there are four main characters. Castro is the character that wants to be the hero and has a strong interest in politics and had a good arm. Malena is the photographer who I believe is caught in a love triangle with Billy and Castro, but wants to help change Cuba's system. Billy’s character is a man who wants but doesn't want to do. For instance he wants to love Malena, but doesn't and wants baseball, but doesn't try hard enough. Papa Joe's character is exactly what his name is "papa". He has connections and determines the lives of his players. The character that is subservient to the plot is Malena. She is the character who helps end the story. As I mentioned before I believe Malena is the hero and although she didn't have much power she helped with the revolution and even stayed to better her country even though she knew she could die.
I would like to first say that, I believe that everyone made good comments on the book. With most of the comments I can see where people are coming from. Some of the comments had me go back and rethink everything over.
Yes, a character can be subservient to the plot. The book would not be the same without it. I agree with Malika and Diara. In the book and life in general you always see a character or a person being subservient to a plot. For example in the story it is Billy and Papa Joe, and Senora Garcia and Billy.
Nina has brought up a quote from the book and made me realize that Melana can be recognized as a hero. A hero does not have to do big and great things. The small things can make you be consider as a hero.
Rakiya also point out to me, why is Fidel Castro considered as a hero. Early in one of my blogs I wrote that a hero does things because they know it is right and does not expect anything in return. Well, Fidel was expecting something in return, power. Throughout the story Fidel does show some heroic qualities. He express how courageous and determined he. Like Alicia said, in the book there are a lot of people that push past the limits. I have confused myself numerous of times, with people that push there selves with heroes.
Of course a hero or heroine is subservient to the plot because the hero or heroine is one of the most significant parts of the plot. The hero or heroine of the story has its own stages in the plot. For example, in an action movie, there is a couple who loves each other very much and plan on getting married. Somewhere in the movie the boyfriend kidnapped and held for ransom. Then the hero or heroine comes in and saved the boyfriend because if the kidnappers did not receive any money then they would have killed the boyfriend. Now the boyfriend is rescued and the couple is back together again. Then at the end of the movie, they get married. In that movie, the hero or heroine was the center attention in the movie because if it wasn’t for the hero or heroine saving the boyfriend from being killed, then the couple wouldn’t be able to marry each other. The ending would not be possible if there was no hero or heroine in the movie. So far in the novel, Castro’s Curveball by Tim Wendel, I cannot think the only heroic thing I’ve notice is when Billy was thinking to himself how he would be hero of the day if would score then everyone would be proud of him but then again that’s not a heroic thing because he wouldn’t have risk anything while doing his duty.
After reading some of my other peer’s comments, I now realize that Malena may have been considered a hero. However, it was difficult to tell whether or not she was because some of her actions did seem somewhat foolish. For instance, when Castro wanted her to do something for him, she agreed wholeheartedly pushed everything else that was happening in her life to the side. Nonetheless, when she took pictures of the scenes at the revolts, she must have had some courage in order to do that. Within this novel it was hard to choose an actual hero. All three of the main characters can be considered heroes, but there were also traits that were exposed that made them less heroic. As people have stated before, perhaps the story does not really need a hero. I do not know if I fully agree with this idea, but without a specific hero, the story is still somewhat interesting. Maybe it is because in most novels, we are so used to having a hero character or someone that is favored unanimously, that it is difficult to break out of the mindset of always having a hero in the story. In this book, I think that the reader was able to decide who they thought was the true hero rather than having it already chosen for them.
A novel does not need a hero. A hero is someone who protects and saves people or, in general, a person who takes up a cause that is deemed noble and admirable. A novel indeed needs a main character but this character does not necessarily need to be a hero. The noble’s necessity for a main character arises because the presence of this character facilitates the author to tell a story more elaborately by giving the reader one specific focus. This story does not need to have a hero because some stories are better told through the scope of non-heroic characters. For example, in the novel Of Mice and Men, criminals try to run away from their crimes and start a new life but one of the criminals ends up killing a girl and consequently the other one is forced to kill him. In this novel, Steinbeck does not provide a character who demonstrates any acts that would be considered heroic by his general readers. Instead of writing about a hero the author employs a plot about two criminals whose motive of action is not noble or altruistic by any means, but selfish at best. However, despite its lack of a hero, Of Mice and Men is still widely considered to be one of the best literary novels. Therefore, it is evident that a novel does not require a hero. I thought that Billy was sort of a hero because he helped castro on baseball and decided to look for him. There are many different things that make up a hero.
A novel contains many different kinds of characters. A protagonist is the main character of the story. He usually has an antagonist that is against him. The main character usually has a goal that he wants to accomplish. However, the antagonist presents conflict for the protagonist. For example, in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, The Finches are the protagonists who try to help Tom Robinson and the Ewells are the antagonists who try to accuse Tom Robinson of crime he did not commit. Tom Robinson is the supporting character who is the one that the protagonist is trying to save. The supporting character is usually not talked about that much in the novel but has a key role in the story that helps the main character in their goal. Some characters can be a symbol like Tom Robinson is a symbol of uncorrupted innocence. The setting can be an important character in the story. For example in the novel, Lord of the Flies, kids are trying to survive on an island with no food or water. They have to use the wisdom to figure out how they will survive. Billy was the protagonist of the story and Fidel was more of a supporter character because Billy trys to help him.
I would have to disagree with Miss Wade about Malena just doing her job. In the beginning, she was just doing her job, but then it became more than that. In the novel Malena fights with Castro to better Cuba. Although, photography was her job she used it to her advantage outside of work. Malena helped to publicize what was going on in the revolution. Without being able to visually see what was going on no one would know what was going on with the revolution. In the end Malena was tortured, almost killed because she had pictures that would let the world know what was going on in Cuba. Also, it's funny that Mark used the movie analogy because that is sort of what happened. When Malena was captured and tortured Castro and Billy went to go save her and they did, except she would not leave Cuba. Billy was heart-broken, but knew where Malena’s hearts was. She even switched identities with a lady in front of guards in an airport and gave up the chance to go to America, so she could stay in Cuba to help after they threatened to kill her and I thought that was very heroic. It may not seem heroic to others or fit their definition of a hero, but Malena fits the description for many definitions. Her part doesn't seem big at, but remember it is the small things that count. Also, does being publicized and starting a revolution make you a hero? Just because Castro did something big doesn't mean he should take all the credit, he just happened to be a hero who got more publicity and was wanted, by the government.
I agree with most of my peers because I also believe that not all novels need to have a hero or heroine. I used to believe that every story needed a hero. Now, I realize that is not true. I agree with both Tiara and Dominique when they stated that, it depends on what the story is about. If the story doesn't focus on an heroic action,than the story does not need a hero. I think that everyone thinks of a hero to be this wonderful, magnificent,and powerful person but in my opinion a hero is someone who goes above and beyond what is expected. They do things out of the kindness of their heart. I agree with Shanae when she stated that heroes are brave and are not selfish.
No, a character is not subservient to a plot. The plot tells the story because by storytelling the author can tell the theme that he wants to convey. A character is also important because the character can stand for something other that himself. They both can enhance the theme which is the point of literature. Without one or the other there are missing a half of the whole. A novel needs a plot and character to be a good novel. If it has only one it just would not be a good story. One can write a story with just characters but there would not be a lesson which that author wants. Without the plot the characters would have no purpose in the story. For example The color purple mutual constructed the strenght of a womanhood but without the characters it wouldn't have that theme. In castro curveball, without Billy and Fidel there would be no story so the plot and the character needs each other.
I would like to start off by stating that I do not believe that every novel needs a hero. Different people have different interpretations of heroes, so in a story what the author might describe as a hero could be the opposite to the reader. How LauRyn said earlier, many people might not think teaching someone to play baseball is heroic at all. I think that how Fidel Castro never gave up and fought for Cuba was a beautiful thing, he is definitely a hero in my book. In this case, I feel Billy was a hero because baseball became a massive part of Fidel Castro's life. When I think of Fidel Castro, now, I think of leader and baseball. Even though the results of the condition of his country Cuba didn't improve instantly and might of, in fact, worsened he still is considered a hero. Fidel Castro may not be your typical hero, but I applaud him for his courage and his drive. Fidel most diefinitely showed love and care for his homeland, Cuba. Fidel did something he felt was right and never gave up. He tried very hard to change the government and the overall condition of his country and that is a hero.
I agree with Nick, when he said that Castro wasn't truly a hero, but was made into a hero. The reason I agreed with his statement was because he, Castro, used the people around him as helpers to help push him closer and closer towards his goal. I also think that Melinda was a hero, but played behind the scenes because she was filming the events. I thought she was a hero because she fought for what she thought was right and because she was a photographer, she used that as an advantage to capture a major problem Cuba dealt with. Another reason, I thought, she was a hero, was because she risked her own life just to stay in Cuba after being threatened to get killed if she stayed. I disagree with Rakiya, when she said that Castro wasn't necessarily a hero, even though he was courageous enough to fight for his beliefs. My opinion was that even the littlest things a person does can be considered heroic. For example, the girl that warned every one in her town that a huge catastrophe was heading their way. I thought she was a hero because she saved, I believe, eight hundred people. A heroic deed is defined as an action done by a particular person and because heroes are unique in their own way, the things they did made them different than any other.
I would like to start off by saying that my peers are really makin me think long and hard about who the real hero in this story could be. As I stated before, Malena took pictures, showing that she was very brave and forgot about her own safety and really started to care about others. Yes I understand that Billy helped Fidel with his baseball skills but, does that really make you a hero? I help others a lot, but I don't think that makes me a hero because they were not in any type of danger. No, your not obligated to help but if you choose to then thats all on you and I don't think you should get the title as a hero even if the person you helped went on to do great things.
After rereading my notes and posting and my classmates’ postings, I disagree with what I had said before. I agreed with many others of the students such as Logan in saying Billy is the main character. I do not believe this is the case anymore. I believe that Castro and Billy are both main characters, unlike my response before saying that Castro being a minor character. This book shares many similarities with All the King’s Men. All the King’s Men revolves around a politician named Billy Stark, but is told by one of is friends in their point of view. I believe that Castro’s Curveball and All the King’s Men are similar in this case. Billy tells his and Castro’s story of playing ball, centering on Castro. Both Billy and Castro are friends, and they influence each other, much like Stark and his friend in All the King’s Men. I also believe that Melinda can be considered a main character as well. She follows the same pattern that Castro does. Other than these topics, I still stand with what I said before. Hero’s are not needed in novels. Neither Castro’s Curveball nor All the King’s Men have real heroes or heroines.
In the novel “Castro’s Curveball” I believe that there were two heroes, Fidel Castro and Billy Bryan. Fidel Castro has been a hero from the start, when growing up he was an unruly child who frequently fought. He also challenged the authority of the priests and vied for leadership among the students. In the novel Fidel strives for greatness, that is an indication of a hero.
Billy Bryan is also a hero because he is recently a single man who has faced a great deal of pain. Now that he is getting older, Billy has little to look forward to, but when he witnessed young Fidel throw a curveball he cannot help but to be amazed. He has become a big part of Fidel’s life, less of a coach and more of a companion. As he learns the game of baseball Fidel learns plenty from Billy and I think Billy has learned from Fidel too. Even though Fidel could have played in the Major Leagues, I think he is more idolized as revolutionist. Overall, I enjoyed the novel and look forward to meeting Tim Wendel.
From reading everyone else’s comments I believe that each character possessed heroic qualities or the potential to be considered a hero. I agree with Logan when he said the main hero is considered a hero. He also pointed out that just because you are the main character does not mean you are a hero. He pointed out that a main character is often considered heroic because he is the one first in line to do anything. Malena believed in Castro just as Billy Bryan did. Does her role played make her less or more of a hero? She is a hero as others have said because she puts everything a side to make sure Billy's plan for Castro went smoothly. Overtime, Billy became fond of Malena. She carries herself proudly. I believe Papa Joe was there to give Billy insight and encouragement about working with Castro. I believe Papa Joe and Malena made a huge impact on Billy Bryan. Billy is a hero because he was professional about the situation with Castro. He always empowered Castro, by believing he can make it into the minor league baseball. Billy was able to accept the differences that Cuba had in their culture.
Post a Comment