Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The mid-20th century witnessed the rise of the “angry young man” archetype, a figure disillusioned with societal norms and expressing his frustration through rebellious behaviour. John Osborne’s *Look Back in Anger* (1956) is often credited with launching this archetype into the British consciousness with its protagonist, Jimmy Porter. The question of whether Jimmy Porter is a “cult hero” is complex. A cult hero is typically an individual who, despite flaws or unconventional behaviour, gains a devoted following due to their perceived authenticity and rejection of mainstream values. This essay will argue that while Jimmy possesses some characteristics of a cult hero, Osborne deliberately crafts him as a parody of the archetype, exposing its limitations and inherent contradictions.
Defining the Cult Hero
The concept of the cult hero emerged in the 20th century, often associated with figures who challenge established norms and embody a sense of rebellious individualism. These figures are not necessarily morally upright or conventionally successful, but they attract a devoted following due to their perceived authenticity, charisma, and willingness to defy societal expectations. They often represent a rejection of the status quo and a yearning for something more meaningful. Key characteristics include:
- Rebellion against Authority: A rejection of traditional power structures.
- Authenticity: A perceived genuineness and refusal to conform.
- Charisma: An ability to inspire and attract followers.
- Flawed Nature: Often possessing significant personal flaws and vulnerabilities.
Jimmy Porter: Heroic Qualities
Jimmy Porter undeniably possesses several qualities that align with the cult hero archetype. He is fiercely independent and refuses to be defined by his social class or the expectations placed upon him. His relentless verbal attacks on the upper classes and his disdain for the “posh” represent a rebellion against the established social order. He is intellectually vibrant, engaging in passionate debates about politics, literature, and society, demonstrating a keen awareness of the world around him. His energy and passion, though often destructive, are undeniably captivating. He attempts to create his own meaning in a world he finds stifling and hypocritical. For example, his running of the sweet stall, though a humble enterprise, is a symbol of his desire for self-sufficiency and autonomy.
Jimmy Porter: The Parody Unveiled
However, Osborne deliberately undermines the heroic potential of Jimmy Porter, presenting him as a deeply flawed and ultimately self-destructive figure. His anger is often misdirected, manifesting as cruelty towards those closest to him – Alison and Cliff. His intellectualism is frequently performative, used to mask his insecurities and justify his destructive behaviour. His rebellion is not rooted in any coherent political ideology but rather in a generalized sense of frustration and resentment. He is not a revolutionary but a reactionary, trapped in a cycle of anger and self-pity.
The Destructive Nature of his Anger
Jimmy’s anger isn’t a noble fight against injustice; it’s a personal failing. His verbal abuse of Alison, particularly during her pregnancy, is not a critique of societal norms but a cruel and selfish act. His attempts to provoke a reaction from her are not about challenging her beliefs but about asserting his own dominance. This is a key element in understanding him as a parody – the ‘heroic’ rebellion is revealed as petty and damaging.
The Lack of Genuine Ideology
Unlike genuine revolutionary figures, Jimmy lacks a clear vision for a better future. His criticisms are largely nihilistic, offering no constructive alternatives. He rails against the “middle class” and the “posh” but doesn’t articulate a compelling alternative social order. This absence of a positive program further reinforces the idea that his rebellion is ultimately empty and self-serving.
The Cycle of Violence and Reconciliation
The play’s ending, with Jimmy’s temporary reconciliation with Alison after her tragic accident, is particularly revealing. The shared grief momentarily suspends their conflict, but it doesn’t signify a genuine transformation. It suggests that their relationship is built on a volatile foundation of anger and resentment, destined to repeat itself. This cyclical pattern underscores the futility of Jimmy’s rebellion and his inability to escape his own destructive tendencies.
Comparison with Other "Angry Young Men"
| Character | Rebellion | Authenticity | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jimmy Porter | Personal, often misdirected anger | Performative, masking insecurity | Cyclical conflict, limited growth |
| Stanley Kowalski (A Streetcar Named Desire) | Assertion of working-class masculinity | Raw, primal, though flawed | Dominance, but at a cost |
| Holden Caulfield (The Catcher in the Rye) | Rejection of "phoniness" | Genuine, though naive | Emotional breakdown, institutionalization |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Jimmy Porter initially appears to embody the characteristics of a cult hero – rebellion, authenticity, and charisma – a closer examination reveals that Osborne deliberately subverts these tropes. Jimmy’s anger is ultimately destructive, his intellectualism performative, and his rebellion lacking in genuine ideological conviction. He is not a heroic figure fighting for a better world but a deeply flawed individual trapped in a cycle of self-pity and resentment. Therefore, Jimmy Porter is best understood not as a cult hero, but as a scathing parody of the archetype, exposing its limitations and the dangers of unchanneled rage.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.