Monsters and heroes is a fiction which is about the history and journey of a hero and is very famous and well known.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Monster and heroes is a fiction which consists of parts in it and all the parts are very famous and well known. All the parts mostly talk about the journey of a hero of the fiction. This is the central idea of the story.
Joseph Campbell's work with Mono myth is absolutely the most notable. In his book, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", he maps out the essential account example of pretty much every story out there and really comes it down into seventeen phases in three stages. Others have made comparable examples or further consolidated Campbell's into twelve or so steps, however Campbell's work is commonly viewed as the most huge.
It would be A because it’s possessive
HsnnshinPjj in shiwbshs in by a in sgg by jsbsueb zusbaja Bt Shabaka told feud in hwHebrides
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
