![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Triumphant return!
I've started a new job at the same library where I've been working part time, and while I'm enjoying it very much, it's more hours per week than I'd been working. Beyond that, a wedding, and a convention all in the past week, it's been rather busy, so I'm afraid I've been a bit behind. But here I am, ready to come back to the blogosphere!
On the recommendation of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
shanna_s, I've been reading The Complete Writer's Guide to Heroes & Heroines. Shanna has been doing several blog entries on the nature of using archetypes in fiction that have been really insightful, so I've been looking forward to reading the book. But the thing that Shanna talks about most--how what motivates a character really defines what type of archetype the character falls into--is only barely glossed over in this text. So while the names and categories are useful, particularly in reading Shanna's entries, the book itself is far less insightful than Shanna's entries.
The other thing that's been striking me as I read is the division between male and female archetypes--something that, as I'm reading, I severely question. The authors give eight male and eight female archetypes, but several of them overlap--almost identically. I'm simplifying a bit, but this is the general idea:
The CHIEF and the BOSS are both workaholics, driven by success rather than, say, family.
The BEST FRIEND and the SPUNKY KID are both motivated by keeping their circle of friends--or the people they're closest to--content. They're the peace makers and the supporters, rather than the go-getting achievers.
The LOST SOUL and the WAIF are both conflict avoiders, easily abused. (Really, how different are Cinderella, which the book uses as a classic example of a WAIF, and Harry Potter, which Shanna identifies as a LOST SOUL, at the beginning of their stories?)
The PROFESSOR meets his match in the LIBRARIAN, both type A personalities that strive toward knowledge and prefer very organized lives.
The SWASHBUCKLER and the FREE SPIRIT are more interested in experiencing adventure and excitement than they are concerned about the consequences of their actions on others.
The WARRIOR and the CRUSADER are both fighters for a cause.
The CHARMER and the SEDUCTRESS are both masters of manipulation, who drive others by their charisma and wiles.
The two remaining are the BAD BOY and the NURTURER. They're both pretty much what you'd think--but here's the question. Could a woman be a BAD BOY and a man be a NURTURER? One is driven by rebellious spirit, the other driven to care for others. I really don't see why not...
So I think if I were trying to convince Shanna to write a book on the subject (which I'm very much hoping she'll decide to do at some point), I'd ask her what she thought about eliminating the gender borders. If an archetype is based on a character's motivating forces, then those forces can cross gender boundaries.
I'm also surprised at the notable lack of the Buffy archetype, as I identify it. There doesn't seem to be any archetype here that describes the person who goes out to save the world, beat the bad-guy, or etc., because they're CHOSEN for it. They're not motivated necessarily by a particular cause, or even by their family or friends, or driven to success. They're motivated because they're the only one who can do the job, or because the bad guy has targeted them and so they have to shape up, or because they were tricked into playing a role they didn't intend to. The writers peg Sarah Connor as a moving archetype--she goes from WAIF to CRUSADER. But does she fight because she truly believes in her cause? Or because that cause was thrust upon her, and she had to learn to fight?
Being CHOSEN may be more of a plot-driven thing than a true archetype... but while I was trying to define one of my own characters, Nara al'Sheed, as any of the above archetypes, I really couldn't. Before the novels, she's trying to prove herself constantly to others--which might make her a LOST SOUL, as she defines herself by the approval of others. She doesn't necessarily look for closeness--in fact, she avoids it because she's been hurt, and been the cause of other people getting hurt--before. But the reason she wants to be good at what she does is so she has some way of defining herself--and the acknowledgment of others gives her that.
At the start of the novels, however, she's being hunted by the world's big bad guy. If it were up to her, she'd just vanish for a bit, then keep doing her job. But the big bad doesn't give her that option. She becomes CHOSEN, the only person who can stop what's going on, because the plans of the villain are driven by her.
I think Bilbo Baggins is another example of someone who is CHOSEN. He isn't interested in adventures. He has no particular need for wealth, and he's largely happy to just be. He follows Gandalf not for any particular reasons of his own, but because he's drawn in by the wizard's machinations. He's no good at the role he's given, but he does it anyway, because he's pulled along by forces greater than he is, guiding him onto his destiny.
Buffy herself (as my example) doesn't start out wanting to fight for the cause at all. In the TV series she wants to have nothing more to do with vampires and would be happy to hand off that job to someone else. Before the Season 8 comic came out, I would have bet that the reason Buffy smiles at the end of the series is because she can finally *stop* being the Slayer. (This, we find out, isn't true--but I bet Joss left it open ended so that folks could think just that.) Buffy believes the world is worth saving, sure, but she spends quite a lot of time brooding about being the CHOSEN one, being the only person who can stand between good and evil, and she lets that come between her and companionship. If she were just a believer in the cause, like the CHAMPION the authors believe her to be, I'd think she'd be happy to have trusted allies joining her, rather than trying to push them away.
I'm hoping Shanna will pop by and bounce off of my ideas, as I've been really impressed with what she's doing--and I'm very interested to know if I'm totally off the mark with the idea of being CHOSEN. I'm also curious about the Jungian archetypes and how much they overlap--as well as how much gender enters into the equation. You may be seeing more of these posts in the future.
On the recommendation of
shanna_s, I've been reading The Complete Writer's Guide to Heroes & Heroines. Shanna has been doing several blog entries on the nature of using archetypes in fiction that have been really insightful, so I've been looking forward to reading the book. But the thing that Shanna talks about most--how what motivates a character really defines what type of archetype the character falls into--is only barely glossed over in this text. So while the names and categories are useful, particularly in reading Shanna's entries, the book itself is far less insightful than Shanna's entries.The other thing that's been striking me as I read is the division between male and female archetypes--something that, as I'm reading, I severely question. The authors give eight male and eight female archetypes, but several of them overlap--almost identically. I'm simplifying a bit, but this is the general idea:
The CHIEF and the BOSS are both workaholics, driven by success rather than, say, family.
The BEST FRIEND and the SPUNKY KID are both motivated by keeping their circle of friends--or the people they're closest to--content. They're the peace makers and the supporters, rather than the go-getting achievers.
The LOST SOUL and the WAIF are both conflict avoiders, easily abused. (Really, how different are Cinderella, which the book uses as a classic example of a WAIF, and Harry Potter, which Shanna identifies as a LOST SOUL, at the beginning of their stories?)
The PROFESSOR meets his match in the LIBRARIAN, both type A personalities that strive toward knowledge and prefer very organized lives.
The SWASHBUCKLER and the FREE SPIRIT are more interested in experiencing adventure and excitement than they are concerned about the consequences of their actions on others.
The WARRIOR and the CRUSADER are both fighters for a cause.
The CHARMER and the SEDUCTRESS are both masters of manipulation, who drive others by their charisma and wiles.
The two remaining are the BAD BOY and the NURTURER. They're both pretty much what you'd think--but here's the question. Could a woman be a BAD BOY and a man be a NURTURER? One is driven by rebellious spirit, the other driven to care for others. I really don't see why not...
So I think if I were trying to convince Shanna to write a book on the subject (which I'm very much hoping she'll decide to do at some point), I'd ask her what she thought about eliminating the gender borders. If an archetype is based on a character's motivating forces, then those forces can cross gender boundaries.
I'm also surprised at the notable lack of the Buffy archetype, as I identify it. There doesn't seem to be any archetype here that describes the person who goes out to save the world, beat the bad-guy, or etc., because they're CHOSEN for it. They're not motivated necessarily by a particular cause, or even by their family or friends, or driven to success. They're motivated because they're the only one who can do the job, or because the bad guy has targeted them and so they have to shape up, or because they were tricked into playing a role they didn't intend to. The writers peg Sarah Connor as a moving archetype--she goes from WAIF to CRUSADER. But does she fight because she truly believes in her cause? Or because that cause was thrust upon her, and she had to learn to fight?
Being CHOSEN may be more of a plot-driven thing than a true archetype... but while I was trying to define one of my own characters, Nara al'Sheed, as any of the above archetypes, I really couldn't. Before the novels, she's trying to prove herself constantly to others--which might make her a LOST SOUL, as she defines herself by the approval of others. She doesn't necessarily look for closeness--in fact, she avoids it because she's been hurt, and been the cause of other people getting hurt--before. But the reason she wants to be good at what she does is so she has some way of defining herself--and the acknowledgment of others gives her that.
At the start of the novels, however, she's being hunted by the world's big bad guy. If it were up to her, she'd just vanish for a bit, then keep doing her job. But the big bad doesn't give her that option. She becomes CHOSEN, the only person who can stop what's going on, because the plans of the villain are driven by her.
I think Bilbo Baggins is another example of someone who is CHOSEN. He isn't interested in adventures. He has no particular need for wealth, and he's largely happy to just be. He follows Gandalf not for any particular reasons of his own, but because he's drawn in by the wizard's machinations. He's no good at the role he's given, but he does it anyway, because he's pulled along by forces greater than he is, guiding him onto his destiny.
Buffy herself (as my example) doesn't start out wanting to fight for the cause at all. In the TV series she wants to have nothing more to do with vampires and would be happy to hand off that job to someone else. Before the Season 8 comic came out, I would have bet that the reason Buffy smiles at the end of the series is because she can finally *stop* being the Slayer. (This, we find out, isn't true--but I bet Joss left it open ended so that folks could think just that.) Buffy believes the world is worth saving, sure, but she spends quite a lot of time brooding about being the CHOSEN one, being the only person who can stand between good and evil, and she lets that come between her and companionship. If she were just a believer in the cause, like the CHAMPION the authors believe her to be, I'd think she'd be happy to have trusted allies joining her, rather than trying to push them away.
I'm hoping Shanna will pop by and bounce off of my ideas, as I've been really impressed with what she's doing--and I'm very interested to know if I'm totally off the mark with the idea of being CHOSEN. I'm also curious about the Jungian archetypes and how much they overlap--as well as how much gender enters into the equation. You may be seeing more of these posts in the future.