A discussion of archetypes and their usefulness arose out of Jean's response to Shelly's assignment #3 in Essence Of Story:

Message: 1
From: Shelly:

I'm sorry Jean, I didn't realize you had posted a comment to this assignment.

You've brought up something that I know absolutely NOTHING about. Archetypes?

Are there articles here on Sime~Gen about them? I assume archetypes are "plots" regarding personality/psyche for characters, so the evil step-mother is an archetype, and the airhead girlfriend/boyfriend is an archetype.

That would add great depth and dimension to the Marcia/Tracy story idea.

How do I go about analyzing my ideas properly if I don't know what all the pieces or more properly, what all of the tools in the writer's craft box are?

Do you have an article or a workshop that details ALL of the pieces that make up the essence of a story? If not, could you give me a list of them with short definitions for each? This way, I can incorporate them into my future work?
--__--__--
Jean responded (via Jacqueline):

Message: 2
From: Jean Lorrah:

The granddaddies of all texts on archetypes are Joseph Campbell's THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691017840/rereadablebooksr/ (use that link to buy it and we get 10% at no cost to you -- to keep WorldCrafters Guild available to all JL).

and C. J. Jung, THE ARCHETYPES AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691018332/rereadablebooksr/

These guys started it all, and George Lucas openly admits that he followed Campbell's monomyth beat for beat for the original STAR WARS trilogy. If he had only taken as good a source for the structure of the more recent movies!

Jean

--------------------
Jacqueline added:
(still Message 2)

As I cruised Amazon looking for the links, I saw a bunch of other books I've read and a lot I haven't. Once you get the idea though, you'll see it everywhere in novels and movies and especially on TV -- most especially in children's books where it's very easy to spot. Try watching some Superman and Batman movies.

Yes, learning to write is a lot of hard work -- you just have to read and read and watch and watch! Just don't eat too much popcorn.

JL

--__--__--
Message: 3
From: Shelly

Tell Jean thank you. I just received THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES on Saturday and I'm wading through it slowly. It's a lot to process along with the assignments.

I'll get to Jung's book when I've finished with HERO.

S.

--__--__--
Jacqueline responds to Shelly's note:
Message: 4
From: Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Shelly:

Most of our work here assumes at least a glancing familiarity with the material in the Campbell book. Jung is really hard slogging being translated from the German and all, nevermind the subject is very abstract.

JL
--__--__--
Message: 5
From: Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Oh, and here's another book on archetypes and myths that can be very helpful. I found it on our Keybooks page of Writing Textbooks http://www.simegen.com/marketplace/keybooks/keybookswriting.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582970696/rereadablebooksr/ will show you the book.

JL
--__--__--
Paul responds to the introduction of archetype with thoughts about how it might lead to formulaic writing, which he sees as undesirable:

Message: 6
From: Paul Kopal

There appears to be some confusion upon the subject of archetypes. An archetype is a symbol or motif so recurrent and ubiquitous as to have become (in Jungian theory at least) present in the collective unconscious. If it is present in the collective unconscious of humanity it hardly requires to have attention drawn to it, by Mister Campbell or anyone else. Jung's interest was that of a scientist and thus analytical by default. He was also interested in using them as a therapeutic device.

Following them should be as inevitable as breathing. Indeed, it should be impossible to avoid following them. If you have to be informed what they are then that is not them, if you have to be advised upon how to follow them then again, that cannot actually be them. There is no point in making explicit something so profoundly and fundamentally implicit.

Using them as a conscious template therefore seems pointless but recommending them as a source of cliches becomes positively perverse unless of course the intention is to somehow subvert their grip, which as I intimated, must be considered nigh unto impossible.

In certain hands knowledge of archetypes will simply lead to a more fundamental level of unoriginality, and that certainly cannot be desirable.
--__--__--
Jean is engaged by Paul's argument:
Message: 7
From: Jean Lorrah

Pardon me if this comes through twice. Juno timed out while I was writing it.

Paul Kopal wrote: There appears to be some confusion upon the subject of archetypes. An archetype is a symbol or motif so recurrent and ubiquitous as to have become (in Jungian theory at least) present in the collective unconscious. If it is present in the collective unconscious of humanity it hardly requires to have attention drawn to it, by Mister Campbell or anyone else. Jung's interest was that of a scientist and thus analytical by default. He was also interested in using them as a therapeutic device

Following them should be as inevitable as breathing. Indeed, it should be impossible to avoid following them. If you have to be informed what they are then that is not them, if you have to be advised upon how to follow them then again, that cannot actually be them. There is no point in making explicit something so profoundly and fundamentally implicit.

Your argument is pretty much the same argument that the beginning poet makes against learning prosody, the beginning musician against learning musical theory, the beginning artist against learning the mathematics of perspective, etc. The fact is that following archetypes, motifs, etc. is NOT "as inevitable as breathing" except to A) the occasional rare genius who instinctively balances the archetypal core within an original exterior (in which case that writer is already successful and doesn't need us), or B) the poor cliche-ridden writer who does not realize until the archetypes are pointed out that s/he is rewriting stories that have been told better a thousand times in the past, but is not contributing anything new to them.

From Paul: Using them as a conscious template therefore seems pointless but recommending them as a source of cliches becomes positively perverse unless of course the intention is to somehow subvert their grip, which as I intimated, must be considered nigh unto impossible.

Actually, not only beginning writers but writers of some experience will often try to subvert archetypes in the name of "originality." That, however, is not the way to put an original exterior over the archetypal core. There are choices in some archetypes--the hero can go through all the beginning and middle beats of the monomyth, for example, but then take either the epic path and save his society or the tragic path and take his society down to doom.

A beginning writer may therefore think that the decision of which way the hero is going can be made after his story is two-thirds written. Not so. If the hero has been written without a tragic flaw, then he cannot suddenly be turned into a tragic hero in order to be "original."

On the other hand, without an understanding of archetypes, an inexperienced writer could think, "Then my hero cannot die at the end, because that would make it a tragedy and I haven't given him a tragic flaw." But the epic hero can and often does die at the end (Beowulf, El Cid). It does not become tragedy because the epic hero dies SAVING HIS SOCIETY. In tragedy, the society goes down with the fallen tragic hero (Fortinbras of Norway walks in and takes over Denmark after the slaughter caused by Hamlet's tragic flaw).

From Paul: In certain hands knowledge of archetypes will simply lead to a more fundamental level of unoriginality, and that certainly cannot be desirable.

Of course not. But actually, B's problem above is caused by NOT knowing the archetypes, and therefore not understanding that calling your male and female characters who found a new world Xplzg and Gormklas, and giving them scales and feathers, makes them no less Adam and Eve. If poor B does learn the basic archetypes, it will be a major step toward doing something original with them instead of repeating the same old thing--and it may well prevent attempts to be "original" by trying to break the archetypes instead of the cliches.

If you don't know the archetypes, then you cannot see where Oedipus and Hamlet are the same. That means you cannot analyze what each playwright did that was original to his character and setting, so that by seeing how other writers down through the centuries have taken the same archetype and made something original with it, you can eventually learn to do the same thing yourself.

Ignorance of basics is never a good position from which to succeed in any field of endeavor.

Jean
--__--__--
Paul responds to Jean:
Message: 8
From: Paul Kopal

What an interesting discussion this promises to become. I am quite relishing the prospect!

From Jean: Your argument is pretty much the same argument that the beginning poet makes against learning prosody, the beginning musician against learning musical theory, the beginning artist against learning the mathematics of perspective, etc.


My argument, which was really more of a question, is in fact entirely dissimilar, no one suggests that prosody musical theory or knowledge of perspective are innate to the human psyche, are in fact fundamental building blacks of consciousness as is done with archetypes! They are surely systemisations after the fact not absolutely essential scaffolding?

There is equally no suggestion that a person without any knowledge of prosody musical theory or knowledge of perspective is utterly incapable of making poetry music or art. there are plentiful examples of the arts being pursued with great results by persons in total ignorance of those systems.

The fact is that following archetypes, motifs, etc. is NOT "as inevitable as breathing" except to A) the occasional rare genius who instinctively balances the archetypal core within an original exterior (in which case that writer is already successful and doesn't need us), or B) the poor cliche-ridden writer who does not realize until the archetypes are pointed out that s/he is rewriting stories that have been told better a thousand times in the past, but is not contributing anything new to them.

I still can't see how we are not unable to do anything else BUT follow archetypes given their alleged power over us. It should surely be impossible to avoid them? When utilising Andre Bretons 'pure psychic automatism' or instinct by another name, from where would said instincts flow? Surely the source has to be an archetype. In which case, how could that dreamer derive their imagined scenes and characters from any other source? Given that how does exteriorising and labeling them aid in their conjuration? Jung advised exteriorising them as an aid to negating their power over the unconscious, given that they lost their (In this scenario harmful) numinous force when taken into the conscious mind. Under that scenario Mr. Campbell's treatise would effectively neuter the archetypes, not enhance them.

From Jean: Actually, not only beginning writers but writers of some experience will often try to subvert archetypes in the name of "originality." That, however, is not the way to put an original exterior over the archetypal core. There are choices in some archetypes--the hero can go through all the beginning and middle beats of the monomyth, for example, but then take either the epic path and save his society or the tragic path and take his society down to doom.

I take it that it is actually impossible then, to invent a tale of any kind that subverts or circumnavigates the 'archetypal core' assuming that to be fact? Then my question remains, of what use is explicit exteriorised knowledge of it? It is like saying that you can't feel any warmth from an electric fire without a complete knowledge of how it works. If creativity is virtually impossible other than as a series of set dressings for innate instincts then so be it, but I don't see the point of drawing attention to it, other than as a system of criticism after the fact, which also seems a little pointless. It would be like criticising runners for putting their feet on the ground.

A beginning writer may therefore think that the decision of which way the hero is going can be made after his story is two-thirds written. Not so. If the hero has been written without a tragic flaw, then he cannot suddenly be turned into a tragic hero in order to be "original."

On the other hand, without an understanding of archetypes, an inexperienced writer could think, "Then my hero cannot die at the end, because that would make it a tragedy and I haven't given him a tragic flaw."

But let us consider history, Alexander the Great died of a virus in a tent in the back of beyond. His death does not resonate with any great truth or put a coda upon some mediation. If one writes a story about a world conquering and sadistic hero who fancies himself a god, having him perish of a random disease in a tent would be low down the list of possibilities. We seem to be sanctioning, indeed writing a system to ensure that, art that does not resemble reality. (Given the randomness and lack of resemblance to a fable intrinsic to existence.)

But the epic hero can and often does die at the end (Beowulf, El Cid). It does not become tragedy because the epic hero dies SAVING HIS SOCIETY. In tragedy, the society goes down with the fallen tragic hero (Fortinbras of Norway walks in and takes over Denmark after the slaughter caused by Hamlet's tragic flaw).

Given that El Cid has a discernible historical 'counterpart' in one Rodrigo Diaz, the two have vastly different lives. A novel that follows Rodrigo's life as historical fact will be vastly different from a re-telling of the myth. Would the life story of Rodrigo not have an archetypal core? Would it therefore be unreadable? Why do people read history at all when they should be repulsed by its lack of 'archetypal' structure? Should not a novel that strove to convince AS real even if it were fantasy not be served just as well reflecting the randomness and lack of resonance inherent to historical lives? Would not a novel that used portions of 'real' event cycles not seem woefully unconvincing to the reader in those sections while the rest glowed with numinosity? I can't think so.

From Jean: [From Paul: In certain hands knowledge of archetypes will simply lead to a more fundamental level of unoriginality, and that certainly cannot be desirable.] Of course not. But actually, B's problem above is caused by NOT knowing the archetypes, and therefore not understanding that calling your male and female characters who found a new world Xplzg and Gormklas, and giving them scales and feathers, makes them no less Adam and Eve. If poor B does learn the basic archetypes, it will be a major step toward doing something original with them instead of repeating the same old thing--and it may well prevent attempts to be "original" by trying to break the archetypes instead of the cliches.

I was interested in the abstract assertion and not the original problem of 'B' whatever than was. I see that knowing what went before in the history of literature is essential so as not to accidentally rewrite Genesis. Surely however, cleaving to an archetypal core without a perfected knowledge of all previous literature makes the repetition MORE likely and not less?

From Jean: If you don't know the archetypes, then you cannot see where Oedipus and Hamlet are the same. That means you cannot analyze what each playwright did that was original to his character and setting, so that by seeing how other writers down through the centuries have taken the same archetype and made something original with it, you can eventually learn to do the same thing yourself.

Here we differ, I cannot be persuaded that Shakespeare or anyone else of his time can have enjoyed the slightest conscious knowledge of what archetypes were. Therefore we must assume that the information from them can be transmitted without conscious knowledge. 'Will' used to lift plots from earlier authors who equally can only been mired in abyssal ignorance of Jungian theory. Yet he and legions of other authors who predate the conscious externalisation of archetypes seem to have succeeded admirably in the field of literary endeavour. I would equally hesitate to assume that no writer without a comprehensive knowledge of previous writing can ever create anything worthwhile. there are fine writers that hail from countries where education is basic or indeed virtually non existent.

Thanks for the subject by the way, does my brain good to exercise thinking about it. (Does mental push up)

PK
--__--__--
Message: 9
From: Steve Khinoy

Paul Kopal isn't actually arguing against the study and use of archetypes as a theoretical armature for storytellers. He's got serious reservations about the validity of archetype theory as an accurate description of the human psyche. He's hinting that archetypes aren't really the building blocks of our consciousness--not that we can't use them.

I agree. The two great psychoanalytical theories of the early part of the last century--Freud's and Jung's--are really interesting as theories of literature. They haven't panned out (so far) as descriptions of human psychic reality.

Jung, especially, came up with a story engine that deserves study and practice. It distills thousands of great stories in a subtle and powerful way. It is a meta-theory of which "Essence of Story" is one simplified practical application.

The rest of Paul's argument is about the relation of theory to practice. Do we need music theory to produce music? Do we need narrative theory to tell stories?

Wrong question, I think. People have heard lots of music, and they've heard and read lots of stories. Many of us can make new songs and stories by the simple device of making small--or large--variations in elements: how would "Twinkle, twinkle" sound in a minor key? What prohibition would Antigone have to break today, and what would happen? Suppose Antigone were a mouse?

But the reason we can do this is that we know other stories and tunes. As our composition becomes complicated, though, our instincts start to waver. I can redo "Twinkle, Twinkle," but I lose my way transforming Chopin. This is where a knowledge of theory can support me. I may--may--be able to rejigger Cinderella at fifteen pages in length (so many movies have done this) but lose my way in the middle of a character-driven novel. Here it might help me to step back from my work and think about it theoretically for a while.

(It has to be an ingrained knowledge of theory, though, to work at a high level. The archetypal mishmash that was imposed on the first "Star Wars" trilogy didn't help it one bit, in my estimation. What worked was the transformation of lots of movies.)

Excuse the blathering...

Steve Khinoy
--__--__--
[-snip copy of Jean and Paul discussing from prior messages-]
Message: 10
From: Paul Kopal

From Steve: Paul Kopal isn't actually arguing against the study and use of archetypes as a theoretical armature for storytellers. He's got serious reservations about the validity of archetype theory as an accurate description of the human psyche. He's hinting that archetypes aren't really the building blocks of our consciousness--not that we can't use them.

I am not sure they are present as collective unconscious, which brings us into the area of 'morphic fields' of which I have yet to be convinced interesting though the idea is. I was thinking about this problem off and on yesterday and started thinking about stories that do not have 'heroes' Tristram Shandy' for instance. Jeeves and Wooster as well. It seemed to me that the theory falls down when comedy is involved as the intentions of it are different from 'serious' narrative. It is looking to create a certain particular effect which many of the 'rules' would interrupt more than enhance. Jeeves and Wooster seemed to me rather interesting in this regard as it has no central character. Unless one counts J and W as one character split in two, which I would champion to some degree. Wooster is supposedly an idiot and yet the books are written in his 'voice' which is cultured ironic and elegant prose. Jeeves is supposedly a mentor of sorts (and sublimated romantic interest) and yet he can be seen as the character around which all else revolves. He is the instigator, albeit always after the fact of Wooster's falling into some ghastly error. Neither character is whole without the other. Tristram Shandy is a great glorious hilarious anti-novel where Sterne dismantles the form with a mallet. The nominal hero is absent, not even being born until chapter three, and thereafter sidelined by the 'minor' characters who define him in his absence to some degree. I cannot believe that Wodehouse or Sterne consciously bothered themselves in the slightest about what archetype informed who. Therefore if such a thing is present it must be unconscious and perfectly functional as such.

From Steve: I agree. The two great psychoanalytical theories of the early part of the last century--Freud's and Jung's--are really interesting as theories of literature. They haven't panned out (so far) as descriptions of human psychic reality.

Jung, especially, came up with a story engine that deserves study and practice. It distills thousands of great stories in a subtle and powerful way. It is a meta-theory of which "Essence of Story" is one simplified practical application.

From Paul: Is it in any way useful to someone burning to tell a story that has arisen from 'urgent psychic need' (Inspiration by another name) though? To deconstruct a notion before a single word has been written seems to me premature and possibly even neutering. Many, many people never draw or paint because their 'inner rules lawyer' tells them they can't so they spend their lives pining for the 'ability' instead of doing what they can.

Mr. Campbell's tome was used as a veritable bible in Hollywood for years during a period when some of the most brainless (Non) blockbusters of all time were spawned. You can't help what would have happened if Lucas had cited 'A brief history of time' as his major influence. Let's face it-Star Wars wouldn't have been made at all if the rights to Flash Gordon had been available!

From Steve: The rest of Paul's argument is about the relation of theory to practice. Do we need music theory to produce music? Do we need narrative theory to tell stories?

Wrong question, I think. People have heard lots of music, and they've heard and read lots of stories. Many of us can make new songs and stories by the simple device of making small--or large--variations in elements: how would "Twinkle, twinkle" sound in a minor key? What prohibition would Antigone have to break today, and what would happen? Suppose Antigone were a mouse?

From Paul: It is a 'given' that some people have a perfect 'ear' for music and can reproduce it without the slightest knowledge of its mathematical structure. Remote farmers, Yugoslavian peasant painters, created works of great beauty with no knowledge of technique or history. Outsider art is famously made 'without precedence or tradition'. Art can arise from nothing but undeniable psychic need, very purely. As such it seems to be a human instinct unmoderated by systems. Some systems are localised, 'The Russian peasant glass painters' who refer only to their immediate predecessors. In western societies exposure to some form of 'art' no matter how commercial or debased is inevitable, which complicates the urge when it arises. For the person possessed of the urgent psychic need can feel as if they are obliged to fit their impulse into a commercial framework and to emulate 'professional practitioners who may well be cynical and jaded. The hunt for rules begins which very often negates their creative impulse. This is why I am wary of over-systemitising the process.

From Steve: But the reason we can do this is that we know other stories and tunes. As our composition becomes complicated, though, our instincts start to waver. I can redo "Twinkle, Twinkle," but I lose my way transforming Chopin. This is where a knowledge of theory can support me. I may--may--be able to rejigger Cinderella at fifteen pages in length (so many movies have done this) but lose my way in the middle of a character-driven novel. Here it might help me to step back from my work and think about it theoretically for a while.

From Paul: Yes, the impulse must predate any technicality imposed upon it. Technicality is a tool and no one needs a tool until they are already involved in a job. Otherwise it is like assembling a fantastic garage full of woodworking paraphernalia, mastering the theory and learning the names of every conceivable joint, but forgetting to purchase wood. Or worse, having no idea what to make. Want a chair first! The urge to sit down should come first, (it is particularly strong in me)! LOL
--__--__--
Message: 11
From: ED WILSON

From Paul: I still can't see how we are not unable to do anything else BUT follow archetypes given their alleged power over us. It should surely be impossible to avoid them?

May I break in here and point out that if I come up with a totally new archetype (My much favored Techno-Gleek who would sell his left nut for the felicity of a salesman's tongue for example) then that new archetype enters the pantheon of available characters for modification.

One of the ideas I want to press, and one of the advantages I have as a writer to be is that I've banged around the world meeting people from a respectable fraction of the globe, and if I don't use archetypes I can always fall back on real people - and cite Somerset Maughan as an example.

From Paul: When utilising Andre Breton's 'pure psychic automatism' or instinct by another name, from where would said instincts flow? Surely the source has to be an archetype.

The problem with using real people is that some of them fail, severely fail, the creditability test that every editor applies to a work of fiction.

They do things that no one would think they are capable of. So there you are left with only Heinlein's Ratio to defend your choice as a writer. If you are very, very lucky you also have the research you used to build the character (the historical model you used all but entire [you MAY have changed his name] for your character - and you'll have to put it in an appendix).

Roger Zelazny (The Amber Books) taught me an important lesson I have seriously failed to follow - do not loose this one my friends. At the Keycon he attended he said that he wrote 3 times a day, and read three times a day.

His reading was: One Fiction, current publication. One History, and One Biography.

I give you one guess as to what the History and the Biography were for. The discussion of Archetypes is the discussion of people, and their history, and the real thing is always more amazing than the idealized beast.

From Paul: I take it that it is actually impossible then, to invent a tale of any kind that subverts or circumnavigates the 'archetypal core' assuming that to be fact? Then my question remains, of what use is explicit exteriorised knowledge of it?

It may be possible to do. Will it sell? Will it sell well enough that your 3rd or 5th MS won't be sent back unread?

From Paul: It is like saying that you can't feel any warmth from an electric fire without a complete knowledge of how it works.

You can feel the warmth from it. But you don't have a hope of designing a better one without that knowledge, and that is what we are doing here. Building a better or at least different electric heater (and we'll leave discussions of "Patent Breaking" for elsewhere).

Love
Ed
--__--__--

Message: 12
From: ED WILSON

From Jean: Actually, not only beginning writers but writers of some experience will often try to subvert archetypes in the name of "originality." That, however, is not the way to put an original exterior over the archetypal core.

Are there a fixed staff of Archetypes, or do new ones come along from time to time?

From Jean: There are choices in some archetypes--the hero can go through all the beginning and middle beats of the monomyth, for example, but then take either the epic path and save his society or the tragic path and take his society down to doom.

This raises the important question for me. What if he runs away and leaves the one he's leaving to its doom, and goes to build the new one?

I've got this in more than one of my stories, and it is well developed in real life - they are called immigrants. Some of them have said some very powerful things when they leave home.

From Jean: A beginning writer may therefore think that the decision of which way the hero is going can be made after his story is two-thirds written. Not so. If the hero has been written without a tragic flaw, then he cannot suddenly be turned into a tragic hero in order to be "original."

Is this the Tragic Flaw like MacBeth's ambition, that we saw SO often in High School English we were just before barfing if we saw it again?

From Jean: On the other hand, without an understanding of archetypes, an inexperienced writer could think, "Then my hero cannot die at the end, because that would make it a tragedy and I haven't given him a tragic flaw." But the epic hero can and often does die at the end (Beowulf, El Cid).

Would this be called a "German Tragedy," where the hero dies achieving his objective (while the MacBeth tragedy is called an "English Tragedy").

From Jean: It does not become tragedy because the epic hero dies SAVING HIS SOCIETY.

May I suggest Moreta, Dragon Lady of Pern, as an example of this.

From Jean: In certain hands knowledge of archetypes will simply lead to a more fundamental level of unoriginality, and that certainly cannot be desirable.

Of course not. But actually, B's problem above is caused by NOT knowing the archetypes, and therefore not understanding that calling your male and female characters who found a new world Xplzg and Gormklas, and giving them scales and feathers, makes them no less Adam and Eve. If poor B does learn the basic archetypes, it will be a major step toward doing something original with them instead of repeating the same old thing--and it may well prevent attempts to be "original" by trying to break the archetypes instead of the cliches.

Or being translated: Original design using Unobtainium doesn't work, but you can do neat things with Ti303 or 70/30 CuNi.

From Jean: If you don't know the archetypes, then you cannot see where Oedipus and Hamlet are the same. That means you cannot analyze what each playwright did that was original to his character and setting, so that by seeing how other writers down through the centuries have taken the same archetype and made something original with it, you can eventually learn to do the same thing yourself.

When you know you are going to commit 48 Km of 3000 mm NB pipe the question becomes; do you do it in A36 structural Steel and coat it, or A516 Silicon Killed Steel and coat it, SS304 and that92s that, or FRP and put sunblock on it?

I believe that Campbell put out a good catalog for the story application.

Ed
--__--__--
Message: 13
From: ED WILSON

Sorry, I too am SO Late!

From Paul: There appears to be some confusion upon the subject of archetypes. An archetype is a symbol or motif so recurrent and ubiquitous as to have become (in Jungian theory at least) present in the collective unconscious.

This is a cheerful posting. What it says it that if you know a dozen people with the same character trait (remember Heinlein's Ratio), or common experience (and yes the Road To Damascus is much more traveled than many intellectuals think - particularly by addicts).

Thus my world where those who've gone and made Vulcan's trade, and have had to really work to develop the people skills of a sewer commissioner. They have the devastated relationships and the associated pain and guilt in their pasts to warn them of the power of their "Limp" burned into their minds.

This assertion is supported by my numerous friends, acquaintances, more SF associations than it is wise to shake a stick at, and a selection of relatives.

You will not find these people in a book by Hilary Clinton, or any other successful sales person or military officer; they don't know enough of these people. They are something that comes only out of "bad fiction," because nobody can be that ignorant.

Conversely I have Gresham, who IS a good salesman / politician (and what he's doing as a teacher I don't know). But he has a problem with Hugh, who is Iron Ring till hell freezes over [even if he doesn't know it yet]. Look at the questions Hugh asks of Gresham - who fails to see that they have any relevance to anything at all.

Yours truly, Ed Wilson
--__--__--

Message: 14
From: ED WILSON

Well I've not really had time to read all this, never mind think about it but to keep the fires burning I'd like to throw on a bit of low BTU gas:

When I'm writing the first draft (as I'm doing right now) I am very happy to have a toe tag on my main character. It is only once I'm well into the development of the novel (about half written) that I start to see who the lead is.

From skimming the bit that I have I'm worried about my sales because some of my lead characters are neither Hero nor Anti-Hero. In "Three Highland Lads" [a story Ed is currently creating] for example the heroes (3 of) escape their society (as he does in Sov which is its sequel). The boys are 3 gleek techies, so the question is (from a sales POV) is a gleek Techie an archetype? Is Vulcan's trade common enough these days that people recognize the type, and has it been used often enough in other literature to be recognized as a potential hero?

The female interest is very much an Annie Oakley type character. She's as smart and capable as the older boy (the Hero) and comes up with at least one important story advancing strategy.

Meanwhile all of this is in a Magic Journey plot (there may be older plots -Jean Lorrah would know better than I, but I *will* be a little surprised if there are) set 20 years in the future.

Meanwhile Thurs Feb. 2, 2005 I got a new novel start point (and by implication his character - It is the story of a runaway slave in the US in 2020's). As such it is one of only 2 novels in the group of about 10 that I'm even looking at writing. What is good about it is that there have been a study flow of new plots into my Incomplete Canon the last few years - this feels WONDERFUL!

Yours truly, Ed Wilson

--__--__--

Message: 15
From: Jean Lorrah

I can't resist answering this portion of one of Ed Wilson's posts:

From Ed: There are choices in some archetypes--the hero can go through all the beginning and middle beats of the monomyth, for example, but then take either the epic path and save his society or the tragic path and take his society down to doom.

This raises the important question for me. What if he runs away and leaves the one he's leaving to its doom, and goes to build the new one?

I've got this in more than one of my stories, and it is well developed in real life - they are called immigrants. Some of them have said some very powerful things when they leave home.

The ordinary person who flees the tragic fall of his society may well be a hero, but he will only rarely become a tragic or epic hero. The only way he can be either is if A) he returns and becomes a leader either to save his society or take it down with him; B) he is already the leader and like Oedipus' his flight is useless--behind him his society develops his uncle/brother-in-law and his daughter into a weird combination tragic hero (she fulfills the best-of-her-society requirement and he fulfills the tragic-flaw requirement) to complete the destruction of the society; or C) he rises to leadership in the society he emigrates to and becomes an epic or tragic hero there (traditionally in this case the epic hero).

Basically, immigrants are the heroes of their own stories, but they are neither epic nor tragic in most cases (occasionally they become leaders of new societies). Either way, they are not the heroes of the dying society they left behind. That fall may have been their incentive for entering the new land where their story takes place, but they are not responsible for it.

Nor can a tragic hero survive his tragedy and successfully emigrate. When Oedipus attempted to save Thebes by exiling himself, not only was it a wasted sacrifice (Thebes still fell and his children were still doomed), but he became an exile, not an immigrant. He did not go on to build any kind of new life in a new society. Building a new life in a new society is the immigrant archetype, not the epic or tragic archetype.

Jean

--__--__--

Message: 16
From: Jean Lorrah

From Ed: From skimming the bit that I have I'm worried about my sales because some of my lead characters are neither Hero nor Anti-Hero. In "Three Highland Lads" [a story Ed is currently creating] for example the heroes (3 of) escape their society (as he does in Sov which is its sequel). The boys are 3 gleek techies, so the question is (from a sales POV) is a gleek Techie an archetype? Is Vulcan's trade common enough these days that people recognize the type, and has it been used often enough in other literature to be recognized as a potential hero?

I don't know what a gleek is--I assume some variation of geek. Geek techies are the heroes of Robert Heinlein's YA novels that we all grew up on. Geek techies make great sf heroes!

Is the geek techie an archetype? Yes--he's the sorcerer's apprentice. He knows just enough of his craft to get into big trouble--and then he has to use the intelligence that got him that far to learn VERY FAST in order to get himself--and often people he cares about--out again. By the end of the story he is at least journeyman, and perhaps master.

Jean
--__--__--

Message: 17
From: Paul Kopal

There is a morphic field related theory that archetypes sort of 'wander around' the 'ether' and inhabit people who are behaving in a manner that mirrors them. (They are not supposed to have a motivation in this, more be a naturally occurring phenomena. However, were they to be motivated...) However, if the one 'possessed' does not act up to the archetypes expectations they abandon them for a more useful habitation. Apart from being an interesting premise for a novel in itself, it posits the theory that persons might be a 'hero' while acting like one but sort of 'run out of steam' and 'lose the moment'.

Add to this the idea that, given the model of Alexander the Great (My current interest), he is to this very day a sainted hero to one group and an utter villain to another. In other words he inhabits or is inhabited by, two opposing archetypes simultaneously, based upon perception! Thus we have a sort of Chaos theory entering into the concept, that the viewer influences the viewed, the (experimentor influences the experiment just by being there measuring it). Is the engine that drives archetypes the assumptions of others? Is it a force akin to faith moving mountains?

This relates to studies of 'luck' which seem to point to a gamblers definitely enjoying 'runs' of luck, that inferring that the substance or radiation of luck appears in discreet packages.

Which decidedly opens the door to the idea that a person might slide from one archetype to another. Start a novel as one and end as another?

I cannot at all claim to be convinced by 'Morphic fields' theory but the idea leads to a most interesting premise...I feel a novel coming on, from the POV of the archetypes.
--__--__--

Message: 18
From: Paul Kopal
(Note this is where the conversation seems to morph into divergent topics a bit)

Ed! Thank you for

From Ed: The problem with using real people is that some of them fail, severely fail, the creditability test that every editor applies to a work of fiction.

It made me laugh out loud, which is quite rare for me! That's the trouble with real life, it fails editors' credibility tests. LOL! They really MUST come from a different planet!

--__--__--

Message: 19
From: Steve Khinoy (in response to Jean):

Heinlein's heroes tend not to be geeks (small g). They tend to be Engineers (big G)--brainy alpha males in work shirts who have the solutions to the world's problems, if the world would only listen.

Steve Khinoy
--__--__--

Message: 20
From: Karen

From Paul: Ed! Thank you for ,"The problem with using real people is that some of them fail, severely fail, the creditability test that every editor applies to a work of fiction." It made me laugh out loud, which is quite rare for me! That's the trouble with real life, it fails editors' credibility tests. LOL! They really MUST come from a different planet!

I've edited for Ed quite a few times, as I have for others who are students in this course. Sat down with him at Worldcon and discussed his DEMON ON THE BEACH for hours. We've also exchanged numerous e-mails. I've also exchanged private e-mails with you, related to this class.

What "credibility test" are we talking about?

Clarify ... don't blanket ALL editors with labels.

My credentials can be found at: http://www.simegen.com/bios/klbio.html


Karen

--__--__--

Continued on next page