Archetypes Discussion (split from Haunted character)

chroniclemaster1 · Dec 2, 2007

Name me one fantasy novel that doesn't have an Obi-Wan Kenobi. David Eddings' wizard from the Belgariad, Rowling's Dumbledore, Tolkien's Gandalf (OK, Tolkien was first, but so was...), Merlin in the Arthurian legends, well OK, Star Wars obviously. I've got one in my story.

The point being, our genre is not a great one for originality. We've got a lot of stock characters and motifs. But then so did Shakespeare. If you can take a haunted character and spin a good yarn like the bard, don't ask if it's been done! Get out there and do it your way!

It's not what anyone else has done with it. We work in such an intensely "fictional" genre that we have to repeat each other or our readers would get lost because everything was new. It's about the personal touch that you bring to it; make it your own and no one will care how many times it's been done before.

Shweta · Dec 2, 2007

One? I can name you fifty, but let's start with three.

Terri Windling, The Wood Wife
Patricia Wrede and Caroline Stevermer, Sorcery and Cecelia
Tim Powers, The Anubis Gates

Tolkien was not first; Tolkien was consciously using literary/cultural/folkloric tropes.
Star Wars and the Belgariad are not stunning examples of originality. They're playing on familiarity, not on difference.

That does not in any way mean the genre is limited to these tropes. It's speculative fiction. We're allowed to, y'know. Speculate.

bluejester12 · Dec 2, 2007

chroniclemaster1 said:
Name me one fantasy novel that doesn't have an Obi-Wan Kenobi. David Eddings' wizard from the Belgariad, Rowling's Dumbledore, Tolkien's Gandalf (OK, Tolkien was first, but so was...), Merlin in the Arthurian legends, well OK, Star Wars obviously. I've got one in my story.

Tad Williams didnt use the mentor archetype in War of the Flowers or Memory, Sorrow and Thorn...that I can remember.

It's been around long before Tolkien. I've never subscribed to the "Everything started with Tolkien" mentality.

The Mentor is used so much since it's a convenient way to get expostion across.

Gray Rose · Dec 2, 2007

bluejester12 said:
Tad Williams didnt use the mentor archetype in War of the Flowers or Memory, Sorrow and Thorn...that I can remember.

It's been around long before Tolkien. I've never subscribed to the "Everything started with Tolkien" mentality.

The Mentor is used so much since it's a convenient way to get expostion across.

That is very true. The word 'mentor' itself comes from the Odyssey.

Shweta · Dec 2, 2007

bluejester12 said:
It's been around long before Tolkien. I've never subscribed to the "Everything started with Tolkien" mentality.

Neither did Tolkien, I think

The Mentor is used so much since it's a convenient way to get expostion across.

And to get idiot MCs out of messes they wouldn't have gotten into if they'd had any sense, so that you can have Character Development where they learn to have a modicum of sense, instead of having beeen squished like a bug in movie 1/book 1.

This is easier than having them start off sensible and get better from there.

It's another reason I dislike that type of fantasy (epic-quest with young dork menotred by wise old wizard) -- because all too often I just want to smack the protagonists

chroniclemaster1 · Dec 2, 2007

Shweta said:
Neither did Tolkien, I think

I completely agree, Tolkien thought he was just writing in the tradition of the ancient storytellers that he loved. But neither do I think he had an accurate appreciation for his place in history. Name me one fantasy author who'd be writing the way they do today if Tolkien had died with his friends in the trenches of WWI. And who would be their influences? The mythic lore Tolkien reinvented is a confused tangle of low brow, high epic and most of it contradicts itself. And while many of the stories were compelling most were abysmal works of art to try to read. Only a magical few took the went into the kind of intensely personal realm that Fellowship of the Ring dared to trod. And bloody few since. He was writing out of a tradition, yes, but it was an ancient dead tradition that he recast in a way that captured the imagination of modern readers the world over. Tolkien is to fantasy what Galileo is to science.

Shweta said:
It's another reason I dislike that type of fantasy (epic-quest with young dork menotred by wise old wizard) -- because all too often I just want to smack the protagonists

Awwww... but that just means the author succeeded. You care.

*smack* Owwww!

Shweta · Dec 2, 2007

derailing, with apologies

chroniclemaster1 said:
I completely agree, Tolkien thought he was just writing in the tradition of the ancient storytellers that he loved. But neither do I think he had an accurate appreciation for his place in history. Name me one fantasy author who'd be writing the way they do today if Tolkien had died with his friends in the trenches of WWI.

Le Guin.
If I remember her essay right, while she loves LotR, she didn't read it till well after she'd started publishing work herself.

And, thus, all the fantasists whose influence is more Le Guin than Tolkien.

...But I'm not disagreeing with you. Just rising to the challenge

I do agree that Tolkien was way more important than he realized.
All the same, I think too many writers are over-influenced by him (or his spin-offs) these days, and we should look at other wonderful writers of the past. Like Lord Dunsany, for example. I could be happy with more fiction spawned by Dunsany, I truly could. So long as nobody tries to copy his voice...

And who would be their influences?

Lord Dunsany, ER Eddison, Hope Mirlees, William Morris, George MacDonald
And the next generation: Ursula LeGuin, Lloyd Alexander, Medeleine L'engle

Also, ideally people outside the genre too!

The mythic lore Tolkien reinvented is a confused tangle of low brow, high epic and most of it contradicts itself. And while many of the stories were compelling most were abysmal works of art to try to read. Only a magical few took the went into the kind of intensely personal realm that Fellowship of the Ring dared to trod. And bloody few since. He was writing out of a tradition, yes, but it was an ancient dead tradition that he recast in a way that captured the imagination of modern readers the world over. Tolkien is to fantasy what Galileo is to science.

We have a lot to thank his scholarship for. But for all his grounding in a tradition, it was only one tradition, and the world has so many. I'm not very interested in fake-Tolkien fantasy, and so very interested in fantasy that takes on other traditions.

If we had more Neil Gaimans and Terri Windlings, I would be such a happy puppy.

Awwww... but that just means the author succeeded. You care.

I care about the Eye of Argon too! Just not the way the author intended.

...And we should probably get back to the original thread topic, or else make another thread... :looks apologetically at the OP:

ChaosTitan · Dec 3, 2007

I found this tangent rather fascinating, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Continue....

Gray Rose · Dec 3, 2007

Laurie Marks' Elemental Logic series does not have a mentor character. The characters use their different knowledge patterns and different strengths to mentor each other. Her books are really good imho.

Let's perhaps think about other fantasy archetypes, not just the mentor one. What are some major ones? The King in Disguise? The young boy (girl) who comes into his/her own (initiation journey)? The blonde in the chainmail bikini?

MattW · Dec 3, 2007

Gray Rose said:
Laurie Marks' Elemental Logic series does not have a mentor character. The characters use their different knowledge patterns and different strengths to mentor each other. Her books are really good imho.

Let's perhaps think about other fantasy archetypes, not just the mentor one. What are some major ones? The King in Disguise? The young boy (girl) who comes into his/her own (initiation journey)? The blonde in the chainmail bikini?

The woman who develops modern sensibilities in a medieval setting?

The comic relief who becomes a plot device because of character stupidity?

The omnipotent evil overlord that coincidentally is only a sub-overlord when it comes time for a sequel?

Aslera · Dec 3, 2007

The Visionary/Fortuneteller who predicts the fate of a group of characters/one character but is ignored?

Sharon Mock · Dec 3, 2007

MattW said:
The woman who develops modern sensibilities in a medieval setting?

The comic relief who becomes a plot device because of character stupidity?

The omnipotent evil overlord that coincidentally is only a sub-overlord when it comes time for a sequel?

No, no, those are cliches.

I do think it's interesting/important to differentiate between archetypes and cliches. The Jester is an archetype; the Disney-style comic relief plot device is a cliche.

The journey into the Underworld is an archetype (and a classic component of the Hero's Journey); the abandoned dwarven mine highway through the mountains is a cliche, especially if you have dwarves in your story just to justify said highway.

Although any archetype can turn into a cliche when it's used badly and blindly. Like the Corrupt Advisor... I'm 100% certain it can still be used in a way that gives it power, but if you're going to make him the Big Bad, please don't expect me to be surprised when you unveil the Truth in the last five pages of the book... :Headbang:

badducky · Dec 3, 2007

The problem I have with the original question is that far too often "fantasy" is the umbrella that holds "everything too weird to fit anywhere else". The children of Borges, Kafka, and Lovecraft all-too-often get lumped into this same basket.

To say that fantasy always has these archetypes completely ignores the fine work of the new wave fabulists, and the dark fantasy authors (some would call them horror) that still get lumped into the same genre basket.

The Star Wars example expands the elements outward into science fiction which is a whole new kettle of cybernetic worms.

Needless to say, I suspect someone has either not been reading enough, or been playing too freely with labels.

And, to say that our genre is not known for originality is one of the most ignorant things I've read all day.

Our genre has the same spectrum of classicists and experimentalists that every genre has.

Remember this, guys and dolls: "Sci-Fi/Fantasy" as a genre is a marketing shorthand, but it is not a stable reality of form. Our tentacles reach all over the store, as do other genre's tentacles. The imprints are organized as they are organized, but word of mouth will explode all boundaries.

otterman · Dec 3, 2007

I hate labels but they have the practical purpose of steering people toward works that have certain elements they have a particular affinity to. It is a way of categorizing work to save readers time and to help writers get an audience.
Regarding the archetype question, Sharon Mock makes a good point: archetypes in the Jungian sense are not cliché devices but patterns of thought that are ingrained in our psyche. They get expressed in our story telling and we identify with them on a subconscious level. This happens in all genres. We can't avoid having them recur in our work; all we can do is put our own personal signature on them and make our stories as interesting as possible. When we say that a work is original, we are giving credit to an author who has done this well.

Komnena · Dec 3, 2007

Cameron Dokey has some interesting retellings.

Shweta · Dec 3, 2007

Gray Rose said:
Laurie Marks' Elemental Logic series does not have a mentor character. The characters use their different knowledge patterns and different strengths to mentor each other. Her books are really good imho.

I've been wondering about that series. I'll take that as a recommendation

Let's perhaps think about other fantasy archetypes, not just the mentor one. What are some major ones? The King in Disguise? The young boy (girl) who comes into his/her own (initiation journey)?

I find both of these compelling, when done well.

I'd say another fantasy trope, more than archetype, is a mismatched set of people thrown together for one greater purpose. Whether this works well or not depends on the author's skill at characterization, 'cause it makes a basic quest form much more character driven. For example, I think it works quite wonderfully when Diana Wynne Jones does it.

badducky said:
The problem I have with the original question is that far too often "fantasy" is the umbrella that holds "everything too weird to fit anywhere else". The children of Borges, Kafka, and Lovecraft all-too-often get lumped into this same basket.

It might be a problem with the question, but I don't think this is a problem with the genre. So it's worth thinking about anyway

I don't think it hurts fantasy at all to be an umbrella genre -- so long as we as fantasy writers are aware of many aspects of it, and don't feel wedded to the tropes/cliches of any one bit. There's far more than the children of Borges, Kafka, and Lovecraft here -- we have the mutant offspring of Tolkien and Jane Austen, for example. Me, I'm very much a fan of hybrid vigor in this context. Let the combinations continue!

badducky · Dec 3, 2007

Yeah, but that's exactly why the label in the OP is an absurdity. Is the OP really talking about Jeff VanderMeer, China Mieville, and Gene Wolfe? Nope.

Focusing on failure is not nearly as productive as focusing on success.

"The point being, our genre is not a great one for originality" is dead wrong. So much so that all debate should probably merely be book recommendations to the contrary.

No other genre demonstrates quite the same scope of both originality and convention, in my opinion. You can find either in exactly the ratio you desire if you know enough to look around.

Bartholomew · Dec 4, 2007

I'm pretty sure my book doesn't have any of those. But then, I'm not looking, and if I find one, I probably won't care enough to rewrite it.

Shweta · Dec 4, 2007

ETA: Cross-posted. Response to badducky.

I think the OP overstated an actual sad truth, which is precisely why the conversation is a good one. So recommend some books. I bet you and I would recommend different ones

And what archetypes do they draw on?

I'm going to throw in Tim Power's The Drawing of the Dark, which features a powerful archetypal figure we don't see much.

chroniclemaster1 · Dec 4, 2007

Shweta said:
And, thus, all the fantasists whose influence is more Le Guin than Tolkien.

...But I'm not disagreeing with you. Just rising to the challenge I do agree that Tolkien was way more important than he realized.
All the same, I think too many writers are over-influenced by him (or his spin-offs) these days

I would argue that on some level, Le Guin was still steeped in the culture that Tolkien had already created. Most of her work including Earthsea are more than 10 years after LotR. However, I would certainly agree that she is much less in debt to Tolkien than say, every book ever published with the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. (Don't underestimate how much it hurts to say that. I really love some of Margaret Weis's books.) Le Guin is such a pillar in the genre precisely because she was able to reinvent the genre and put her own vision on it (with other writer's I'd say voice, but I'm particularly attached to her images). I'd call her the Newton to Tolkien's Galileo. I'm also prepared to acknowledge that we may both be ready die on our hills.

And I love Lloyd Alexander. He's one of my favorite writers. I have the full series of Prydain, Westmark, and Vesper Holly. The only one my kids are old enough to appreciate is the delightful short story "Coll and his White Pig", but I've tried to read Vesper to my daughter a time or two. Le Guin and L'Engle I "appreciate". Alexander I love.

Shweta said:
s far more than the children of Borges, Kafka, and Lovecraft here -- we have the mutant offspring of Tolkien and Jane Austen, for example. Me, I'm very much a fan of hybrid vigor in this context. Let the combinations continue!

I think they are less the effects of combinations than the fact that literature is positively bursting. The internet is only encouraging the explosion of literature and creativity. This forum is just one example of one way it's happening. I think we are gaining so much experience with so many different authors in and out of the fantasy genre, that we have a much richer vocabulary for describing new and original works. When I'm trying to explain my own writing, I draw parallels from LotR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, X-Files, and Lovecraft among others. I think we're the most well read generation of writers that has ever existed on the planet, and the internet's ability to share our, for lack of a better word, "culture" globally has let us build a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds and ideas, but a common currency of vocabulary with which to communicate it.

Next time I will now sit down and talk about archetypes like a good boy. Promise.

Shweta · Dec 4, 2007

chroniclemaster1 said:
I would argue that on some level, Le Guin was still steeped in the culture that Tolkien had already created. Most of her work including Earthsea are more than 10 years after LotR.

Yes, but LotR was not an immediate huge sensation in the US, writers were more isolated at the time, and she avoided the books at first. Also, Earthsea is not the first thing she published.

However, I would certainly agree that she is much less in debt to Tolkien than say, every book ever published with the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. (Don't underestimate how much it hurts to say that. I really love some of Margaret Weis's books.)

Heh. But that's hardly a fair comparison.

And I love Lloyd Alexander. He's one of my favorite writers. I have the full series of Prydain, Westmark, and Vesper Holly. The only one my kids are old enough to appreciate is the delightful short story "Coll and his White Pig", but I've tried to read Vesper to my daughter a time or two. Le Guin and L'Engle I "appreciate". Alexander I love.

I just love them all.
Lloyd Alexander's a great example of why we should do our own research and not use other genre stories as our research.

Oh, I forgot to mention: Alan Garner.

I think we're the most well read generation of writers that has ever existed on the planet, and the internet's ability to share our, for lack of a better word, "culture" globally has let us build a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds and ideas, but a common currency of vocabulary with which to communicate it.

I'm not really sure we are. We're certainly the most well-versed in the bestsellers, but the big book chains have hurt us by pushing those and squishing the midlist, where a number of fabulous books... no longer thrive quietly, waiting to be found by us.

Deirdre · Dec 4, 2007

It's also worth noting that Star Wars deliberately used archetypal characters.

chroniclemaster1 · Dec 4, 2007

Deirdre said:
It's also worth noting that Star Wars deliberately used archetypal characters.

And the most successful part of it, IMO is the way Williams scored the movies in Wagner's "leifmotif" style. Building on the archetypes and reinforcing it musically. Just awe inspiring.

Shweta said:
Heh. But that's hardly a fair comparison.

I have to fight fair!? That's really going to hurt my ability to fare well in this discussion...

Shweta said:
I'm not really sure we are. We're certainly the most well-versed in the bestsellers, but the big book chains have hurt us by pushing those and squishing the midlist, where a number of fabulous books... no longer thrive quietly, waiting to be found by us.

I'd be interested to see your evidence, this is not an area that I have any reliable figures for. It was my impression that even "non-thriving" books are selling in the hundreds to thousands of copies. Figures that would have most best-selling Renaissance and Enlightenment authors drooling. And with the exception of something like Horace's Carmen Saeculare, which was read aloud to the citizens of Rome, most pre-Renaissance works were written on scrolls or vellum and passed from hand to hand, severely limiting their readership. Not that I think the mega bookstores and the internet have been a positive influence in that regard by any stretch. But the problem is mainly that wages for a midlist book has collapsed relative to the cost of living. They're still enjoying wider circulation than ever before and we are enjoying the benefits thereof. In the 18th and 19th century, you had to devote a respectable chunk of your income to purchase a book. The $5 or less is such a little part of our income that we can amass relatively large collections without putting much food on the author's table.

Anyway, archetypes. The what do you call it, "smackable protagonist" is probably one of my favorites. Whether it's a whiny Luke Skywalker, or a whiny Eragon, or a utterly unlikable Harry Potter in v.5, I find that character development interesting in really good works. So if we're recommending good works, they're on the sci-fi side of the divide, but I'll throw out these two. The TV series, Babylon 5, by J. Michael Straczinski. One of the best examples I've seen of carrying an arc through a larger series. Season 3 has an absolutely amazing unity, paying off plot threads set up in previous seasons (and was not coincidentally the first time one writer has written an entire 22 episode season solo). And Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. The other side of the hero initiate, Ender effectively fails in his quest (and to rub salt in the wounds, his evil "brother" saves humanity from World War 3). But by the end of the book, you understand his position and damned if I can find where exactly he made a wrong decision. I love a book that you can comb over and over again like that.

Hmmm... no, maybe the chainmail bikini blonde is my favorite.

waylander · Dec 4, 2007

chroniclemaster1 said:
Name me one fantasy novel that doesn't have an Obi-Wan Kenobi. David Eddings' wizard from the Belgariad, Rowling's Dumbledore, Tolkien's Gandalf (OK, Tolkien was first, but so was...), Merlin in the Arthurian legends, well OK, Star Wars obviously. I've got one in my story.

George RR Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series is notably lacking in wise mentoring wizards.

Shweta · Dec 4, 2007

chroniclemaster1 said:
I'd be interested to see your evidence, this is not an area that I have any reliable figures for. It was my impression that even "non-thriving" books are selling in the hundreds to thousands of copies.

Yes, but the problem is, that's not enough to keep an author in the business. If you don't sell enough according to the number tallies, you're out of the game. One book does not a career make. Small presses might save us.
Might.
Probably not.

I can't find the link I read before, but this one will do. Warning: depressing as hell.

Figures that would have most best-selling Renaissance and Enlightenment authors drooling.

Of course. But the number of people on the planet now -- the number of literate people, even -- would make those authors drop dead of shock.
It's not about absolute numbers. It's about how many copies need to exist for us to find The Perfect Inspiring Book on the shelves of our bookstores, and for That Inspiring Author to have a chance to sell another book.

And that side of the issue is looking really quite grim.

Archetypes Discussion (split from Haunted character)

Seeking Undercover Angel

gone

I write and I wrong

Beware of the Thorns!

gone

Seeking Undercover Angel

gone

Around

Beware of the Thorns!

Company Man

Not an exact science

Wing nut

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Word Voyeur

In Honor of Peter Tomich,USS Utah

gone

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

Comic guy

gone

Seeking Undercover Angel

gone

practical experience, FTW

Seeking Undercover Angel

Who's going for a beer?

gone