Do you use the mythology approach when writing your SF or F stories? I tend to draw heavily from mythical story elements, even if my stories don't strictly follow the formula, but I'm playing with the idea of going "whole hog" on The Hero's Journey approach for my upcoming story.
- Status
Here's a review for a book that you might find interesting:
www.absolutewrite.com/novels/45_master.htm
www.absolutewrite.com/novels/45_master.htm
Do you use the mythology approach when writing your SF or F stories? I tend to draw heavily from mythical story elements, even if my stories don't strictly follow the formula, but I'm playing with the idea of going "whole hog" on The Hero's Journey approach for my upcoming story.
Absolutely. I've created a fantasy world, but if you look at different parts of the story, it would appear to be written in different styles.
There are various books at various stages. The core of the works is a series, which is being re-written in parts. But, tired of waiting, I wrote a short story, and am waiting to hear if a magazine is interested in it. The short story was written in a mythos style, with elements of Genesis as well.
When I was young, I was very much into Greek/Norse and Roman mythology.
My son accused me or ripping off Tolkien, which I did not do. I love Tolkien's brain and his use of metaphor, but I don't particularly like his writing style. However, Tolkien used a similar approach in the Silmarillion, where you have the East and West European Mythologies meeting the Old Testament. You have sort of a combination where the Valar are like Biblical Angels in some parts, but like Norse and Greek gods in other parts.
What I dislike about much modern fantasy is the overuse of "power", and the implication that the protagonist is a messianic superhero waiting to find the magic secrets. They are somewhat arrogant. For one, it is counter-Messianic (victory through emptying oneself of power and embracing servitude) but it is the fact that a Frodo can be the the unwitting hero that makes older fantasies more alluring to me.
Absolutely. I've created a fantasy world, but if you look at different parts of the story, it would appear to be written in different styles.
There are various books at various stages. The core of the works is a series, which is being re-written in parts. But, tired of waiting, I wrote a short story, and am waiting to hear if a magazine is interested in it. The short story was written in a mythos style, with elements of Genesis as well.
When I was young, I was very much into Greek/Norse and Roman mythology.
My son accused me or ripping off Tolkien, which I did not do. I love Tolkien's brain and his use of metaphor, but I don't particularly like his writing style. However, Tolkien used a similar approach in the Silmarillion, where you have the East and West European Mythologies meeting the Old Testament. You have sort of a combination where the Valar are like Biblical Angels in some parts, but like Norse and Greek gods in other parts.
What I dislike about much modern fantasy is the overuse of "power", and the implication that the protagonist is a messianic superhero waiting to find the magic secrets. They are somewhat arrogant. For one, it is counter-Messianic (victory through emptying oneself of power and embracing servitude) but it is the fact that a Frodo can be the the unwitting hero that makes older fantasies more alluring to me.
Power
Couldn't you argue that when we write, we're writing about relationships and (without trying to be cynical) a lot of the conflict in relationships involves power.
Look at rites of passage, from a child's lack of power to the power of adulthood, from dependent on parents to independent.
Concentrating on power in fantasy is a way of making tangible the usually slippery concept of power between people in real life. Whether you make it explicit or not, a hero's journey involves learning your own power and becoming comfortable with it.
I think people are scared of the word power, as if it's gotten dirty connotations from tyrants in history. Inequalities of power create the conflict which makes people and fiction interesting - sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad. Power's just another tool for understanding life.
Sorry for the Sociology background showing,
Jen
Couldn't you argue that when we write, we're writing about relationships and (without trying to be cynical) a lot of the conflict in relationships involves power.
Look at rites of passage, from a child's lack of power to the power of adulthood, from dependent on parents to independent.
Concentrating on power in fantasy is a way of making tangible the usually slippery concept of power between people in real life. Whether you make it explicit or not, a hero's journey involves learning your own power and becoming comfortable with it.
I think people are scared of the word power, as if it's gotten dirty connotations from tyrants in history. Inequalities of power create the conflict which makes people and fiction interesting - sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad. Power's just another tool for understanding life.
Sorry for the Sociology background showing,
Jen
Re: Power
Hey Jen, interesting comments. Power is not a dirty word. Power and humility go well together.
This is a sociologic trend no doubt, but I wouldn't say a good one. In my mind it is born of dysfunction, and a sense of powerlessness. In a sense, you have the powerless kid who wants to grow up and get super powers to make all of the people who hurt him pay. It works well in comics but in real life they only hurt the ones who love them.
If you look at the reason why people become Passive Agressive (A passive attempt at control- blended with fear and a weak ego) and an out and out control freak who bullies his way into getting what he wants, the core motivation is an unmet need of some kind. It's generally born out of dysfunction and the inability to trust others and negotiate as one adult to another adult.
In some instances, you had parents asleep at the wheel, and children growing up, unprepared to deal with the pressures of life, but realizing, "If I don't steer, someone is going to crash my boat". So, the problem that arises is a deep belief that "I/Me/My" have to control things, and therefore become somewhat of a tyrant. If I don't look out of number one, who else will..." Some of the Heroes of today, essentially appeal to dysfunction. "Yeah, I want to become incredibly powerful and make girls love me and bash the head of nasty people who insult me."
Well, that doesn't work well in a relationship. Obviously in mythology you aren't thinking relationships so much as accomplishing a goal, but the tudes are there.
And in some cases, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy. Luke Skywalker was borderline arrogant when he realized he could control the force, but he was cuter than Darth Vadar. He still was likable, although if you gave him a deeper voice and darker suit, his "Don't mess with me...I warned you...I got the force..." wouldn't have been so cutesy. He was on his way to being Darth Vadar.
Part of what made his personality work from the beginning was that he was a bumbling kid from the farm, and not a natural warrior. "Golly gee...I can't do this."
I'm less of a fan of the "Ninja Master" hero, who has the "You don't know who you are messing with...I know secrets of the tobo kooby...and will cut you into a thousand pieces."
Hey Jen, interesting comments. Power is not a dirty word. Power and humility go well together.
This is a sociologic trend no doubt, but I wouldn't say a good one. In my mind it is born of dysfunction, and a sense of powerlessness. In a sense, you have the powerless kid who wants to grow up and get super powers to make all of the people who hurt him pay. It works well in comics but in real life they only hurt the ones who love them.
If you look at the reason why people become Passive Agressive (A passive attempt at control- blended with fear and a weak ego) and an out and out control freak who bullies his way into getting what he wants, the core motivation is an unmet need of some kind. It's generally born out of dysfunction and the inability to trust others and negotiate as one adult to another adult.
In some instances, you had parents asleep at the wheel, and children growing up, unprepared to deal with the pressures of life, but realizing, "If I don't steer, someone is going to crash my boat". So, the problem that arises is a deep belief that "I/Me/My" have to control things, and therefore become somewhat of a tyrant. If I don't look out of number one, who else will..." Some of the Heroes of today, essentially appeal to dysfunction. "Yeah, I want to become incredibly powerful and make girls love me and bash the head of nasty people who insult me."
Well, that doesn't work well in a relationship. Obviously in mythology you aren't thinking relationships so much as accomplishing a goal, but the tudes are there.
And in some cases, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy. Luke Skywalker was borderline arrogant when he realized he could control the force, but he was cuter than Darth Vadar. He still was likable, although if you gave him a deeper voice and darker suit, his "Don't mess with me...I warned you...I got the force..." wouldn't have been so cutesy. He was on his way to being Darth Vadar.
Part of what made his personality work from the beginning was that he was a bumbling kid from the farm, and not a natural warrior. "Golly gee...I can't do this."
I'm less of a fan of the "Ninja Master" hero, who has the "You don't know who you are messing with...I know secrets of the tobo kooby...and will cut you into a thousand pieces."
This is what makes The Key so intriguing -- any character, regardless of his strengths and skills, must adventure into the "mythological woods" (out of his element) and go through some sort of transformation in order to achieve his goal. Frodo had to find the courage and strength to face powerful enemies and the seduction of the ring. I would disagree that Frodo did not find or seek a sort of power on his journey. He had to.
Luke Skywalker had a Call to Duty when his aunt and uncle were murdered, and he had to enter the mythological woods too. He was a farm boy who shot wombats (or whatever) for fun. He transformed into a Jedi. But he never became Darth. You're thinking of Anakin. I don't think he followed the Hero's Journey so much since there wasn't really a call to duty that prompted him to begin his training, aside from his "Oh momma can I? can I? huh, can I?"
With Kwy Chang Kane (Spelling?) and Kung Fu, you had a new hero of sorts. "I'm a pacifist who kicks the living tar out of one or a group of people every week." Is he really a pacifist or a magnate for trouble? "Snatch the pebble grasshopper". Well, he's just a super hero in tramps clothing. You know he's got the power to beat up anyone who comes his way. And you have an audience, "Yeah, Kane...kick the blankity blank out of those guys...they don't know what they're messing with."
What I like about Frodo is that he never ever becomes anything more than a common man. His power is "faithfulness...conviction...dedication...and above all..."Self-sacrifice".
In a sense, Arthur is only a young boy with a destiny. Sure, he has a nice sword, but its the integrity that sets him apart, not the sword.
I'm far less drawn to the "He-Man" power trip heroes, who are really not that far away from being maniacal themselves. Their power in a sense, is not the qualities of the heart, but the overwhelming "Force" they learn to tap into.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Star Wars, but toward the end, Luke was becoming less sympathetic. He was turning into "Kung Fu", who walks in and gives Jabba "Ultimatums", "you don't know what you are dealing with...I'll give you one last chance..."
In a sense, what makes Spiderman 2 such a great movie is the fact (Despite his powers) Peter Parker had no confidence in himself or his abilities, and in fact, shows a great deal of fallibility.
What I like about Frodo is that he never ever becomes anything more than a common man. His power is "faithfulness...conviction...dedication...and above all..."Self-sacrifice".
In a sense, Arthur is only a young boy with a destiny. Sure, he has a nice sword, but its the integrity that sets him apart, not the sword.
I'm far less drawn to the "He-Man" power trip heroes, who are really not that far away from being maniacal themselves. Their power in a sense, is not the qualities of the heart, but the overwhelming "Force" they learn to tap into.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Star Wars, but toward the end, Luke was becoming less sympathetic. He was turning into "Kung Fu", who walks in and gives Jabba "Ultimatums", "you don't know what you are dealing with...I'll give you one last chance..."
In a sense, what makes Spiderman 2 such a great movie is the fact (Despite his powers) Peter Parker had no confidence in himself or his abilities, and in fact, shows a great deal of fallibility.
I see what you mean. It's like they don't evolve as beings when they have to threaten violence to get what they want. A "greater" man would not need to, and so their power comes not from learning how to create, but from learning how to destroy.
It's a taste thing. Perhaps I just like humility, and too many heroes are not humble. I loved Aragorn (Movie Version) and Gandalf, and Frodo, and Sam. All throughout, they had to wrestle with self-doubt, and overcome their own fears.
In the book, Aragorn was a bit more otherworldly, which I didn't like as much. But it isn't the lack of powers that makes them attractive, its that you can relate to their struggles.
In general, Marvel comics found the right formula. Spiderman and Daredevil -tormented heros. I also like the X-men because they aren't invincible. But what made Wolvarine so likeable was his fallibility, not his powers.
Then again, I did rather enjoy Ian McCellan as the somewhat arrogant Magneto. Boy did that guy step into two of the choicest rolls of all time, and rather late in his career: Gandalf and Magneto. Then again, Christopher Lee didn't do to bad with Saruman and Count Dooku.
In the book, Aragorn was a bit more otherworldly, which I didn't like as much. But it isn't the lack of powers that makes them attractive, its that you can relate to their struggles.
In general, Marvel comics found the right formula. Spiderman and Daredevil -tormented heros. I also like the X-men because they aren't invincible. But what made Wolvarine so likeable was his fallibility, not his powers.
Then again, I did rather enjoy Ian McCellan as the somewhat arrogant Magneto. Boy did that guy step into two of the choicest rolls of all time, and rather late in his career: Gandalf and Magneto. Then again, Christopher Lee didn't do to bad with Saruman and Count Dooku.
That's important to the story. Luke is going down the same path as his father. When he does those things like threaten Jabba, the audience should wonder, "Will he become another Darth Vader, or will he have the strength to resist the dark side?"
At the end you have, on the surface, the son saving the father. But you also have the father saving the son, for if Luke had not sensed the real Anakin Skywalker within Vader, would he have been able to turn back from the dark side? Having that "goodness" he sensed within Vader to hold onto might well have been the key to his salvation.
I'm such a Star Wars geek. Can you tell I'm chomping at the bit for Episode III?
CC, that's a great observation. But I always wondered if Lucas meant it that way or not. Did he ever address that?
In my mind, I felt Lucas was showing that he was becoming more confident. And in a sense, full of himself. In the story, "Arrogance" is not addressed as a corrupting influence, only "anger".
Obviously when you see the convaluted way they finally escape, you feel like, "Luke, there are far too many variables for you to have planned this and pulled it off. Everyone could have gotten killed long before."
Then again, Lucas does portray Luke as resisting training...being a bit impulsive. At anyrate, I liked Luke in story one more than in story three.
In my mind, I felt Lucas was showing that he was becoming more confident. And in a sense, full of himself. In the story, "Arrogance" is not addressed as a corrupting influence, only "anger".
Obviously when you see the convaluted way they finally escape, you feel like, "Luke, there are far too many variables for you to have planned this and pulled it off. Everyone could have gotten killed long before."
Then again, Lucas does portray Luke as resisting training...being a bit impulsive. At anyrate, I liked Luke in story one more than in story three.
Funny how Luke shows up in this thread when my husband and I were talking about him the other night. CBC ran Return of the Jedi Saturday night, and I was paying particular attention to Luke's behaviour, especially with Episode 3 coming in May. (Can't wait, can't wait - bought the Vanity Fair magazine because of the cover story)
Hubby wondered aloud why Luke is dressed in black all the time, just like dear old dad, when we have seen the other "light" Jedis in khaki and neutral tone robes.
My take on the choice of costume he wears goes a few ways:
- he isn't a true Jedi until he confronts his dad - that is the final test as Yoda told him, so he is dressed like a novice, in the sense of he hasn't taken his final vows yet
- he is closer to the dark side than we originally think
When the Emperor taunts him and finally gets him to pick up his saber to cut the Emperor down, it's Vader who stops him. It's Vader who knows that if Luke does slay the Emperor, then his soul is lost.
I see it as the teeny tiny bit of "good" left in Vader prompts him to act, as it does by tossing the Emperor down into the core of the station does a few scenes later when Luke is at the brink of being fried by blue lightning. But then again, not all of us are completely "evil," and not all are completely "good."
Lucas has said the movies have become a story of fathers and sons and redemption. Episode 3 promises to be darker than what has come before.
As someone who loved Star Trek: Deep Space 9 because of the depth of the stories and edgier plot lines, I am thrilled to hear that.
And a trip to the dark side of the soul can be illuminating in its own way.
Hubby wondered aloud why Luke is dressed in black all the time, just like dear old dad, when we have seen the other "light" Jedis in khaki and neutral tone robes.
My take on the choice of costume he wears goes a few ways:
- he isn't a true Jedi until he confronts his dad - that is the final test as Yoda told him, so he is dressed like a novice, in the sense of he hasn't taken his final vows yet
- he is closer to the dark side than we originally think
When the Emperor taunts him and finally gets him to pick up his saber to cut the Emperor down, it's Vader who stops him. It's Vader who knows that if Luke does slay the Emperor, then his soul is lost.
I see it as the teeny tiny bit of "good" left in Vader prompts him to act, as it does by tossing the Emperor down into the core of the station does a few scenes later when Luke is at the brink of being fried by blue lightning. But then again, not all of us are completely "evil," and not all are completely "good."
Lucas has said the movies have become a story of fathers and sons and redemption. Episode 3 promises to be darker than what has come before.
As someone who loved Star Trek: Deep Space 9 because of the depth of the stories and edgier plot lines, I am thrilled to hear that.
And a trip to the dark side of the soul can be illuminating in its own way.
I thought that perhaps it was like belt colors in the martial arts. Luke started off wearing white, in episode 4, and progressed to "black belt" in episode 6.
Certainly the "following in his father's footsteps" part. Look at the test Yoda subjected Luke to on Dagobah in "The Empire Strikes Back", where he had to go into a cave steeped in the dark side and ended up seeing himself behind Vader's mask. This was a big fat warning to Luke to be careful about rushing his training, letting his emotions dictate his actions (anger, as you point out, Nate), etc.
This is the part of the story arc in Star Wars that I absolutely get caught up in: the relationship between father and son. All the basic stuff is there; Luke vows not to be like his dad and turn dark, yet we see him making the same mistakes Anakin did (as Lucas is only now showing us). Both were frustrated with the pace of their training and let an innate arrogance push them in a way we don't see with Obi-wan and many of the other Jedi.
Yet is this "fire" in the Skywalker family line what's necessary to bring the Jedi order back to life, so to speak? The order, along with the Republic had become so stagnated that perhaps this "purge" and rebirth was inevitable. The very thing that led Anakin to the dark side was what was needed to bring back the vitality of the Jedi order.
There I go again! 8o
It was hard to sort out, because it seemed to draw a bit on Eastern Lore, where you tend to have that "Macho"- I'm holding my peace, but I'm going to kick your buttocks before the movie is over," feel. "You don't know that I am a fifteen thousandth degree black belt of the rainbow coalition, with tempered steel finger-nails, do you?...now I shall rip you to shreds to show you what a fool you were to doubt my powers..."
"Everyone is rooting for the bad guy to push too far, so that the hero will be forced to show his real powers.
"Everyone is rooting for the bad guy to push too far, so that the hero will be forced to show his real powers.
Yeah, I think we all have that feeling deep down that occasionally the bad guy just deserves to get his butt thrashed and we enjoy the surrogacy of watching the character in the book or film do that for us. The best stories show us the danger inherent in giving in to this "righteous anger."
I think that's why I don't like movies or books that present someone as the hero who grievously breaks the law to achieve his ends. Hollywood is really bad for this. Just look at the remake of Walking Tall with The Rock in the Buford T. Pusser role. In the original, Pusser was backed into a corner and could see no way out, yet he continued to resist resorting to violence until it was a matter of life and death. But in the new one, there's only one incidence of Pusser going to the sheriff for justice before he takes the law into his own hands and vandalizes the casino owned by the bad guy. It was the equivalent of knocking someone's teeth out because they butt into line in front of you at the supermarket.
I hate that sort of thing. To my way of thinking, any character who resorts to criminal activity or violence when there's another way to achieve justice is NOT the good guy.
I think that's why I don't like movies or books that present someone as the hero who grievously breaks the law to achieve his ends. Hollywood is really bad for this. Just look at the remake of Walking Tall with The Rock in the Buford T. Pusser role. In the original, Pusser was backed into a corner and could see no way out, yet he continued to resist resorting to violence until it was a matter of life and death. But in the new one, there's only one incidence of Pusser going to the sheriff for justice before he takes the law into his own hands and vandalizes the casino owned by the bad guy. It was the equivalent of knocking someone's teeth out because they butt into line in front of you at the supermarket.
I hate that sort of thing. To my way of thinking, any character who resorts to criminal activity or violence when there's another way to achieve justice is NOT the good guy.
But it's so gratifying when you do need to resort to taking matters in your own hand... I think that's the kind of fantasy many people have, to shed their moral code and say, hell, if only I could just knock that sumbitch over... if only I could just slam into that jerk's car and get away with it... if you do it right, to put the hero in such "no way out" situation, the result can be incredibly satisfying.
Watch Paparazzi. It's a silly popcorn movie but by the end I was cheering the hero, even though he broke almost every law there is so he could protect himself and his family...
Watch Paparazzi. It's a silly popcorn movie but by the end I was cheering the hero, even though he broke almost every law there is so he could protect himself and his family...
But it's so gratifying when you do need to resort to taking matters in your own hand... I think that's the kind of fantasy many people have, to shed their moral code and say, hell, if only I could just knock that sumbitch over... if only I could just slam into that jerk's car and get away with it... if you do it right, to put the hero in such "no way out" situation, the result can be incredibly satisfying.
Sure, there's catharsis in living through Spiderman. I loved Marvel, the tormented hero comics. In fact, who in the series was not misunderstood and tormented. Hulk? Spiderman? Ironman?
But I tend to like Fantasy, where "payback" is not the primary concern. For instance, in the Wizard of Oz, kicking the tar out of the Wicked Witch wasn't an afterthought. Finding a brain, heart and courage, and a way home were the objectives.
Frodo doesn't want to kick the snot out of Sauron, he simply wants to destroy his weapon and to save the Shire.
A good deal of Fantasy is based upon revenge, but revenge as a primary motive can also make heroes uglier.
By the way, do you know who was the first in the Genre of the Kung Fu movies? Do you remember the movie "Billy Jack?" with the song, "One Tin Soldier". He was the prototype for the "Kung Fu series, a pacifist who is pushed too far. "I'm going to take my right foot and kick you on this side of your face, and there's nothing you can do about it..." After that movie, everyone was talking about Marshal Arts. And suddenly, you had Marshal Arts centers in vogue. In this day and age, that movie would be hokey. And his Marshall Arts skills would be terribly lacking and outdated. But at the time he was "cool". In fact, I can't even remember the actors name.
Sure, there's catharsis in living through Spiderman. I loved Marvel, the tormented hero comics. In fact, who in the series was not misunderstood and tormented. Hulk? Spiderman? Ironman?
But I tend to like Fantasy, where "payback" is not the primary concern. For instance, in the Wizard of Oz, kicking the tar out of the Wicked Witch wasn't an afterthought. Finding a brain, heart and courage, and a way home were the objectives.
Frodo doesn't want to kick the snot out of Sauron, he simply wants to destroy his weapon and to save the Shire.
A good deal of Fantasy is based upon revenge, but revenge as a primary motive can also make heroes uglier.
By the way, do you know who was the first in the Genre of the Kung Fu movies? Do you remember the movie "Billy Jack?" with the song, "One Tin Soldier". He was the prototype for the "Kung Fu series, a pacifist who is pushed too far. "I'm going to take my right foot and kick you on this side of your face, and there's nothing you can do about it..." After that movie, everyone was talking about Marshal Arts. And suddenly, you had Marshal Arts centers in vogue. In this day and age, that movie would be hokey. And his Marshall Arts skills would be terribly lacking and outdated. But at the time he was "cool". In fact, I can't even remember the actors name.
Tom Laughlin. I have the Billy Jack video because it's so awesome. Remember how Billy takes his boots off before he kicks someone's a$$? I used that in my novel -- not taking boots off, but pulling a glove onto his sword hand. :rollin
Definitely. As long as you show that there is no other viable choice, and that whuppin' the bad guy is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being what the bad guy is gonna do if you don't stop him.
At the time, I thought Billy Jack was cool, too. I'd have to see it again to see what I think now.
For those really interested:
www.billyjack.com/
Nope, he hasn't changed much.
And Nate--it's "martial" arts.
www.billyjack.com/
Nope, he hasn't changed much.
And Nate--it's "martial" arts.
I'm surprised to see so much distaste for the ppowerful heroes. I think that it is esserntial for the protagonist to be powerful. occasionally, a Frodo type may work, but i'd like to point out that frodo is NOT lacking in power. physically, for instance, he is superhuman in every respect but brute physical strength.
In any event, the gripping thing about all the Jedi is their power. without the power of the force, their internal struggles would be lessened, and they wouldn't matter. the greater their powers, the more they are tempted to turn astray, and teh more sever the consequences. The skywalker line is ambitious. none of them will ever really be accepted by the other jedi masters, like yoda, but they accomplish more than the other Jedi ever do. although Anakin's pride pulls him into darkness, Luke's pride actually pushes him into his success. if not for the hint of arrogance, he would never saved his firends in episode two or defeated Vader and the emperor.
A powerful protagonist has a number of advantages for the story
It allows things to happen- they can accomplish their goals
Ity makes their internal struggle mroe important: who cares if the cashier at your local supermarket is seduced by the dark side of the force? with a Jedi, it matters
It allows the whole story to revolve around the protagonist: Luke and Anakin hold the power to change the world, which means that when Luke does get his mind straightened out, he can save the day and bring the story to a favorable conclusion.
that said, what i said about Yoda still applies. i don't think Luke has it in him to be a Jedi master. his power with the force and his skills with a lightsaber may grow unparallelled, but he'll never be a Jedi master. that is because of that arrogance which allows him to be a hero.
Heroes are not perfect people. ordinary, well adjusted people become moisture farmers like Luke's relatives. or presidents. Luke is a hero because of that inner force which compells him to sacquire and use power. that's why heroes don't fit in with the rest of the world. after his victory in episode three, he''l either need to change his personality, find new evils to batytle, or become a useless drunk, becaus he isn't cut out to be a normal person, or a Jedi Master.
EDIT:
"Yet is this "fire" in the Skywalker family line what's necessary to bring the Jedi order back to life, so to speak? The order, along with the Republic had become so stagnated that perhaps this "purge" and rebirth was inevitable. The very thing that led Anakin to the dark side was what was needed to bring back the vitality of the Jedi order."
Yes. Anakin is the one who brought balance to the force.
In any event, the gripping thing about all the Jedi is their power. without the power of the force, their internal struggles would be lessened, and they wouldn't matter. the greater their powers, the more they are tempted to turn astray, and teh more sever the consequences. The skywalker line is ambitious. none of them will ever really be accepted by the other jedi masters, like yoda, but they accomplish more than the other Jedi ever do. although Anakin's pride pulls him into darkness, Luke's pride actually pushes him into his success. if not for the hint of arrogance, he would never saved his firends in episode two or defeated Vader and the emperor.
A powerful protagonist has a number of advantages for the story
It allows things to happen- they can accomplish their goals
Ity makes their internal struggle mroe important: who cares if the cashier at your local supermarket is seduced by the dark side of the force? with a Jedi, it matters
It allows the whole story to revolve around the protagonist: Luke and Anakin hold the power to change the world, which means that when Luke does get his mind straightened out, he can save the day and bring the story to a favorable conclusion.
that said, what i said about Yoda still applies. i don't think Luke has it in him to be a Jedi master. his power with the force and his skills with a lightsaber may grow unparallelled, but he'll never be a Jedi master. that is because of that arrogance which allows him to be a hero.
Heroes are not perfect people. ordinary, well adjusted people become moisture farmers like Luke's relatives. or presidents. Luke is a hero because of that inner force which compells him to sacquire and use power. that's why heroes don't fit in with the rest of the world. after his victory in episode three, he''l either need to change his personality, find new evils to batytle, or become a useless drunk, becaus he isn't cut out to be a normal person, or a Jedi Master.
EDIT:
"Yet is this "fire" in the Skywalker family line what's necessary to bring the Jedi order back to life, so to speak? The order, along with the Republic had become so stagnated that perhaps this "purge" and rebirth was inevitable. The very thing that led Anakin to the dark side was what was needed to bring back the vitality of the Jedi order."
Yes. Anakin is the one who brought balance to the force.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 2
I think, particularly with fantasy stories, a certain amount of drawing from mythological sources is good, and gives our readers more empathy with characters in the story. I don't mean taking all of any established religion and forcing it into your setting, but parallels of certain aspects of myth can make for intriguing reading. The great flood of the Old Testament roughly parallels the great flood in Hindu mythology, as well as the story of the destruction of Atlantis...and I'm sure there are other links in that chain as well.
--Dev
The Hero's journey, on the other hand, could present difficulty. I think a really appropriate hero is one whose power (or whatever) generally equals the villain's power. That being the case, should both the Hero and the Villain have taken the same sort of journey? (I'm sure we could draw more examples of that from Star Wars if it were necessary.)
--Dev
The Hero's journey, on the other hand, could present difficulty. I think a really appropriate hero is one whose power (or whatever) generally equals the villain's power. That being the case, should both the Hero and the Villain have taken the same sort of journey? (I'm sure we could draw more examples of that from Star Wars if it were necessary.)
Last edited:
That's semi-like what I'm dealing with. The protag and the "villain" are facing the exact same problem, yet attempting to solve it in completely opposite ways.
I think having a similiar journey isn't necessary, but it does make interesting commentary on what makes one "evil."
Personally, I like putting ordinary men and women through extraordinary circumstances to show how those can be overcome. There's no real thrill for me in a hero who possesses super powers if only because I first expect them to succeed. As well, in order for them to overcome anything, either special obstacles have to be encountered or it requires villains with equally remarkable powers. When that occurs, lots of plot holes start to materialize.
When it comes down to it, I like watching or reading of ordinary men and women who rise to the occasion. As well, there are lots of historical precedents that can be used for guidance in formulating realistic scenes. When it comes to characters with special powers, you're on your own.
When it comes down to it, I like watching or reading of ordinary men and women who rise to the occasion. As well, there are lots of historical precedents that can be used for guidance in formulating realistic scenes. When it comes to characters with special powers, you're on your own.
- Status