Vogler uses this chapter to explore the concept of the "Archetype", which was introduced in the first chapter in relation with Joseph Campbell. Vogler identifies eight distinct archetypes that are integral to the hero's journey; and they are the Hero, the mentor, the threshold guardian, the herald, the shapeshifter, the shadow and the trickster. The way vogler described the role of archetype i felt that they were more focused on the actions of an individual rather than the individual themselves. Archetypes in this instance are roles that an actor can take on, having one or multiple. In the case of the Herald, this archetype can be displayed through nature like a thunderstorm or earthquake, announcing some significant change. Archetypes are often important to a story's plot and provide wisdom to the protagonist.
I honestly didn't know that the books second chapter was based of archetypes, so i was initially shocked to read about them after i brought up a brief discussion regarding them a week back. I still feel like i am a little shakey on the concept of an archetype. I guess i have always associated them with a stereotype, but that sounds bad. I feel like an archetype is a character who has been over simplified to the greatest degree. Jung is known for advancing the idea of the archetype, but i think its been around so long that he can only be credited with revitalizing it. Archetypes have existed in stories and folklore for as long as who knows, all around a basic model. I feel like voglers breakdown of the archetypes was thorough, providing a diverse array of characteristics that come into play.
I spent my sunday recovering from gasparilla in bed watching the new batman movies on ec tv and it got me thinking about some of the archetypes vogler discusses and how perfectly they fit with the movies characters. Whether its a mentor who turns evil, or comic relief the players and parts are there. i feel like archetypes appear in every culture and every society, and they survive through the generations. is the plight of gilgamesh so much different then those of modern day heroes? i think not.
I honestly didn't know that the books second chapter was based of archetypes, so i was initially shocked to read about them after i brought up a brief discussion regarding them a week back. I still feel like i am a little shakey on the concept of an archetype. I guess i have always associated them with a stereotype, but that sounds bad. I feel like an archetype is a character who has been over simplified to the greatest degree. Jung is known for advancing the idea of the archetype, but i think its been around so long that he can only be credited with revitalizing it. Archetypes have existed in stories and folklore for as long as who knows, all around a basic model. I feel like voglers breakdown of the archetypes was thorough, providing a diverse array of characteristics that come into play.
I spent my sunday recovering from gasparilla in bed watching the new batman movies on ec tv and it got me thinking about some of the archetypes vogler discusses and how perfectly they fit with the movies characters. Whether its a mentor who turns evil, or comic relief the players and parts are there. i feel like archetypes appear in every culture and every society, and they survive through the generations. is the plight of gilgamesh so much different then those of modern day heroes? i think not.
1. is an archetype a stereotype? and what is the difference?
2. do archetypes exist in the real world?
3.do jung and campbell conflict on ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment