2006 Issue 2.0 Archetypes: Series 4

1 . One geek to rule them all: A confessional essay about the dangers of archetypes - Erin Comben^

Once in a while I take a step back, look at myself, and assess what archetype I am living. Strolling through campus loaded down with books, mocha in one hand, iPod turned up and blocking out the rest of existence adds up to “the introverted college student.” Huddled with others around bits of paper and brightly colored dice, unraveling a story and cheering a natural twenty adds up to “geek.” I own up to the term – anyone obsessed with fantasy and science-fiction will often be called by that name. Fantasy and science-fiction have provided a guideline for my life. I often see myself in terms of fantasy, and my existence has been shaped by it. In a very real sense of the term, fantasy has provided me with an archetype for who I am and who I will become. I have also discovered that it is perhaps not the best thing to try to fit myself and my fellow geeks into archetypal models, as I will explain later on. I have been formed by fantasy and I surround myself with it. I used to feel, and sometimes still do, that I have no guiding direction in my life. I’ve been lucky so far; by drifting along I’ve hit on several chance accidents that have helped bring me to where I am today. As far as I can recall, there has been only one occasion when something (I have no other way to describe it) forcibly shoved me in a direction. Some years ago I was in my family room, when a large red book caught my eye. Clearly and immediately I realized that it was going to be important to me. I could almost hear the whisper of “Go on, read it,” next to my ear. I took the book and gazed upon the gold embossed title. Now, some may dismiss all I have said before and all I will say after because of what the book was. It was not a religious or political text. It was, quite simply, The Lord of the Rings. In a daze, I took the book and wandered into my garage where I was drawn to some cardboard boxes. Inside lay more copies of Tolkien’s work – three paperback volumes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy along with The Hobbit, all from the 1960s. I must stress the fact that I had no previous idea that these books were there. Neither had I ever really heard of them before. I was not a fantasy reader, although in retrospect, I realize that I had been exposed to science-fiction from early on: One of the first shows I ever remember making a point of watching was the BBC science-fiction comedy Red Dwarf on PBS. However, I had no real interest in fantasy at that point in my life. I proceeded to devour the books, and they changed me. Perhaps I sound facetious. I truly know no other way to describe what happened to me. My life was shaped by those books. I was inspired to start reaching out for what I wanted and take control of where I would next go in life. It was around the time I was reading The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings that I was able to articulate my love for languages, for history, and for exploring the minutiae of unknown lands and ideas. Though I had been fascinated by language for quite a while, it was with the discovery of Tolkien’s works that my fascination solidified into a passion. J.R.R. Tolkien was a philologist and lover of language. Once, when reflecting on how he felt when he discovered Finnish, Tolkien had the following to say: “It was like discovering a complete wine-filled cellar filled with bottles of an amazing wine of a kind and flavor never tasted before. It quite intoxicated me.” I have never heard of a statement that better describes what it feels like to explore a language. In fact, this statement could probably hold up equally well for anyone trying to describe something that they care deeply about. Tolkien helped shape the modern fantasy quest story. One of the most enduring fantasy (and science-fiction) themes is that of ordinary people stumbling into something extraordinary. Suddenly, their lives are forever changed. A solitary boy, shaped into an assassin and befriended by a pale Fool, becomes the catalyst to either destroy or shape anew his world; an illegitimate son stumbles across a dying albino direwolf as his world crumbles around him; a young woman makes her way into an old blue English police call box and is taken spinning through all of time and space, becoming (if only for a few seconds) a goddess herself with the power to destroy or give life. These describe a few of the fantasy and science-fiction plots of which I am a fan. We fans of fantasy and science fiction live these situations out in our own mundane way: We happen upon a story, are sucked into a new universe, and are never the same again. Fantasy perhaps could also be seen as providing a blueprint for how we face our lives. I am not some character destined for greatness (although being able to hang out with sentient wooden ships and renegade Time Lords would be all shades of awesome), but I believe one of the reasons fantasy in particular is so appealing is that one can relate to the character’s dilemma: Torn from what is known and comfortable and tossed through grueling experiences, hopefully to emerge triumphant at the end of our journey. The end of our journey may just be a degree or a choice job. Yet, this can be an adventure all of its own. I can see someone dismissing me as a typical fantasy and science-fiction geek. Fantasy keeps me sane. I may have twisted myself into knots over a personal worry or a particularly stubborn idea for a paper, but I can use the space in my head to give myself peace. It may be cliché, but I can lose myself in a book, or a movie, or a show for a while and when I emerge the world is a bit easier to bear. This is a confessional essay, and so I confess the following: I play Dungeons and Dragons, quote Terry Pratchett^{1 (1}Thanks to this author, I will never look at footnotes the same way again) , and I consider myself a hoopy frood who knows where her towel is, thanks to Douglas Adams. My posters are illustrations from The Lord of the Rings, my desktop wallpaper is of the Doctor (the ninth, in case there are any fans out there reading this) from Doctor Who, my online name is the same as an obscure character from Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, and I can carry on insanely long conversations on everything from Cylon psychology to the technology of the Stargate to the political machinations in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series. I meet with friends every Friday to watch and discuss Stargate, Doctor Who, and Battlestar Galactica. It is all a way to escape; it is the way we unwind. The stereotype of a fantasy and science-fiction fan shunning human company in favor of made-up fancies does not fit here. Though I am naturally an introvert, and very fond of my fancies, many of the ways I enjoy fantasy are social. I have been drawing parallels between fantasy and science-fiction and its fans, and now I shall take it one step further. I have no qualms about calling Tolkien a genius whose works are rightfully the standard and archetype of modern fantasy fiction. He may have drawn from many old myths and stories, but he put them together in a way that most authors still follow. Fantasy and science-fiction follow a pattern (admittedly so does every other genre out there, and as does politics, history, and life) but there is great variation in these genres. Similarly, there may be an archetype of the fantasy and science-fiction geek or fan. Perhaps I, as do many fans, fulfill the qualifications. However, I do not think there is a “one geek to rule them all,” a fan that all other fans must model themselves on. One of the main appeals of fantasy and science-fiction, to me, is the inherent promise and flexibility that they have. There may be common themes and age old emotions running throughout the stories, but they can be ever-shifting. The stories are never the same; why should fans be the same? I have friends who geek out wonderfully over fandoms (that is, the book/ movie/ show/ comic/ what-have-you that they are passionate about) that I could care less about and who express their enjoyment in different ways, but we are all fans. If we were all the same, modeled on one type, a lot of appeal would be lost. As fans we would become too regular and by doing so reject the possibilities being a geek gives us. It is easy to view many different things or people through one lens and by doing so believe that they are all the same. It can be dangerous to apply the label of “archetype” too freely as that seems to imply that the archetype must be imitated. I may seem like a stereotypical geek. After all, I am writing an essay about being a fantasy and science-fiction fan, while hoping that at least one other person understands all the references I have made in the preceding essay. Could I be any more of a geek? The fact is, I had to restrain myself while writing this and only detailed some of my geekiness above. So the answer to the question is “yes.” However, the fact remains that one of the greatest aspects of being a fantasy and science-fiction fan is the freedom it gives a person: Freedom to imagine, to invent, to lose oneself for a while but always being able to find the road back again. Trying to tie this too closely back to an archetype would take away much of that freedom, and that would be a true loss.

2 . Case study: Self-representation on Facebook - Rod Aminian^

When asked to describe ourselves (and not in online dating scenarios), most shy away from saying anything too annoyingly specific – it’s always nice to give a favorable, vague picture so that you don’t appear to be closed off to any particular viewpoint. Oddly enough, a near-exact opposite phenomenon occurs on Facebook (and other social networking services). Instead of attempting to fashion a broad appeal, users tend towards narrow archetypes, attempting to author a narrative about themselves in the space provided for them. In a situation like this, word count must be kept low but the information conveyed from those words must be more rich in meaning.

Let’s take a look at a few case studies:

Example # : Profile photo is of the individual firing a firearm.
Meanings:
(1) The individual (usually male) is demonstrating (hyper-)masculinity.
(2) Pride in one’s cultural identity (generally appealing to a “red state” archetype).
(3) Possible disdain for perceived feminization of men by society.
(4) An open threat to outsiders, letting them know what they might be facing if they dare to take
on this individual.
Example # : Political views are listed as “other.”
Meanings:
(1) The individual considers themselves to be above a one-dimensional political spectrum
(which they likely view as ridiculous).
(2) Perhaps occupies some political extreme that is not best expressed by “very liberal” or
“very conservative” (anarchist or fascist, perhaps).
(3) More likely than not, means that religious faith informs their political views to the point
where it would be misleading to categorize one’s self under any particular partisan label,
for example, a Catholic who is very concerned with economic justice (economic liberal), but
is against the death penalty (social liberal) as well as abortion (social conservative).

Example # : Favorite movies lists “Amelie.”
Meanings:
(1) The individual is employing code to appeal to an “indie kid” archetype off appreciating more
obscure (or used to be), culturally alternative works of cinema.
(2) Display of one’s “artsy-ness.”
(3) A coded statement, along the lines of “I would never watch a Wayans brothers film.”
Example # : Interests list absurd and silly activities.
Meanings:
(1) Without boringly saying “I’m pretty funny,” it becomes clear that the individual is zany and
has a more ridiculous sense of humor than most.
(2) The user is also showing themselves to be above Facebook, in the sense that they view
some of the categories to be inane and meaningless, and thus, choose to respond in a
bizarre manner. (Note: the user could easily leave this field blank, but given the opportunity
to show their comedic colors, they choose not to leave this stone unturned).
It becomes increasingly obvious that nearly everything listed on one’s Facebook profile contains
many meanings, and that any single phrase or image is likely to conjure up multiple entendre. This can
be sharpened to a fine art, and most users agree that listing all of one’s favorites in any single category
could make on appear to be a “tool” or “loser” – therefore, limited in our instruments, we choose what
code-packed phases will convey ourselves most accurately … or rather, what we would like others to
think that our profile conveys about us.
Chris Dreyer Illustration

3 . The Smart One - Chris Heinrich^

He (as he very often appears under the guise of male though his complete lack of any sexual activity makes it all a rather moot point) is a staple character in every team-based series, no less common or integral to its operations than The Leader or The Joker. In Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles he is Donatello. In Mighty Morphin Power Rangers he is Billy, the Blue Ranger. In X-Men he is Dr. Henry McCoy, codenamed Beast. In Animorphs he is Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill. In Recess, he makes a rare appearance as a girl in the character of Gretchen Grundler. In Codename: Kids Next Door, he is Numbuh 2. He is The Smart One or The Brains, if you prefer. Even The Nerd is an appropriate name. It is never difficult to pick out The Smart One. His advanced mental activity gives him an advantage over those who may be more clever or stronger, and he displays it at every opportunity. The Smart One uses a higher vocabulary and finds it nigh impossible to correct others when they are wrong.

Even in a cast snapshot, The Smart One is easy to pick out. Because he has little fashion sense, prefers practical, functional clothes often covered in grease stains or charred by a recent experiment and frequently dons a pair of glasses, the differences between himself and those he works alongside are elevated in the physical realms as well as the mental. These differences are fiercely maintained by The Smart One. When other characters suggest makeovers or attempt to provide him with a new wardrobe, he fiercely resists their every effort. His contribution to the success of the team frequently involves the engineering of new inventions. The bond The Smart One develops with his creations borders on parental, and the pride he has in them is no different from that of a coach towards their star player. Given the chance, he shows off all the possibilities of his latest gadget and, when forced to lend it to another, always precedes it by a firm admonishment to, “Be careful. It’s not a toy.” When the item is invariably returned in some state of destruction, The Smart One is reduced to tears or, should his nerve be of stiffer stuff, makes plans on how it could be rebuilt and improved. The Smart One also finds his position validated as a source of exposition on the importance of some item or mission of historical or mythological import. When some less informed character asks why they’re doing this or who cares about this person they met in a time-traveling episode or in an alternate universe, it is The Smart One who takes the opportunity to demonstrate his superior knowledge to the fullest and gorges them with unnecessary detail until they walk off, leaving The Smart One alone with his facts.

The Smart One never really fits in with the rest of the group. He is a loner, often preferring the company of his books or the solitude of his lab to spending time with his fellows. He shuns personal contact and must be tricked or forced into most social activities, sullenly remaining in a self-imposed isolation throughout the event. Closely associated with these tendencies is The Smart One’s lack of common sense or any social skills whatsoever. Because his language skills and lexicon are so far beyond those of his friends, his attempts to communicate with them often end in blank stares and “In English, please.” Of great interest is the common association of the color blue and similar cool colors with The Smart One. In contrast to the energy and vitality of the warm colors like red and yellow, blue is contemplative and calm, less prone to emotional outbursts and more in favor of discussion and planning, all traits shared by The Smart One. With his roots in such classic characters as Sherlock Holmes and C. Auguste Dupin and a continuing
future in the character Hermione Granger of Harry Potter fame, The Smart One has proven to be an enduring and flexible archetype, as at home on a school playground as in a battle for humanity, and whose continued existence can be in little doubt.

4 . Molded from Mary, cast from Christ: Archetypes in Catholicism - Chris Sparks^

An archetype is not just a figure or character that we use as a label or descriptor for something common to human experience. It can also be the aim and goal of our human experience. For humanity, the archetypes we aim to emulate may be a variety of figures, ranging from The Trickster to The Wise Man, from The Matron to The Maiden, from The Saint to The Sinner. The prime archetypes for Catholics are Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This emulation does not demand absolute similarity; the men need not all be carpenters and the women need not all bear children without having had sex. But in terms of ideals for the life of humanity, Christ is the form (to borrow a term from Plato) of Man (the new Adam) and Mary is the form of Woman (the new Eve). Had the Fall never occurred, we would have looked to Adam and Eve for our prime examples of manhood and womanhood. But the Fall is the prime event in determining human experience, exposing us to death and leaving us terribly open to temptation and sin, and so our first parents are not role models. It took another man and woman conceived without sin, free even from the stain of Original Sin, who then lived their lives in perfect accordance with the will of the Father, to bring us into new life and give us the hope of salvation. They lived perfectly, sinlessly, achieving great things (nothing less than the redemption of the world and the opening of all of God’s treasures of grace for us). This second time, the man came forth from the woman by an act of God (someone had to pay back for that rib). This second time, the man was the son of the woman, and the Son of God. This time, the man was the fruit of the tree, whom the woman offered to the world to eat, and so be freed from the poison that still kills, still destroys. This time, the serpent was crushed by the man, whose heel he bit, and so brought him down into hell. This time, the man was planted in the ground and sprang forth from it, bringing all the saints of ancient days to life and glory with him. This time, men and women ate of the tree of life, and all their children may have life through their eating. This time, the serpent tempted the man in the Garden of Gethsemane, destroyed him at the place where legend says Adam’s skull was buried, and was thus prevented from forever being Ouroborous, the serpent that encircles the world. Our archetypes, our parents, our brother and sister under God the Father, have been Redemptor and Redemptrix, Mediator and Mediatrix, Man and Woman in this great covenant of salvation. We are called to be holy like them, sinless like them, perfected like them. But we are not conceived without sin like them, though the stain be washed away by Baptism. We are not full of grace like them, though we are suffused with the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, Baptism, and renewed in Confession. We do not directly make that choice in that Garden, though we eat the fruit of the tree of Life in the Eucharist. We are not perfect offerings like them, though we seek to achieve sanctity through our vocations in Holy Orders, Marriage, or single life in obedience to God. We do not die, resurrect, and Ascend or be Assumed into Heaven body and soul, though we receive Last Rites. We are the children of both Adam and New Adam, Eve and New Eve. We are born into sin, and suffering, and death, as well as into sanctity, and redemption, and life. We are none of us completely whole, completely as we ought to be. We each face our own particular burdens, our own particular weakness, our own particular sorrow. We bear up under these only with the grace of God, only with the forbearance and forgiveness of a loving God. It has been said that Catholics go deeper into Hell than any other. This is because we have been told how things are. We see the fullness of God’s revelation and can use the fullness of God’s grace, and so have least reason to have fallen into damnation. It has been said that the highest archangels fall to be the worst of demons, for only that which was so powerfully good could become so powerfully evil. John Paul II, had he fallen, would have been one of the worst of men. Adolf Hitler, had he been holy, would have been one of the greatest of saints. Jesus did not come to save the holy, but the wicked. He did not come with hope for the hopeful, but hope for the despairing. Mary is mother most especially to those most in need of God’s mercy, for which child does a mother give the most time to but the one most in need? It is a strange assumption, often made in the modern world, which holds that Christianity is for the rich, the powerful, the good, the holy. Christ came to save people, not look approvingly at the already saved. Those who are rich, powerful, good, or holy were all told in no uncertain terms to get into action and follow Christ to the aid of those who did not have what they had in abundance. Once you achieved your status as Pharisee or scribe, self-congratulatory prayer was not your job. You are to help those in need, you are to save what you can, heal what you can, strengthen what you can. A Christian who has everything must help his neighbor, for if he is to truly put on Christ, the archetype to imitate, he can do no other. A Christian who has everything must care for her neighbor, for if she is to truly emulate Mary, the archetype to imitate, she can do no other. Christ and Mary both have had all things given into their dominion. It was given to Christ by the Father, and to Mary by Christ. Christ died for our sins, and Mary gave her Son and her life for the life of the world. They could have just gone to heaven and there celebrated with the Father and the angels, content with the saints of old, but instead they take an active interest in the world, caring for all here, aiding all here, raising us up with them on the last day. We are blessed by them and their efforts. Christianity is for all – the good and the bad, the strong and the weak, the fearful and the brave, the righteous and the fallen. We are to aim for the standards set by the Church, laid out by the authority ordained by Christ and in full accord with God’s intentions regarding human nature, but never be surprised when our brothers and sisters fail to meet them. We have Christ and Mary as our goal, but we are a fallen people in a fallen world. We do not know to what extent we are individually culpable for our individual sins; we can merely strive towards sinlessness. We do not know who is going to heaven or who is going to hell; we can merely do our best to get ourselves and those whom we love to life everlasting. We have our orders; let us strive to fulfill them as best we can, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in faith, hope, and love, and most especially, always and forever, in love. We are to aim for the standards set by the Church ... but never be surprised when our brothers and sisters fail to meet them.