|
Post by Divides the Waters on Dec 20, 2007 2:42:20 GMT -5
I've had the conversation many times with friends and fellow writers about the shades of gray between these three elements in fiction. I find it fascinating how a certain story idea can be used over and over in different ways, and depending upon how it is used, be a cliche or a mythic tool.
Opening the floor to discussion....
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Dec 20, 2007 10:55:35 GMT -5
It's an interesting idea, divides. Certain things recur again and again because they're in our collective consciousness. Archetypes familiar to readers of Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell (who is perhaps more relevant to our discussion).
Sometimes things recur in fiction (and/or movies) because the author is simply too lazy to think of anything original. Plot-first novelists are notorious for using cliche, stereotyped characters in their fiction, mainly because they have no inclination and less skill in creating differentiated characters (which is why I created "Character Creation for the Plot-First Novelist"). But character-first novelists can resort to stock plot elements, too.
Many novelists who write in the speculative genres use tired, conventional elements without creativity. The other thread about using Tolkien's fantasy characters or not is relevant here.
There's definitely a blurring. When does the wise old mentor cease being a mythic symbol and become a stereotype? When does the quest metaphor cease being a cliche and become part of our collective consciousness? I don't think you can argue that all cliches are mythic, but I do think you can make a case that almost all mythic elements are now or have in the past been considered cliche.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jan 2, 2008 23:28:10 GMT -5
I remember reading some Star Wars novels in which the characters became caricatures of themselves. And then came humorous minature versions in which the caricatures were caricatured. So the mythic elemental archetypes became simply cardboard cutouts.
I remember seeing Eragon and thinking, "Wow ... Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi with dragons." It wasn't just "here is the young hero and the old mentor," it was a carbon-copy of Lucas's version thereof. And the first live-action Dungeons and Dragons movie did the same thing ... only in this case, they copied The Phantom Menace ... even down to having a Jar Jar Binks clone. Not just a "fool" archetype, but an actual stand-in for the Gungan. (And we were supposed to feel sorry for him when he died...?)
In the creation of my own mythopoeia (Tolkien created that word, and defined it as utilizing existing mythological elements in a new story), I have wrestled with how far to take each archetype. I suspect that a great deal of it depends on how consciously something is written to evoke a certain mood, and how derivative it is of its popular culture counterparts.
A great reference book for any writer is "The Writers' Journey" by Christopher Vogler. It helps one define the "types" in the stories one writes, and more importantly, the roles they play in helping the hero (or heroine!) in their own quests.
Has anyone else wrestled with this in their own writing?
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Jan 3, 2008 0:06:32 GMT -5
A great personal hindrance to my writing is my desire to avoid cliche, to avoid being lazy and actually create something original (tis why I started the thread about Tolkien's critters). But can I? I mean, the Bible itself says there's nothing new under the sun and several college writing/lit professors taught about archetypes and how there are only a limited number of plotlines to choose from. I have to wonder if there is anything truly truly new. I think the average person (reader, movie-goer, etc) either doesn't catch on to such things or he doesn't care because fiction (books, stories, movies, plays, etc) is still a huge source of entertainment. Reality TV, for instance, is only recently taking off. And writers, like those of us here, certainly aren't stopping the creative process because it's all been done before.
Writers will continue to write. Readers will continue to read. But why, if it's all the same stuff rehashed and renamed? There must be something about the personal experiences of the writer and of the reader that give the same tired old plots, characters, and ideas a freshness that's both appealing and profitable. Am I off base here? Does anyone agree or disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jan 3, 2008 19:24:12 GMT -5
No, I actually fully agree. Tolkien called it the "cauldron of story," into which cooks added their own flavorings and out of which they served their own dishes. It's not about a fully original recipe so much as it is about making it seem original; freshness and a personal touch are exactly what are needed, on the keyboard as well as in the kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Jan 3, 2008 22:41:02 GMT -5
I suddenly have a craving for some KFC.
I'll have to read up on the "cauldron of story" idea. It sounds like an interesting theory.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jan 4, 2008 1:28:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Jan 4, 2008 11:30:21 GMT -5
There may not be any new ideas out there, just ways of presenting them. I think that's what this forum provides; an incubator for presenting the old ideas in new and fresh ways. Hence, the "speculative" moniker. Yes, the quest theme, or the underdog hero theme are all as old as mankind himself but each new voice presents that theme in a way that is unique to him or her self, or should. Those who choose to simply rehash another's work with minor changes to name/time/enviornment are doing themselves a disservice and their readers a disservice.
As to why people continue to read books and see movies even though the stories are essentially the same; I believe we all need a hero. Those of us who know and follow Christ have the greatest hero of all times but not everybody knows Him. They are seeking that hero who will save them from themselves. As Christians and authors, we have the opportunity to reach these individuals in a way that maybe no one else can. By copying Tolkien's method of telling the True Myth, which is partly how he helped win over C. S. Lewis, we can make that which is truth clearer to those who would run from a sermon or a church service.
All of the topics we discuss in this forum have the potential to reach a vast and varied audience with a truth they may not hear anywhere else. And they may only understand it the way one of the authors here will present it in their own unique voice.
Okay, enough of that.
Fantasy is fun and people love it. There, how's that?
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jan 10, 2008 22:55:17 GMT -5
I can't disagree with that!
Symbolism is a part of even the most literal scriptures, and a huge part of fantasy. We can use it in our characters or in our settings, or both (consider the "shield" in the LEGENDS OF THE GUARDIAN-KING series). But if every story is a version of the Hero's Journey (and after reading The Writer's Journey, I tend to think this is the case), then on that journey, the hero/ine is expected to meet certain people, encounter certain things.
One of the things I find fascinating about the Great Storyteller is that everything reflects back to Him. If you look at Job, every animal God brings up to Job says something about the character of God. The parables Jesus tells are illustrations of the nature of God. People who lived in real history, like Moses and Noah, are types of the One to follow. The Great Story, or True Myth, can be reflected in various and sundry ways in its fictional counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Feb 22, 2008 10:37:08 GMT -5
I rather hope the last word on this has not been spoken. I would love to hear further thoughts on this, particularly as I delve into my second novel, which borrows heavily from the Bible and various myths, including underworld themes and dragons (I'm really hesitant to do that one, as it's been done to death, but this is, I think, the first time dragons have been tied in with a pro-life message).
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Feb 23, 2008 14:10:56 GMT -5
I love symbols in literature and types in the Bible. I love it especially in the Bible because it's absolutely intentional. Not always the case in fiction but when it is and I can tell that the author wanted me to pay attention to it throughout the story, I love it all the more.
I think I got hooked on this in early (i.e. middle school) literature classes. What did it for me was the realization that many times a character's name is as symbolic as the self-destroying snake on the cover of the book that matches the hero's amulet. Wanting to incorporate this idea into my own writing, I ran out and bought 2 different "name your baby" books. I got weird looks from the cashiers because I was only 16, but I still have them and use them to name my characters. One example I can remember is a DnD paladin who was secretly part celestial (angel?); his name was Garreth Adlar, which means gentle eagle (Old German and Welsh). It kind of helped me develop his personality and really get into the role-playing part of the game.
But names are just one thing I like to read and write about. I love the idea of a physical object embodying something abstract but common to everyone (like the One Ring embodies a great burden--be it sin or grief or even life itself--in LOTR). It really helps bring the story to a personal level and I get much more out of it then.
I agree with dividesthewaters: let's keep this thread going!
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Feb 23, 2008 23:44:19 GMT -5
I have, and use, the Character Naming Sourcebook. It is by no means complete, but it give a wide variety of names from a wide variety of cultures. This gives me something to think about when I start needing not only character name, but place names as well. I have found it very handy to have around.
I agree with myrthman; don't let the thread die. Good stuff here.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Feb 24, 2008 1:39:45 GMT -5
I hadn't thought about character names tying into this thread, but I agree that symbolism in names can be important. I like names that "feel" right. Sometimes they simply come into my head; other times I have to do some research to see that they mean what I want them to, or that their original meaning (before I alter them to fit my fantasy milieu) resonates on some level. I think that names in fantasy and sci-fi should be familiar enough to not alienate the reader, and different enough to sound credible as "other-world" names. If we're dealing with real names, then of course the issue becomes much more concrete ... names that may or may not say something specific about the character. (Incidentally, Robi, I've been looking for the Hebrew equivalent of "Perfect Love." For some reason, I can't seem to find it. Might you be able to help me out on this one?)
I think that within every story is the potential to go astray into overt cliche. It is my goal, as I attempt grand mythopoeia, to avoid this. Whether or not I succeed is in the judgment of the reader. I do think that books like THE WRITERS JOURNEY by Vogler help delineate the various steps that drama should go through (as well as avoid). But I'm curious about those who have taken those archetypes and run with them, and how they managed to keep them fresh without resorting to the "same old, same old."
|
|
|
Post by fluke on Mar 3, 2008 14:06:44 GMT -5
"Perfect" would be tamiym (pronounced taw-meem'). It means "without blemish, perfect, upright, whole."
"Love" has some possibilities. If you mean a simple love, then 'ahab does what you need.
However, if you want a more emphatic love, then you need to use chesed. It means "covenant love, loving kindness." It can be used between people, but I think of it as God's love to us.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Mar 3, 2008 14:32:42 GMT -5
Thanks, Fluke! I'm trying to come up with a name for a fantasy character (see the "female messiah" thread in the alternate history page to see what I'm aiming for) that will ring subconsciously like the Hebrew meaning for a perfect (or covenant) love. I'm also trying to keep it ethnically similar to the names I've already used in the story.
Prior to your help, I'd come up with these:
Abalaya Sheraiah Sharaya Shemaya Shimayah Tivanyah Vimala
Obviously some of those are just respellings of the same name. I was using Hebrew words like "life," "name," etc. as the root, and of course the "yah" is referencial to God.
With what you've given me:
Tamiahab Tamaiah Thamaiah Kesedaiah* Hesedaiah Hedesha
Any thoughts? I'm not really thrilled with any of these, to be perfectly frank. They all sound/look a little strange to me at the moment, but maybe one will grow on me. Suggestions welcome.
*I liked this until I realized that someone could make a quesadilla connection
|
|