The Hero Quest and Society

I’m going to add a new feature category to this blog, called “Musings” (to join “Mythic Motifs at Work” and “Writing Tips”).  These will be more general considerations, rather than specific analyses or writing advice.  It is inspired by the search strings that get used to bring people to my website (that is, both this blog and my main website — www.scribblerworks.us).  The search strings often have interesting twists tot hem.

The one I’m musing on today was “how the Hero Quest affects society.”

“Interesting,” I thought.

Okay.  So, first off, which “society” are we talking about here?  The society inside the story, or the society of the audience?  There wasn’t really a way of determining that from the search string, of course.  So why not look at both?

So, let’s start with “inside the story”.

Inside the story, how does the Hero Quest affect society?

Let’s say that the “society” involved is, in terms of the Hero’s Journey, the Hero’s home or starting community.  The one where his interests are engaged.  Either he starts out as a misfit and has to go on his adventure in order to fit, or something is missing in the society and he has to go find it to repair the lack in the society.

The first possibility means that the Hero’s Quest takes someone who doesn’t fit in the community and changes that character to one who will be a benefit to the community.  A ne’er-do-well who becomes a strong leader (Han Solo in Star Wars).  The over-looked pigherder who becomes a king (Taran in Lloyd Alexander’s Chronicles of Prydain).  A rogue computer programmer who frees others from machine mind-control (Neo in The Matrix).  So the end of the Hero Quest in that case certainly has a positive effect on the society of the story.

The second possibility means that whether voluntarily or not, the Hero’s Quest will be a real benefit to the community of the story.  If it is involuntary, our Hero may not have sought out the quest, but he will certainly see it to the end.  Dr. Kimble (in The Fugitive), in trying to clear himself of a murder charge, discovers that a colleague has concealed the real (damaging) effects of a drug in order that he make a fortune.  Kimble’s quest saves the medical community from disaster.  In Deja Vu, an ATF investigator, thinking he will not be able to change the course of a large disaster instead focuses on trying to prevent one murder.  Yet in doing so, he ends up preventing the large disaster, a definite benefit for the society in the story.

This reveals that even though the Quest itself may focus on an individual, there is a community in the background that will be affected.  As the poet Donne put it, “No man is an island.”

So, what about the Society outside the story?

When we move to that level, it becomes a matter of why we tell stories at all.  Soemtimes it is to relate events that have happened, so we won’t forget them.  soemtimes it is to consider what we wish would happen.  Sometimes it is to try and understand why a person would behave in a certain way.  Sometimes it is to hold up a model of what we want to be like.

As a consequence, when we tell a story of a Hero’s Quest, we are, basically, trying to inspire ourselves.  We want to be a resistant to peer pressure as the Hero in The Prisoner (the original, that is).  We want to believe we can be as inspired and committed to our craft as Mozart is in Amadeus.  We want to believe that we too can be as faithful in hardship as Sam Gamgee in The Lord of the Rings.

Indeed, in The Lord of the Rings, at a dark point in the quest Sam shares with Frodo, Sam muses about the stories he had heard and that fueled his imagination — and he takes heart and determination from them.  He does not claim the high level of his “story-book” heroes, but rather that he be like them in even just a little way.  And he succeeds.

That is what society outside the story gains — inspiration, moels, the belief that we can change and improve things around us.  So… let the questing never end.

Feel free to comment here on the blog, or on my MESSAGE BOARD.

Posted in Musings | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Mythopoesis: Geography

A map and a compassIn creating a Secondary World, a Sub-Creator sets out on a journey into a new world. It is a journey into new places, where the shapes of the land may be quite different from the ones we see about ourselves every day. The landscape of a Secondary World may have elements resembling ones found in reality: a broad moor under grey skies where the wind is cruel and cold; a sun-washed mountainside where tall, haughty pines stand at the foot of a cliff; a feathery ribbon of waterfall shimmering in the midst of lush greenery. Yet the Author’s journey will lead through territory of one sort or another, through previously uncharted realms.

In the process of telling his tale, the Sub-Creator will be verbally charting these unknown lands. However, as a practical matter, the making of a map can be of great help to the Sub-Creator. In his introduction to An Atlas of Fantasy (Ballantine Books, 1979), Lester Del Rey observes that

… the author who seeks to travel through his world of fantasy is as much in need of a guide as in the one who charts a story of any other exploration. Without a map, his sense of time and distance soon becomes confused. (AF, p.v.)

It is not simply the sense of time and distance which is aided by a map of this new land, however. Del Rey continues: “A good map brings the territory into sharp focus, giving it a sense of reality otherwise lacking” (AF, p.v.).

A map can reveal to the Sub-Creator surprising things about his world. Seeing a river flowing through mountainous country, the Author may discover a reason for his hero’s tardiness: the fellow had to go far downstream before he could find a place to ford the river. However, a certain degree of rational caution is needed by the Author in drawing up a map of his world. As Lin Carter in Imaginary Worlds (Ballantine Books, 1973) points out, “Geography does not just happen – natural features are where they are due to certain causes” (IW, p. 180, emphasis Carter’s). Carter continues by pointing out

You cannot really have a lush rain-forest smack up against a parched desert of burning sand, you know; it pays to do a bit of reading into climatology so as to understand the interplay of forces that create deserts and rain-forests, jungles and grasslands, and so on. Nor can you stick mountains about your map in a helter-skelter fashion; mountains have good reasons for being where they are, and a fantasy writer should know something about them. (IW, p. 180)

Such practical considerations may seem to be a disruption of the creative process. However, landscape can have as much character as the people who inhabit it.

In this urban age, it may be a bit difficult for some writers to easily conjure up rural landscapes. Yet the effective visualization of geography can breathe life into the reader’s travels in the Secondary World. The place for the Author to begin is with settings he knows. In Past Watchful Dragons (Macmillan, 1979), Walter Hooper makes this observation about Lewis’ presentation of Narnia:

His description of Narnian countryside, weather, and food are, I expect, more effective than we first realise in contributing to the astonishing sense of reality achieved in these books. Not surprisingly, they are based on the countries Lewis knew and liked best: the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland, which are the only countries he knew well.(PWD, p. 74)

In general and in specific, places the Author has known can be transformed into places in the Secondary World. In The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (Houghton Mifflin, 1981), one can find examples of this process:

The hobbit’s (Bilbo’s) journey from Rivendell to the other side of the Misty Mountains, including the glissade down the slithering stones into the pine woods, is based on my adventures in 1911… (LT, p. 391)

Even the wonderful Glittering Caves of Helm’s Deep are a reflection of the real world.

… the passage was based on the caves in Cheddar Gorge and was written just after I had revisited these in 1940 but was still coloured by my memory of them much earlier before they became so commercialized. (LT, p. 407)

The shaping of the land of a Secondary World begins in a general form drawn on a map. As the Author and his characters travel across the landscape, its general features are colored by the countryside the Author knows. And specific locales are often born from places the Author has seen and touched. But the key lies in the knowing, in the mind of the Author, for it is there that the descriptive words that give life to these places live. It is the Author’s power of Sub-Creation that conjures the geography of his world.

(first published in Mythlore 40, Autumn 1984) (revised 2006)




Posted in Mythopoesis | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

A Functional Father Figure

When I was doing the research and development of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth, one thing I discovered was that there is not much literature on parental figures.  Joseph Campbell makes glancing references to Father Figures and Mother Figures, particularly in their negative manifestations, but little else.  So I tackled the problem of developming a systematic structure for just what these figures ought to be, so that I (and of course, other storytellers) would be able to analyse the dynamics when I put one of these figures into a story.

The first thing I realized is that although mentor figures are also representatives of parental figures, they are not completely so.  Thus, while a Mentor may be a Father Figure, a Father Figure is not necessarily, or not only, a Mentor.  So what else is going on?

What it boils down to (if you want a fuller explanation, get the book!) is that a Father Figure has five functions: Protector, Mentor, Priest, Judge, Ruler.  Any particular story relationship might focus more on one function than another, but they all contribute to the over-all picture.

NCIS father figure - Leroy Jethro GibbsWhich brings me to one of the best examples of a Father Figure currently running in popular culture: Leroy Jethro Gibbs on the show NCIS.

Now, because of the bantering and teasing play of Gibbs’ support team, some have called the regular characters a dysfunctional family.  This is a mistake: this group is highly functional.  The sibling-like squabbling and pranking should not be mistaken as dysfunction.  Each team member understands his or her place in the group and delivers on the responsibilities.  Trust runs strong among them and there is very little abuse of position — all signs of effective functionality.  Perhaps we are so used to seeing the failure of functionality that it has become the “standard” and true functionality seems “dysfunctional.”

In any case, the successful functionality springs from the effectiveness of Gibbs as a Father Figure.  So let’s consider it at work.

As a Mentor, Gibbs uses his “strong, silent” manners to demonstrate to Timothy McGee and Ziva David how to be an excellent investigator.  These two, for different reasons, have needed the instruction a Mentor can provide.  And they have learned successfully from Gibbs.

McGee, when sent into a women’s prison to question a possible suspect on a cold case, finds himself the on-scene investigator of a killing.  Because he has learned from Gibbs how to read the evidence and how to read people, he is able to sort it out.

Gibbs and ZivaFor Ziva, trained in espionage and assassination, learning to investigate and interview has run counter to her impulses.  But because Gibbs by every indication shows her that he believes her capable of the new methods and expects her to act on them, she learns.

The Priestly function of a Father Figure is the aspect that acknowledges the achievement and mastery of “the child.”  And Gibbs always delivers that affirmation when it is really needed.  He has given McGee affirmation that he has become a good investigator at a time and in a way that makes public Timothy’s growth, by saying it in front of Tony DiNozzo, who relentlessly exercises the “superior” priviledges of an older brother to Tim.

Gibbs and TonyBut Gibbs has also done the same for Tony: during a case in which Gibbs had given Tony the lead, Tony becomes so frustrated that he begins verbally abusing the team.  Gibbs takes Tony aside and tells him he had been doing a good job … up to that point.  The fact that this is a “priestly” action is shown by the fact that Gibbs addresses DiNozzo as “Anthony,” something he almost never does.  Tony is both chastened and encouraged by this.

Gibbs and KateAs the boss of the team, Gibbs is in fact the Ruler of them all.  But one of the duties of the Ruler is to command the discipline of his subjects, and this is the need Gibbs fills for DiNozzo and Agent Kate Todd.  Although Tony is actually a good investigator, his own impulses are to flake off, chasing pretty women or playing games.  Gibbs enforces discipline and so gets excellent work out of Tony.

Kate, though she came to NCIS from the Secret Service, also had some need of the discipline Gibbs requires.  In the pilot, she is shown as having become romantically involved with a co-worker on the Presidential detail, something that would never have happened if she’d been under Gibbs’ rulership.

Gibbs and AbbyAs a Protector, we see Gibbs protecting both Abby and Ziva.  When Ziva was framed for the assassination of someone under FBI protection, it is to Gibbs (and not her own father) that she turns to, to get her out of it.  And he does.

When Abby is stalked by an ex-boyfriend, Gibbs becomes very fierce in resolving the matter.   (As all the team acknowledges, Abby “is his favorite.”)

To all of the team, he is their Judge: he evaluates their work, and they turn to him for his opinion on everything other than romantic attachments (his three ex-wives serving as a warning to them that he is not perfect, especially in that).

So far, the points I’ve made have been about what Gibbs gives to his team, what needs he addresses for each of them.  But what does he get out of it?  What makes it possible for him to continue playing Father Figure to this unlikely “family”?  He gets their nearly undivided devotion.  Abby in particular bestows on him the love of a daughter, which addresses the biggest hole in Gibbs’ own life, since his first wife and only child were killed long ago.  He is not the Father Figure to this group just because they need him.  He is such also because he needs them.

The NCIS team

As I said, this team is a highly functional family unit.  If they were dysfunctional, the incidental pains of failure and abuse would be considerably less appealing to the audience.  It is the functionality that propells the show into success and audience affection.

Posted in Motifs at work | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Signing and Selling at Loscon

This weekend I will be attending Loscon at the Airport Marriott near LAX, here in Los Angeles.  I attended the first time last year, and kicked myself for skipping it all these years (I have a lot of friends who go regularly).  It was fun.

This year, as a member of the Greater Los Angeles Writers Society (known as GLAWS) I’m taking part in a couple of panels.  One is on Writing Hard Science Fiction When You Are Not a Scientist.  The other is on World Building in Science Fiction & Fantasy.  They both should be great discussions – my fellow panelists are great.

I’ll also be at the GLAWS booth in the dealers room, from time to time (depending on the con schedule).  I’ll have copies of The Scribbler’s Guide to the Land of Myth for sale — with a special discount on the price for attendees at the con.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mythopoesis: Characters

[mythopoesis: the making of myths or fantasy]

Characters coming out of booksThe sky is a jewel-like blue. The broad moor hides its colors in a dark blanket. On the eastern horizon, dawn pours a cream and pink light into the air. And there silhouetted against the growing day, pace a line of figures.

Who are these local inhabitants and where do they come from?

When a Sub-Creator shapes a world, it is usually for the purpose of telling a story, and the story is usually about a person (or persons) of some sort or another. The writer found the character somewhere, with his story wrapped around him. The writer is trying to unwrap the story.

Is it a Hero, a Wizard, a lost Princess, a Wise Woman, a Ruler, or a Villain?

Jungian psychology, with its presentation of Archetypes, has greatly assisted the study of literature. It has opened many doors of understanding in the study of fantasy literature in particular. But the Archetypes are not necessarily there in the story because they were chosen as representatives of their type. Few Sub-Creators start out saying “Today I will tell a story about a Wizard – any wizard.” More often it is a case of “There once was a wizard who hated to ride horses. He traveled in a pony-drawn cart. Whenever he wanted to go up into the tall Fatefell Mountains he had to walk, because the trails were not made for pony-carts.”

This is character. For from this starting point, the Author asks, “Why does he hate horses?” and “Why does he go to the Fatefell Mountains?” The character, the person, starts telling the Author about himself. But where does “character” spring from? What hidden fountain feeds the flowing stream of the story?

Characters spring from the Sub-Creator. Usually they are fairly complete when the Author sets them in motion, in the sense that their characteristics are more or less set. Ursula K. LeGuin in The Language of the Night (Berkeley Books, 1982) offers an observation of this completeness.

I don’t write out descriptions beforehand, and would indeed feel ridiculous, even ashamed, to do so. If the character isn’t so clear to me that I know all that about him, what am I doing writing about him? What right have I to describe what William did when Helen bit his knee, if I don’t even know what he looks like, and his past, and his psyche, inside and out, as well as I know myself? Because after all he is myself. Part of myself. (p. 39)

This is certainly true of the main characters in an Author’s story. They are intimate friends of the Sub-Creator. The minor characters may be only nodding acquaintances, and so worthy of a note or two – to prevent one from mistaking them for someone else. But the inner unity of a character springs from the Author’s knowledge of that character.

If William is a character worthy of being written about, then he exists. He exists, inside my head to be sure, but in his own right, with his own vitality. All I have to do is look at him. I don’t plan him, compose him of bits and pieces, inventory him. I find him. (LN, p. 39)

Once a Sub-Creator has found a character and starts unwrapping that character’s story, unexpected things may begin happening. When an Author has become well-acquainted with his creature, he may find that the character has very definite ideas (so to call it) about what he will and will not do. LeGuin has commented on such an experience springing from the writing of The Farthest Shore.

Ged, who was always very strong-minded, always saying things that surprised me and doing things he wasn’t supposed to do, took over completely in this book. He was determined to show me how his life must end, and why. I tried to keep up with him, but he was always ahead. I rewrote the book more times than I want to remember, trying to keep him under some kind of control. (LN, p. 46)

An Author has two choices in dealing with characters like this, ones that come leaping to life. He can accept them as they exist and discipline them to stay in line with the rest of the story. Or he can flatten them out, squeeze them into pre-cut molds, stuff them with sawdust. The second choice might make for less interesting characters, but they are also likely to be less threatening to the Author.

For Characters can in one sense be threatening to their creator. As noted, they spring from the Author’s mind, and there are few who are not aware of the implications generated by psychological criticism of art and literature. If all is a reflection of the maker’s mind, how is one to regard those “questionable” characters that are necessary to some stories? Is one required to admit that they are part of oneself? Perhaps many Sub-Creators draw back at this point, either consciously or unconsciously. They deny their darkest shadows and create villains who are less than evil, sometimes turning them into fools hobbled by blindness. LeGuin, in commenting on Hans Christian Andersen points the way out of this dilemma.

Part of Andersen’s cruelty is the cruelty of reason – of psychological realism, radical honesty, the willingness to see and accept the consequences of an act or a failure to act. There is also a sadistic, depressive streak in Andersen also, which is his own shadow; it’s there, it’s part of him, but not all of him, nor is he ruled by it. His strength, his subtlety, his creative genius, come precisely from his acceptance of and cooperation with the dark side of his own soul. That’s why Andersen the fabalist is one of the great realists of literature. (LN. p. 51)

Radical, basic, unqualified honesty and the willingness to see and accept the consequences of acts, of characters: these are the keys for unlocking the problems of evil characters, creatures born of shadow. These creatures may be part of the Sub-Creator, but they are not all of him, nor is he ruled by them.

It is the Sub-Creator’s mind which gives life to the characters with which he peoples his world. The depth and range of personality which they exhibit is limited only by the will and honesty of their maker.

(first published in Mythlore 39, 1984; revised 2006)

 

Posted in Mythopoesis | Tagged | Leave a comment