Archetypes in the arcana discourses - first part
Where single-person narratives dominate the folktale, the montage of characters now has strength in pop-culture. We have multi-character shows and tales, where it is unclear where our loyalties are expected to lie. I'm talking about shows, texts and films such as Deadwood, Rome, Star Trek (in its many incarnations, although perhaps not TOS), Babylon 5, X-Men, Serenity/Firefly, Carnivale, Fables, E.R., Third Watch and The West Wing. I am not talking about 'buddy shows' such as Supernatural or about texts such as Buffy, Angel, Alias, Harry Potter or Pirates of the Caribbean which have a central character around which the action revolves. Those would be examples of folktales or quests.
These are mainly notes for when athena25 and I actually get around to writing all of this up; if any scholarly work already exists in this area, please do point me in that direction. athena25, luv, do you want to add to this with the arcana stuff you came up with?
The Archetypes I have identified thus far:
1. The outsider
The opening scene is often used to announce the villain or the hero in a folktale, and to begin the action. So: we have the introduction of Voldemort in Harry Potter, Sydney Bristow in Alias, and Buffy and Angel in their respective shows. In contrast, the opening scene of the montage discourse, we are given a character through whose eyes we will initially view the action; crucially, they are not the major character in the discourse, nor the most powerful. In Deadwood, we are introduced to Seth Bullock. In Rome, we have Lucius Vorenus; in Carnivale, it is Samson; in The West Wing, it's Sam Seaborn. In all of these cases, it is arguably the ' downtrodden everyman' - the one who is slightly apart due to low status, youth or other disadvantage - who is given voice. All of these characters are slightly apart from the rest of the arcana and will serve as our eyes because they will make the familiar strange to our eyes (Shklovsky: to make the stone stony).
2. The patriarch
The most powerful male in the group at the opening of the show - Al Swearengen, Julius Caesar, Jean-Luc Picard, G'Kar (does anyone wish to argue this? It would be interesting - other interpretations could have Kosh, or maybe Sinclair, but I am taking the 'beginning' as The Gathering), Jed Bartlett - may not be introduced until partway through the first episode, chapter or section. The outsider(s) will not necessarily encounter the patriarch - indeed, I'm going to argue that they do not, and it is impreative that they do not, at least until later on. In Deadwood, the fast meeting between Wild Bill Hickok and Seth Bullock left me confused, as I had taken Wild Bill for a patriarch figure, and it made no narrative sense for the meeting to happen that early. Notice that Al does not meet Seth until later or that Jed Bartlett is not introduced to the viewers until the very end of the first episode. Even then, he does not interact with Sam, who is our eyes; that is saved until a later episode.
The threat to the patriarch's power is one of the main plot strands in a montage/discourse, although, I do not wish to call it a strand, as it does not directly affect the outsider but instead is like a river, dragging the setting of the show, rather than the outsider himself. Thus, the threat to Al affects all of Deadwood and not Seth directly, and the threat to Picard affects the entire Federation (although, in the case of TNG, I do not see an outsider presented). In Rome, each and every threat to Caesar's power naturally affects all of Rome, and Pullo and Vorenus with it; it does not, however, affect them first and foremost.
3. The stately mother (a.k.a the crone)
We have Servilia in Rome, Maddie in Deadwood, Inara in Firefly and Abby Bartlett in The West Wing. The stately mother is a sexual person, although you would not automatically think of her as such; she only appears thus when she chooses to be. She is primarily a female counter to the patriarch, and will occasionally oppose him. Maddie is a threat to both Al and Cy; Abby is one of the few who can genuinely oppose Bartlett's plans within the West Wing itself. Servilia, of course, is first lover and then genuine threat to Caesar. The stately mother will often have younger females in her care, at least one of which will be significant within the main group of characters: Octavia, Joannie, Kaylee and Amy, for Servilia, Maddie, Inara and Abby, respectively. I would also argue that Delenn and Jean Grey also fall within this category.
4. The dashing right-hand man
The right-hand man is a feature of more military-minded discourses, which feature formal chains of command. We have Riker in TNG and Mark Antony in Rome. I would also argue that Dax serves the function of the dashing right-hand man in DSN, albeit in a formerly male guise. Dax will often behave in a way that conforms to the dashing r-h man archetype, in that she will be brave, smart and impeccably turned out. Dax is also allowed to have sex for pleasure, rather than long-lasting relationships, and has a genuine optimism that also seems to be required. The r-h man is not necessarily a womaniser, but he is a male archetype who affirms sex for pleasure, as a necessary mirror of the desirable young maiden. He is what every woman desires, and what every man aspires to be, as athena25 pointed out.
The dashing right-hand man may not necessarily be a formal XO. For instance, Tom Paris on Voyager fulfils the role while only being a Lieutenant. However, his share of screen time and A-plots is a great deal larger than Chakotay's. Furthermore, as Voyager has a stately mother in charge, the patriarch character would cover both Janeway and Chakotay - which safely slots Paris into the right-hand man slot, and puts Janeway and Chakotay in opposition over the command of the Maquis crew.
One possible choice for a dashing right-hand man in the case of The West Wing would be the VP, John Hoynes. This would be more difficult to reconcile to the archetype, as the r-h man is loyal to the patriarch; however, Hoynes's behaviour - although at times rebellious, as is Mark Antony's - in the end always includes a capitulation on his part, or an indulgence on the part of the patriarch. he is never a genuine threat, and is often an active ally. He is also handsome, dashing and relatively young, which is another requirement.
5. The desirable young maiden (a.k.a. the maiden)
This is Deanna Troi in TNG, Octavia in Rome, Kaylee in Firefly (and River in the film Serenity), and Kes in ST:V. We can also have a male version - Julian Bashir in DSN, as a necessary mirror to the female dashing right-hand man. This is played with in Our Man Bashir, but it is ultimately The Way of the Warrior that sealed it for me: Dax can play at being a helpless maiden, but she flirts and is self-possessed in a manner that ill-becomes her maiden costume. Worf, the warrior, is discomforted. Bashir, by contrast, pursues Dax in an about-turn. Later, we have the introduction of Ezri, who better fills the desirable young maiden role of courtly love, and thus allows Bashir to make the transition away from that role. Relating to Deanna, we have the strong relationship to older, more sexually forward women, and occasionally a father-like link to the patriarch character. This is also the case with Kes, who has strong links to Janeway. Other examples would include Donna Moss and Zoe Bartlett.
6. The sexual woman (a.k.a. the mother)
I dislike using the maiden/mother/crone set-up, as two of the three often over-lap and I would furthermore not describe any of the character as a 'crone' - the level of wisdom and power that implies is not necessarily reflective of characters such as Maddie or janeway. However, neither would I call them simply 'mothers', as they clearly do not fulfil that role either. Instead, if they are stately mothers - powerful and regal, but still sexual and assailable - we must have someone in between, who has some power, but is more sexual than she is powerful. Here, we have Lwaxana Troi, Atia of the Julii, Inara - the cross-over between stately mother and sexual woman - CJ Cregg, Alma Garrett, Trixie and Susan Ivanova. We would also have Brenda from Six Feet Under. The sexual woman embodies the carnal appetites, much as the maiden symbolises courtly love and the stately mother symbolises power and maternity. The sexual woman will be a sexual creature without it leading to the pain and obligation of childbirth. This can either be done by having her be too old for childbirth, or by putting her in a position where children are 'not allowed' - the military, in Ivanova's case, or a brothel, in Trixie's. Alma Garrett is a rather young sexual woman, but she is, first and foremost, a widow, which figures 'death' as a sign before the follower of 'children', implying, at most, a still-birth. Alma can indulge her carnal appetite, but as she is no longer a maiden, she will not be able to bear its fruits.
The sexual woman will acknowledge the appeal of the patriarch, but she will often not be linked with him - that link is for the stately mother. This is one argument why Beverly Crusher is more a stately mother than a sexual woman: for one thing, she is not sexual but is instead aloof and self-possessed; for another, she is a genuine match for Picard where Lwaxana can only desire him. The main relationship the sexual woman will have will be with her children, if she has any - with Sofia, in Alma's case; with Wesley, in Beverly's. Atia's main relationships are with her children - those with other men come and go. Women like Brenda, CJ and Ivanova, who do not have children, are in an interesting position, because they are not simply shown to be sexual and ambitious, they are shown to be thus to the exclusion of nature and childbearing.
The character of Kai Winn is interesting, in that she initially starts out as a stately mother - albeit one opposed to the Sisko-patriarch - who then morphs into a sexual woman. This ultimately leads to her downfall, reinforcing the idea of sex as something to rise above, as it is somehow dirty and pollutes the body (and body-politik).
7. The prodigy / the boy genius
Ban Hawkins is blessed in Carnivale; Wesley Crusher is extraordinarily gifted in TNG; Octavian is terrifyingly intelligent in Rome. All of these young boys are precocious and with paths mapped out for them. They begin the show as playing pieces, moved about by the patriarch, and will often either become patriarchs or stately antagonists.
8. The stately antagonist
The stately antagonist is the counter to the patriarch - the opposing side's equivalent. That would be Magneto to our Xavier and Pompey to our Caesar. Star Trek went one step further, and created an entire race of these stately antagonists: initially the Romulans, they later became the Klingons, with the Romulans slipping to the role of dishonourable liars. In Carnivale, we also have Brother Justin - with Iris as the stately mother/sexual woman twin archetype - and in Deadwood we briefly had Wild Bill Hickok. Interestingly, Wild Bill was presented in such as a way as to make the viwer wonder if he was the patriarch, rather than the antagonist; it is only with his death and the arrival of Cy Tolliver that he becomes the stately antagonist, and Cy the petty one.
9. The petty antagonist / the trickster
Q in TNG; Dukat in DSN; Cy Tolliver in Deadwood and perhaps Cato and Cicero in Rome. The trickster is not necessarily a figure of fun, although he can be played this way. Rather, he does not have the vision or perhaps the resources to be a true counter to the statesmanship of the patriarch. The trickster would be linked to Loki, but would often be a middle-aged man, to allow for the play of comedy without lapsing into pathos. An example of a race of petty antagonists used in Star Trek would be the Ferengi.
10. The dishonourable liar/ the traitor
The Romulans and their cloaking device quickly cast them in the role of the dishonourable liar, although the Cardassians could also be used in this way (they were too vicious to be a petty antagonist, and too limited in their vision to be a stately one). I would argue that Brutus is not a traitor in the Rome mythos, as he does what he is compelled to do by the demands of his mother, and by Caesar moving against him first. Indeed, I would argue that there are no traitors in Rome, as there are plenty of antagonists and they are not needed. In Firefly, however, Jayne is a traitor, albeit a reformed one: he starts off as a hero, briefly becomes a villain, and in the end he redeems himself. However, the act of betrayal in Ariel means that is the show's traitor. In Babylon 5, we ironically have an entire race of traitors and dishonourable liars - the humans, led by Clark. He is not simply a villain, he is a deceitful villain, who gains power by stealth. He does not do this for merely his own personal gain, but for a thirst for power over a much wider area. He is thus not a petty antagonist or trickster, and certainly not a stately antagonist, but a traitor to his own race.
11. The warrior
We'd have Worf, Titus Pullo and a few others in this category. The warrior lives by the same code as the stately antagonists and the patriarch, regardless of whose side they are on. This code might be a mercernary one, such as the one Jayne follows, or a strict honourable one, like Worf's; regardless, loss of face will often be the worst blow that can be dealt to a warriror. They are, however, visibly and publicly subordinate to the patriarch, and will often be the everyman example of capable men following their rule. This will affirm the wisdom and power of the patriarch, by demonstrating their superiority over obviously powerful men such as Worf and Jayne.
If anyone comes up with any more or has comments on the ones above, please comment. I am rather interested in this whole thing.
These are mainly notes for when athena25 and I actually get around to writing all of this up; if any scholarly work already exists in this area, please do point me in that direction. athena25, luv, do you want to add to this with the arcana stuff you came up with?
The Archetypes I have identified thus far:
1. The outsider
The opening scene is often used to announce the villain or the hero in a folktale, and to begin the action. So: we have the introduction of Voldemort in Harry Potter, Sydney Bristow in Alias, and Buffy and Angel in their respective shows. In contrast, the opening scene of the montage discourse, we are given a character through whose eyes we will initially view the action; crucially, they are not the major character in the discourse, nor the most powerful. In Deadwood, we are introduced to Seth Bullock. In Rome, we have Lucius Vorenus; in Carnivale, it is Samson; in The West Wing, it's Sam Seaborn. In all of these cases, it is arguably the ' downtrodden everyman' - the one who is slightly apart due to low status, youth or other disadvantage - who is given voice. All of these characters are slightly apart from the rest of the arcana and will serve as our eyes because they will make the familiar strange to our eyes (Shklovsky: to make the stone stony).
2. The patriarch
The most powerful male in the group at the opening of the show - Al Swearengen, Julius Caesar, Jean-Luc Picard, G'Kar (does anyone wish to argue this? It would be interesting - other interpretations could have Kosh, or maybe Sinclair, but I am taking the 'beginning' as The Gathering), Jed Bartlett - may not be introduced until partway through the first episode, chapter or section. The outsider(s) will not necessarily encounter the patriarch - indeed, I'm going to argue that they do not, and it is impreative that they do not, at least until later on. In Deadwood, the fast meeting between Wild Bill Hickok and Seth Bullock left me confused, as I had taken Wild Bill for a patriarch figure, and it made no narrative sense for the meeting to happen that early. Notice that Al does not meet Seth until later or that Jed Bartlett is not introduced to the viewers until the very end of the first episode. Even then, he does not interact with Sam, who is our eyes; that is saved until a later episode.
The threat to the patriarch's power is one of the main plot strands in a montage/discourse, although, I do not wish to call it a strand, as it does not directly affect the outsider but instead is like a river, dragging the setting of the show, rather than the outsider himself. Thus, the threat to Al affects all of Deadwood and not Seth directly, and the threat to Picard affects the entire Federation (although, in the case of TNG, I do not see an outsider presented). In Rome, each and every threat to Caesar's power naturally affects all of Rome, and Pullo and Vorenus with it; it does not, however, affect them first and foremost.
3. The stately mother (a.k.a the crone)
We have Servilia in Rome, Maddie in Deadwood, Inara in Firefly and Abby Bartlett in The West Wing. The stately mother is a sexual person, although you would not automatically think of her as such; she only appears thus when she chooses to be. She is primarily a female counter to the patriarch, and will occasionally oppose him. Maddie is a threat to both Al and Cy; Abby is one of the few who can genuinely oppose Bartlett's plans within the West Wing itself. Servilia, of course, is first lover and then genuine threat to Caesar. The stately mother will often have younger females in her care, at least one of which will be significant within the main group of characters: Octavia, Joannie, Kaylee and Amy, for Servilia, Maddie, Inara and Abby, respectively. I would also argue that Delenn and Jean Grey also fall within this category.
4. The dashing right-hand man
The right-hand man is a feature of more military-minded discourses, which feature formal chains of command. We have Riker in TNG and Mark Antony in Rome. I would also argue that Dax serves the function of the dashing right-hand man in DSN, albeit in a formerly male guise. Dax will often behave in a way that conforms to the dashing r-h man archetype, in that she will be brave, smart and impeccably turned out. Dax is also allowed to have sex for pleasure, rather than long-lasting relationships, and has a genuine optimism that also seems to be required. The r-h man is not necessarily a womaniser, but he is a male archetype who affirms sex for pleasure, as a necessary mirror of the desirable young maiden. He is what every woman desires, and what every man aspires to be, as athena25 pointed out.
The dashing right-hand man may not necessarily be a formal XO. For instance, Tom Paris on Voyager fulfils the role while only being a Lieutenant. However, his share of screen time and A-plots is a great deal larger than Chakotay's. Furthermore, as Voyager has a stately mother in charge, the patriarch character would cover both Janeway and Chakotay - which safely slots Paris into the right-hand man slot, and puts Janeway and Chakotay in opposition over the command of the Maquis crew.
One possible choice for a dashing right-hand man in the case of The West Wing would be the VP, John Hoynes. This would be more difficult to reconcile to the archetype, as the r-h man is loyal to the patriarch; however, Hoynes's behaviour - although at times rebellious, as is Mark Antony's - in the end always includes a capitulation on his part, or an indulgence on the part of the patriarch. he is never a genuine threat, and is often an active ally. He is also handsome, dashing and relatively young, which is another requirement.
5. The desirable young maiden (a.k.a. the maiden)
This is Deanna Troi in TNG, Octavia in Rome, Kaylee in Firefly (and River in the film Serenity), and Kes in ST:V. We can also have a male version - Julian Bashir in DSN, as a necessary mirror to the female dashing right-hand man. This is played with in Our Man Bashir, but it is ultimately The Way of the Warrior that sealed it for me: Dax can play at being a helpless maiden, but she flirts and is self-possessed in a manner that ill-becomes her maiden costume. Worf, the warrior, is discomforted. Bashir, by contrast, pursues Dax in an about-turn. Later, we have the introduction of Ezri, who better fills the desirable young maiden role of courtly love, and thus allows Bashir to make the transition away from that role. Relating to Deanna, we have the strong relationship to older, more sexually forward women, and occasionally a father-like link to the patriarch character. This is also the case with Kes, who has strong links to Janeway. Other examples would include Donna Moss and Zoe Bartlett.
6. The sexual woman (a.k.a. the mother)
I dislike using the maiden/mother/crone set-up, as two of the three often over-lap and I would furthermore not describe any of the character as a 'crone' - the level of wisdom and power that implies is not necessarily reflective of characters such as Maddie or janeway. However, neither would I call them simply 'mothers', as they clearly do not fulfil that role either. Instead, if they are stately mothers - powerful and regal, but still sexual and assailable - we must have someone in between, who has some power, but is more sexual than she is powerful. Here, we have Lwaxana Troi, Atia of the Julii, Inara - the cross-over between stately mother and sexual woman - CJ Cregg, Alma Garrett, Trixie and Susan Ivanova. We would also have Brenda from Six Feet Under. The sexual woman embodies the carnal appetites, much as the maiden symbolises courtly love and the stately mother symbolises power and maternity. The sexual woman will be a sexual creature without it leading to the pain and obligation of childbirth. This can either be done by having her be too old for childbirth, or by putting her in a position where children are 'not allowed' - the military, in Ivanova's case, or a brothel, in Trixie's. Alma Garrett is a rather young sexual woman, but she is, first and foremost, a widow, which figures 'death' as a sign before the follower of 'children', implying, at most, a still-birth. Alma can indulge her carnal appetite, but as she is no longer a maiden, she will not be able to bear its fruits.
The sexual woman will acknowledge the appeal of the patriarch, but she will often not be linked with him - that link is for the stately mother. This is one argument why Beverly Crusher is more a stately mother than a sexual woman: for one thing, she is not sexual but is instead aloof and self-possessed; for another, she is a genuine match for Picard where Lwaxana can only desire him. The main relationship the sexual woman will have will be with her children, if she has any - with Sofia, in Alma's case; with Wesley, in Beverly's. Atia's main relationships are with her children - those with other men come and go. Women like Brenda, CJ and Ivanova, who do not have children, are in an interesting position, because they are not simply shown to be sexual and ambitious, they are shown to be thus to the exclusion of nature and childbearing.
The character of Kai Winn is interesting, in that she initially starts out as a stately mother - albeit one opposed to the Sisko-patriarch - who then morphs into a sexual woman. This ultimately leads to her downfall, reinforcing the idea of sex as something to rise above, as it is somehow dirty and pollutes the body (and body-politik).
7. The prodigy / the boy genius
Ban Hawkins is blessed in Carnivale; Wesley Crusher is extraordinarily gifted in TNG; Octavian is terrifyingly intelligent in Rome. All of these young boys are precocious and with paths mapped out for them. They begin the show as playing pieces, moved about by the patriarch, and will often either become patriarchs or stately antagonists.
8. The stately antagonist
The stately antagonist is the counter to the patriarch - the opposing side's equivalent. That would be Magneto to our Xavier and Pompey to our Caesar. Star Trek went one step further, and created an entire race of these stately antagonists: initially the Romulans, they later became the Klingons, with the Romulans slipping to the role of dishonourable liars. In Carnivale, we also have Brother Justin - with Iris as the stately mother/sexual woman twin archetype - and in Deadwood we briefly had Wild Bill Hickok. Interestingly, Wild Bill was presented in such as a way as to make the viwer wonder if he was the patriarch, rather than the antagonist; it is only with his death and the arrival of Cy Tolliver that he becomes the stately antagonist, and Cy the petty one.
9. The petty antagonist / the trickster
Q in TNG; Dukat in DSN; Cy Tolliver in Deadwood and perhaps Cato and Cicero in Rome. The trickster is not necessarily a figure of fun, although he can be played this way. Rather, he does not have the vision or perhaps the resources to be a true counter to the statesmanship of the patriarch. The trickster would be linked to Loki, but would often be a middle-aged man, to allow for the play of comedy without lapsing into pathos. An example of a race of petty antagonists used in Star Trek would be the Ferengi.
10. The dishonourable liar/ the traitor
The Romulans and their cloaking device quickly cast them in the role of the dishonourable liar, although the Cardassians could also be used in this way (they were too vicious to be a petty antagonist, and too limited in their vision to be a stately one). I would argue that Brutus is not a traitor in the Rome mythos, as he does what he is compelled to do by the demands of his mother, and by Caesar moving against him first. Indeed, I would argue that there are no traitors in Rome, as there are plenty of antagonists and they are not needed. In Firefly, however, Jayne is a traitor, albeit a reformed one: he starts off as a hero, briefly becomes a villain, and in the end he redeems himself. However, the act of betrayal in Ariel means that is the show's traitor. In Babylon 5, we ironically have an entire race of traitors and dishonourable liars - the humans, led by Clark. He is not simply a villain, he is a deceitful villain, who gains power by stealth. He does not do this for merely his own personal gain, but for a thirst for power over a much wider area. He is thus not a petty antagonist or trickster, and certainly not a stately antagonist, but a traitor to his own race.
11. The warrior
We'd have Worf, Titus Pullo and a few others in this category. The warrior lives by the same code as the stately antagonists and the patriarch, regardless of whose side they are on. This code might be a mercernary one, such as the one Jayne follows, or a strict honourable one, like Worf's; regardless, loss of face will often be the worst blow that can be dealt to a warriror. They are, however, visibly and publicly subordinate to the patriarch, and will often be the everyman example of capable men following their rule. This will affirm the wisdom and power of the patriarch, by demonstrating their superiority over obviously powerful men such as Worf and Jayne.
If anyone comes up with any more or has comments on the ones above, please comment. I am rather interested in this whole thing.