Archetypes

I thought it might be fun to explore the archetypal characters in SW in the following way:

+ Specify an Archetype found in SW
+ Indentify your favorite SW character who falls into that Archetype
+ Illustrate this type by naming a non-SW character who exemplifies that Archetype

I'll kick it off by pin-pointing my favorite Archetype: the 'wise old man'. I have always found the notion of mentoring to be very powerful. I cherish the various mentors I have had in life and the times I have been able to mentor someone else.

My favorite SW character of this type is Qui-Gon Jinn. The perfect mix between risk-taker and self-sacrificing visionary, he exemplifies all that is best in a mentor. He also serves as a reminder that all mentors, however inspired and talented, are only human: they make mistakes. The point of a mentor is to help one find their own center, not to simply borrow one from their mentor. One of my favorite mottos originated with Qui-Gon: "An opportunity will present itself".

Apart from SW I find the character of Viswamithra from the Sanscrit epic Ramayana to be an inspiring character. He is not unlike Qui-Gon and I think the Ramayana may have inspired the PT to some degree. Viswamithra is powerful but humble, yet he is not afraid to speak his mind and disagree with more powerful men when he feels strongly about something. His method of initiating Rama is not unlike Qui-Gon's with Anakin - by taking him on adventure and allowing him to find his own path.

Now your turn!

 

Interesting topic.

I would also have to go with Qui-Gon Jinn. But not because he was the 'wise old man' but the 'emotional thinker/risk taker' type. In that way he reminds me of myself, always thinking with my emotions, not with my head. I also love that quote "Im sure an opportunity will present itself." He leaves his actions to fate, taking whatever comes.

To match him up with other favourite characters, I'm thinking along the lines of Captain Kirk and Captain Sheridan (Babylon 5) They took huge risks to save themselves, friends, their beliefs, and took whatever came their way as a result. That's how I try to live, and hope to for years to come.

 

Interesting topic. I'm familiar with the Ramayana but never related it to the PT. Very nice.

Another archetype is the prodigal son. Anakin is a son to many (Shmi, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Palpatine) and lets them all down at some time but returns to redeem himself in the end.

 

Since Palpatine is my favorite character, I'll write about his archetype, the personification of "Ultimate Evil."

Often this archetype is symbolically a being of shadow, darkness within darkness, operating outside the frame and vision of the other characters, even the other "evil" characters and those bordering good and evil. The Ultimate Evil operates on planes not only above that of the other characters but on planes outside even any frame of reference they may have. A normal character seeing the actions of the Ultimate Evil, such as the death of millions, would question "Why?" The Ultimate Evil would answer, if he deigns answer at all, "because this is as it must be." In other words, you are not even fit to ask, "Why?" because you have no frame of reference; the unifying vision is outside your conception or capability. There is no motivation only a devotion to the ideal because it is ideal, the best, and only "I" can implement it. The best is not always what is the most desirable to most people because they are expendable in such a pure vision, not being the best themselves.

Of paramount importance is this vision, the unifying concept or order. The vision is rooted in experiences or thoughts which others would not even begin to imagine, thus others would not understand. If something stands in the way of fulfillment of this vision, it must be eliminated without concern, simply because it conflicts with the underlying concept. The Ultimate Evil has only contempt for others and for any vision not his own. Nothing, and nobody, is worthy except that which operates towards the furtherance and fulfillment of his vision. Jango, Zam, and Nute Gunray are, however indirectly, worth a little something to the Ultimate Evil because of the role they serve but are inherently worth nothing as people. If someone or something else is capable of fulfilling the same role, then they are dispensable. The trick is to convince them that they are necessary or that it is to their own benefit to act in a certain manner ("You don't need guidance, Anakin"), then dispense with them when done (Maul, Tyranus, Vader, Luke?). This contrasts to the tactics of operatives of the Ultimate Evil like Vader, who sees no need to convince (force choke) because he operates in a context of self-deluded certainty, where he believes in his segment or role in the plan without question and thinks that others should as well, or Dooku, who manipulates and uses force to further his part in the plan because he is under the impression (false) that he "can do better" and become the Ultimate Evil himself.

Even those who are operatives in establishing the unifying vision or concept may only understand a part of it or only their role within the structure (Dooku or Saruman in LOTR) or make the choice to participate out of a sense that the order is better than that which came before it or its alternatives(Anakin/Vader). These operatives are not capable of seeing the utter ruthlessness, pervasiveness and true nature of the vision. While such operatives think or accept they are evil or must, at the least, perform what are considered evil acts, they have no conception of what true evil is. They would recoil in disgust or bafflement if they were confronted, without a mask, with the unambiguity and purity that is true evil. Good is a confusing, often timid, unappealing and lacklustre creature which, at times, coughs up something worthy which is often not even noticed. Evil is awesomely sublime and often cannot be comprehended unless one is truly and purely evil oneself.

To cover this overpowering, sublime form, the Ultimate Evil often presents itself as a tempting and appealing visage (the benign and well-meaning Supreme Chancellor) to the other characters in order to lure them into his snares and to ensure the implementation of his vision. See also the serpent's alluring sales pitch to Eve in the midst of a paradisiacal garden; Satan's temptation of Christ offering him the kingdoms of the world; Nixon's appeals to the "Silent Majority;" Hitler's shoddy

 

Vader: The fallen angel, the disgraced knight, the disillusioned gaurdian, and the evil henchman.
He's all those rolled up into one.

 

Outstanding PA! Let's have more in-depth, thought-provoking posts like that! This could be a truly great Thread.

 

Eh.

+ Specify an Archetype found in SW
+ Indentify your favorite SW character who falls into that Archetype
+ Illustrate this type by naming a non-SW character who exemplifies that Archetype

One archetype would have to be the fabolous Obi-Wan Kenobi, who spans both the PT and the OT as a central character. He's the "tragic hero" archetype. In the PT, he is everyone's hero. He has a role and knows how to feel it. He stepped into Qui-Gon's shoes and has flaws, but that's okay. Everyone does, and it makes him more human, thus being a tragic hero. He fights for what is right, for what he believes in, and what is ultimately the justification of everything the Jedi stand for: the Force. He has his flaws, and he made his mistakes, but people can look at him and say, "wow. He did what he had to do." People relate to that. It not only comes from the fact people often want someone better than them to compare themselves to, it comes from the fact that it's true.

Obi-Wan in the PT stage is radical, ready to try many things. The Obi-Wan we see in the OT is jaded and tired, not cynical and not bitter, somewhere between the two. He has seen too many things for his time and things no one should ever see. He has come to realize his mistakes and has spent years going over them again and again and again. He focuses on them, on what he did, and tries to correct it. At the end, he learns everything he should have and there are ways he redeems himself: sacrificing himself for Luke, helping him when Yoda didn't want to, etc..

He is a tragic hero all around. He acted on his beliefs to the best of ability and tried his hardest at what was put in front of him. He tried because he truly believed in Anakin, in what he could become. His beliefs were wrong, however, and during his exile on Tatooine he learned that, and how to deal with them.

Creon in Antigone is like this. He, too, acts at the base of what he thinks is right and fails. Miserably. That, however, can be forgotten in the fact that he was acting on what he thought was best. That has to be respected somehow. Obi-Wan did the same thing, and though they bother were wrong, they followed their hearts no matter where it took them, never wavering in the path when things were thrown at them.

Woah. I got an idea for a thread. That was probably rambling, but I'm tired.

-Krystal

 

Wow - Another great post. Awesome KB! Keep 'em comin' guys!

 

Excellent posts! I am truly impress.

 

Would anyone care to tackle 'The Fool'?

 

This is a great idea for a thread.

But I have problems with Obi-wan being a tragic hero. I have done a lot of research into this for my thread at the 3SA Anakin/Vader as Aristotle's Tragic Hero. Anakin is the real tragic hero.

Alot of people hold a misconception as to what "tragic hero" means. Being a tragic hero is not, in any way, a good thing. They usually become villians, the difference is- you know they used to be good, but through a series of unfortunate events, they turn evil. You both pity and fear them. Redemption isn't necessarily implied either, in fact it rarely happens (think Shakespeare's tragic heros- Othello, Macbeth etc, as well as those from Greek/Roman mythology Oedipus, Achilles, Medea...)



The Greek philosopher Aristotle gave the most famous extended definition of tragedy in his Ars Poetica . Shakespeare's tragic works are similar. These are the characteristics:

1. A faulty or corrupt society, or at least some particular characters who are decidedly more wicked [The Sith/Palpatine] than the tragic hero [Anakin].

2. A tragic hero: by Aristotle's definition, a man who is neither completely evil nor good, but somewhere in between. The audience will usually identify or sympathize with the tragic hero, instinctively.

3. The Hero?s tragic flaw: (a) a chronic shortcoming in character, often called a "tragic flaw." In Shakespeare it is usually related, paradoxically, to the tragic hero's ideals of some sort; and it leads him into metaphorical "madness" which is barely distinguishable (if at all) from real madness. A particular result of this idealism/madness is that the hero will imagine the people around him as worse than they are and ironically he becomes more "corrupt" or dangerous than the social corruption he deplores [Perfect description of Anakin]. (b) a specific mistaken act, related to or caused by the "flaw."

4. The mistaken act [the turn] will prove harmful to someone so close to the tragic hero as to be almost a "part of himself" [Padme/Obi-Wan]; the beginning of a gradual suicide [servitude to Sidous and the Dark Side] .

5. The hero discovers the mistake, and suffers and dies for it.

6. The full effect, as Aristotle had suggested, is to raise and purge the emotions of pity and fear in the audience, a sort of therapeutic cleansing of the imagination.


Shakespeare's tragic heroes generally fit the Aristotelian definition. Their moral failings vary greatly, but the tragic "mistake" is most typically associated with some sort of idealism that the hero believes himself to be practicing; some "code of behavior"[Anakin believes himself to be the "the most powerful" Jedi. He, incredibly idealistic as he is, becomes disillusioned with them and does what he himself believes is "right" for the Galaxy].

As Shakespearean comedy suggests, a rigid belief in the rightness of one's own course can be dangerous. Appearance does not correspond to reality, and that paradox destroys the tragic hero, who remains blind to it until after the reversal of his fortunes. The hero's "discovery" is only that appearances have played him a dirty trick; he does not discover the part his own blindness had in the tragedy. [Palpatine has manipulated Anakin that what he is doing is "right" and he believes that so blindly, he doesn't realize the truth until it's too late]

In fact, it shows a great persistence in his character that he typically tries to vindicate his idealized self-image in a final flurry of violence and/or suicide[End of Ep. III, by fighting Obi-Wan, his mentor and friend, he is trying to convince himself that yes, what he is doing is "right". This violence continues through the OT]. The paradox of tragedy is that a catastrophic change results from the blind constancy of one or more persons [ie. The Jedi Order/Obi-Wan].

Nevertheless, tragedy reaffirms the basic order of the natural universe [balance to the Force], after purging a "m

 

Excellent post!

 

Unlocking and upping for new discussion.

 

I like this discussion.

My contribution will be a brief word on everyones favorite smmugler, Han Solo the "Pirate with a heart of gold". Like a hired gun of the old west, he rolls into town with nothing but his six-shooter and his faithful companion. The Tanto to his Lone Ranger(come to think of it, if Tanto was always with him he really wasn't that "Lone" but I digress) The man with no past, no family and no regrets. The outlaw Josie Wales who doubles back for a friend.

When I look at Han, I see a cowboy(right down to the Yeahhoo! in the closing moments of ANH), but if anyone can expand on this I'm sure the archetype goes farther back.

 

I think more could be said about Obi-Wan. While I appreciate the comments made about his "tragic hero" status, I tend to agree with RebelScum that Obi-Wan doesn't quite fit this particular label. Make no mistake, that is what an archetype is: a label. And while labels make for easy categorizations, I'd like to think that there is more room for critical play in the GFFA then is made available by strictly archetypal analysis.

Getting away from Aristotelian interpretations a little bit, I think it's useful to examine the internal contradictions one must accept if one is to accept Obi-Wan's archetypal status. Obi-Wan is indeed a character that can accurately be identified as the Jungian "wise old man" ; however, he can also be more than that. By making the prequels, Lucas has cut the SW saga open from a critical point of view, countering the OT's mythic monologism with a new aesthetic of self-conscious intertexuality.

In the OT, Obi-Wan is "the wise old man", but in the PT, he is portrayed within an evolving developmental frame as apprentice, knight, and young master; he is a fully realized, organic individual. Now, when one watches the A New Hope, one cannot help but see in Old Ben a multiplicity of identities rather than a strictly archetypal (and, quite honestly, strictly one-dimensional) character. Does this make Obi-Wan (and the saga as a whole) less mythical? I don't think so, not by a long shot. I do believe, however, that the intertextual, self-referential nature of the prequels has deconstructed many of the archetype myths that have dominated critical analysis of the SW saga.

I am interested in hearing what others think of this idea.

 

Call me an ignorant newbe, but what does GFFA stand for?

 

Fun topic.

GFFA is typically short hand for "Galaxy Far, Far Away". Yeah, we all have a 'doh' moment when we figure that one out. In EU it has something to do with a compact between the galaxy's governments, but that is an Expanded Universe discussion.

Earlier, someone asked for a treatment of the Fool, or the Holy Fool. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, so I'd like to give it a go.

Jar-Jar Binks is the Holy Fool of the Star Wars Saga.
Hear me out. No really.
The Holy Fool has two rolls to play typically, and in Star Wars, Jar-Jar seemingly does them all.

Firstly, the Fool teaches by his mistakes, yet comes out ahead because of his innocence. While bumbling around Jar-Jar takes out multiple droids and handful of tanks, all with out meaning too. The Fool is often a clown. This is evoked clearly in many Native American myths, where Coyote dies so many times the spirits weary of having to transport him back from the afterlife. Yet, for his seeming bumbling he gets his desired effects.

Secondly, the Fool enables the heroes to succeed. Without Jar-Jar Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan would have spent TPM dodging droids, having never found the Gungan city. They never would have made both governments recognize the symbiotic circle their cultures formed, and the Gungans would never have drawn the majority of the Trade Federation army from the city. My favorite example of this roll is the Paladin enchanter Malagigi. He is forever showing up disguised as an old man to set another Paladin on the path to an enchanted castle, or to find a magical steed.

Thirdly, the Fool destroys the current order, allowing a new to be built in its place after much conflict. Loki of Norse myth sets in motion the death of Balder, causing the sundering of the golden age. Jar-Jar calls for the granting of emergency powers to Palpatine, putting in motion Palpatine's rise to the Emperor's throne. However, in most myths, Star Wars included, this will in the end lead to a better, more stable order.

 

Great Jar Jar post.

I wonder how 'the Fool' will fare in ROTS?

What more, traditionally, is there in store for this particular archetype? (no spoilers, please. <G>)

 

I'm spoiler free too, so I really don't have any clue to Jar-Jar's fate. I can just make conjecture.

Traditionally the fool is hard to predict. However, not many fools have died, at least until after the story is over.
Loki is under punishment till Ragnarok (one of the few who gets caught).
Aeolus left Hercules to play with some nymphs as I recall.
The story of Percival has a few endings, in one he alone is able to find the Holy Grail because of his purity. In all the tellings I'm aware of he lives a long life and eventually dies.
Coyote dies a bunch of times, but never for long.
I don't think I've ever read a story where Raven dies.
Puck (Robin Goodfellow) is immortal.
Actually, The Trixter is one of the few Archetypes who can cheat Death. Recall, Jack of the Jack-o-Lantern. He made his lantern for the purpose of cheating Death.

I think this cheating of death ties in with the Yoda we see at first in ESB. He cheats the death of the Jedi so he can train Luke down the line. Yoda becomes the Fool, and uses the role to good effect in testing young Luke.

Regardless, if Jar-Jar follows the path, he'll probably survive RotS, but I hope Lucas gives his path some closure.

I read an article (written back in 2000 no less) that suggested it would be mythologically fitting for Jar-Jar to retrieve the Skywalker twins and deliver them to Obi-Wan, as Jar-Jar has the purity to retrieve the elixir or grail as it were. Again, it's all conjecture

 

The Faceless Minion

TK-421. (I don't know of any other stormtrooper or clonetrooper, at least from the movies.) The most common purpose of the faceless minion is to fight poorly but have such large numbers that they can possibly be a threat. Even when rhetoric to the contrary is put out in official movie literature, that doesn't make the shemps on screen any more competnent. They're disposable and can be easily played by anyone of the right height and build because their faces are covered. They, or rather their face-obscuring uniform, also serves as impromptu disguises for heroes going undercover.

What fascinates me about the faceless minion is that I envitably want to know more about them, either as a group (i.e. their origins--are all stormtroopers clones, as the PT hints?) or singly (if not, was TK-421 a clone or a recruit; if a recruit, did he have a life before the Empire?). I find people in masks, even regulation masks, to be cool (goes back to Snake-Eyes from the late '80s/early '90s GI Joe comic, I think, and likely even further, all the way back to Star Wars). 's the whole mystery thing, I guess. Even when you know what they look like and who they really are, the mask is like a catalyst in a chemical transformation: it turns the husband, the daughter, the eager youth into a professional. Not always a competent professional, but your enemy not being able to tell what you're thinking gives even the clumsiest Red Shirt type something of an edge.

A really well-designed outfit can turn faceless minions from mere cannon fodder (see virutally any low-budget sci-fi movie produced after Star Wars) into someone who at least looks like they could kill you. The best part is when you get faceless minions who are actual badasses--not just rank-and-file faceless minions, but elite faceless minions (though the heroes are still able to dispatch them with relative ease), such as the Crimson Guard Commanders in GI Joe. (The Crimson Guard are the elite of the rank-and-file Vipers, and the Commanders are the best, smartest, and most loyal of the Guard. Their portable missile launcher was neon frickin' yellow. Sweeeet.)

What's even better is when a faceless minion becomes his own character with a face (such as the cloned Crimson Guard named Fred, who had at least five incarnations that I'm aware of, each of whom was a different person with different goals--one retired to suburban life, for example, and one took over COBRA, posing as Cobra Commander).

Which is why I really like the idea of the Empire of the Hand's stormtroopers. To the outside world, they're faceless minions. To each other, they're friends or surrogate family, with their own quirks, foibles, and abilities. Which is why I'm including/creating one for a fanfic I'm writing...