Archetype versus Trope

I was having a discussion in an internet forum and became frustrated when...

Okay, okay, I've already inspired a few groans and eye-rolls. But I can't help it. Sometimes I argue on the internet. There, I've said it. I'm sorry. It's a weakness.

Anyway, I was having a discussion about whether a certain character was a rip-off of Wolverine from the X-Men. Now do you see why it was an important debate?

Some participants said this rip-off character wasn't a rip-off because it was an archetype. You know, the archetype of the guy who was granted terrific strength and power but the pain of it was so great he can't remember before it happened? (No, you don't know that archetype, because it doesn't exist.) Then a discussion began about archetypes and tropes, including the claim that they were identical. And this is when I became frustrated.

Archetypes are powerful symbols, stand-ins for something larger, and they are universally understood. This isn't the Marvel Universe we're talking about, it's the universe as understood by human beings, including cultures that have never heard of adamantium. In Jungian psychology they are part of a collectively inherited unconsciousness and we'd recognize them whether we read comics or not. Examples of archetypes are the hero, the trickster, the devil. Literary archetypes are things like the outcast, star-crossed lovers, the quest. In part it's their simplicity that allows them to be universal.

Tropes are similar, but not the same. Literary tropes have become what we call common devices used in stories, like a cliche but without the connotation that it's boring or negative. TVTropes.com* has a good definition and a great collection of literary tropes, including Wolverine, who is listed as an example of the Dark and Troubled Past, Heroic Sociopath, Unstoppable Rage, and Those Wacky Nazis. Tropes. Not archetypes. Tropes depend on some familiarity with the culture they come from. For instance, I'm familiar with most of the science fiction tropes, but absolutely ignorant of those from Japanese anime. And regardless of their origin, tropes can become complicated. They can blend together to create bigger, scarier tropes. Look at any article to see all the connections to other tropes, the tropes at different levels, versions of tropes, and so forth.

The Mother Goddess is an archetype,
the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a trope,
and never shall the two overlap.

Alas, TVTropes.com does not list "the trope of the guy who is granted terrific strength and power but the pain of it was so great he can't remember before it happened," because it's a conglomeration of a few tropes. So those who argued that this other character follows the same tropes as Wolverine might have a point. But those who argued that both characters are based on an archetype are just plain wrong.

It's fascinating to me that the average person has started to consider these more complicated ideas as archetypes. It's as if it feels like we've seen it all before and so it must be universal. Does this mean storytelling is getting naturally more complicated, or simpler? Or maybe that I should just stop arguing on the internet?

* Do not visit TVTropes.com. You may never leave.

Forging an audience

Livia Blackburne recently posted about how writers' blogs are usually aimed at other writers, and instead of creating a market for ourselves we create one never-ending writing conference. I think she has a point. When I starting this blog all my posts were about writing, improving writing skills, the publishing industry, and generally everything writers might enjoy reading--but not much aimed at non-writing readers.

Since I'm a scientist I couldn't help but break down my previous posts into categories. The results are fascinating. Although my focus is both libraries and the writing life, exactly half of all posts have been about the writing life and only 3.3% have been specifically about libraries. 7.5% of my posts are actual fiction, whether short stories or writing exercises, and 7.1% are about technology such as ebooks or iPhones. Posts about fiction generally--a subject I'd think would be interesting to potential readers--make up 14.2% of my content, and posts about specific books and authors (including my own books for sale) make up 12.1%.

I am a good scientist so here is a pretty graphic that better illustrates the data.

I like it. I would never have been able to use the wonky 3D round bar graph in my dissertation. (Edited to say: And thanks to Anton Gully and Professor Cat for the obvious improvements to the graph, which was actually pretty dull until they got to it.)

My introduction to this blog says, "Welcome to Scribo Ergo Sum, where a librarian and writer mixes her interests and presents them to the world, sometimes half-baked." I'm curious if my audience cares that few posts are specifically about libraries. Do you? Is the librarian slant what keeps you reading, or is it an extra? In either case, I can't actually divorce my library life from my content. It's a part of me and always part of my perception whether or not I admit that in every article.

The data I collected suggests my content is changing. When I started this blog in 2007 nearly all of my posts were about the writing life. Now more and more they are about technology, other fiction, books and authors. Either I'm allowing myself more freedom, or I'm reacting to feedback. I have no idea which. I'm also aware that even non-writing readers are interested in the writing life.

If you read this blog regularly, I'd love your feedback. What type of content do you enjoy? What bores you? Why are you here, and what are you looking for--if anything?

Friday Flash: "The Perfect Part"

"The Perfect Part"
by Jen Brubacher
Aggy woke up with her hair perfectly parted on the wrong side of her head. She thought, This is going to be trouble.

It was, and almost immediately. The postman handed over her mail, distracted, so she had to grab it before it fell.

“I’m sorry. I think I may have given something to the wrong—” He looked up the street in a panic.

“No, no,” she said. “It’s just my hair.”

“It’s perfectly parted.”

“Yes, but on the wrong side.”

He frowned. “Well, why did you do that?”

“I woke up this way.”

Now he looked downright annoyed. “Well, how did you go to sleep?” He stomped off to finish his deliveries.

Aggy went to peer at herself in the bathroom mirror. She wondered, Is this how people usually see me? It looked all wrong, the shape unfamiliar. Her face wasn’t her own. She picked up her comb, and then saw the time.

Jogging for the bus, she felt her hair heavy on one side of her head. The wrong side. She tried to ignore it.

Usually the driver saw her and waited if she was running late. This time she waved down the block, a relieved grin breaking out across her face, but the driver’s eyes passed over her and the bus pulled away from the curb, leaving her stranded. Aggy tried to smile, abashed, at another commuter she recognized who was waiting for another bus, but the woman only sniffed and put her face into her book.

Aggy wondered, How did I go to sleep? She couldn’t remember doing anything with her hair. She remembered finishing a glass of red wine, the sleepy slump in front of the sink as she brushed her teeth, and sloping off to bed. There was nothing out of the ordinary about it. Even falling into sleep had been its usual struggle between weariness and stress, the next day’s plans flickering through her mind as unchangeable moments from the previous day replayed like commercials.

She sat down at her desk five minutes late and received an uncertain glare from a co-worker.

“It’s my hair,” Aggy told her.

Nan shook her head and shuffled things on her desk, moving a potted plant from one side to the other. “No, I just heard Grant talking in the back. He wants to see you as soon as possible.”

Aggy sighed. “I was only five minutes late.”

Nan winced. “I don’t think that’s it. He’s asked for Freddy, too.”

Freddy was the other newest staff member, hired some months ago but a few days before Aggy. He’d come out of his performance review singing his own praises, whereas Aggy had limped out, wondering how she could “Turn over a new leaf” in the world of marketing bottle-caps. The company was always talking about scaling back. If they’d made a decision…

Aggy looked at her face once more in the reflection in the glass on one of Nan’s photo frames. Her new hair-style couldn’t put off the inevitable.

Freddy met her in the lift up to Grant’s office. He smirked.

“Ready for this, Aggs?”

“Not in the least.”

“Maybe you’re not cut out for corporate life?” he offered, straightening his tie.

Aggy wished he’d woken up with a tie he couldn’t straighten. She patted her hair and sighed.

Grant squinted at them both as they came into his office. “This wasn’t my decision,” he said to Aggy, before giving Freddy a reassuring nod. He then performed a double-take and looked back to Aggy. His thick eyebrows drew together in confusion.

“Yes?” Freddy said eagerly. “Best to rip these things off quickly, like a band-aid.”

“Er.” Grant tilted his head. “Yes, of course. The thing is, the company has decided that the current economic climate for bottle-cap distribution supports fewer entry-level positions than we currently employ.”

Freddy nodded and waved a hand to get on with it. Grant blinked and looked to Aggy, who bowed her head—so her perfect part was completely visible.

“Ah,” said Grant. “I’m afraid we’re going to have to let you go, Freddy.”

“What?” Freddy said. “What?”

When Aggy got home that evening she brushed her hair straight back, letting it part however it wanted.

---

Photo: Apprivoise-moi by José Manuel Ríos Valiente on flickr

Boldly gone

If you were glued to NASA TV this morning as I was you'd have seen the shuttle Atlantis leaving the International Space Station for the last time. In fact, it's the last time any NASA space shuttle will leave the ISS.

NASA intends to concentrate on sending astronauts further on--to meteors and Mars, leaving ISS missions to private companies and other nations. In fact, they've left a flag on board the station as a prize to the first private company to arrive.

I'm not American so it's not as if I had a say in this but I certainly had a stake. NASA have been where it's at my whole life. Don't get me wrong, I adore the Canadarm, but since NASA won the space race they've been the ones to watch for pretty much every major space discovery. As such, they've been the inspiration for every discovery we haven't yet made. Everything we imagine must be out there, but haven't reached. Stellar investigation continues but it's easy to feel like the end of the shuttle program signifies the end of all that, too. So I got a bit teary watching Atlantis and the ISS say goodbye. Judging by the faces at mission control, I wasn't the only one with something in my eye.

And if you think this has nothing to do with writing, with creativity and imagination, I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. I'm not even sure we're from the same planet.

The slap

Writers are not really as moody as we're made out to be. It's just that we're skittish because at any moment we could get slapped in the face with no warning until it suddenly--OW.

This week, for instance. It was a terrific time for me. I went road-tripping through beautiful Cornwall and Snowdonia, and graduated with my Masters (finally!) When I returned home happy and relaxed I promptly SLAP got an email rejection for a short story I'd submitted some time ago.

How to respond? Not to the rejector, but the situation? I was still happy and relaxed, but also disappointed and a bit sad. There's a sudden shift that comes with rejection. One moment you've written a story, edited it, found a good market and sent it out. It's a huge accomplishment in itself. Then the next moment you've written a story that doesn't fit its good market and might have to be re-evaluated and edited further, then more market research, then sent out again. It's not a huge adjustment, but it is an adjustment. And you never know when this is going to happen. The only guarantee is that it's probably going to happen many times, at odd intervals, no matter what else is going on in your life.

One memorable week a while ago I received five rejections in five days. Usually resilient, by the end of that week I was feeling absolutely battered. The only thing that got me through was the knowledge that five rejections meant I'd been sending out a lot of material for possible publication. It took me a long time to get to that point, so the overwhelming evidence of my determination was welcome. Right?

Be kind to the writers in your life. They may not show it, being skittish kind of people, but they might have just had a five rejection week.

In a fantasy world...

I enjoy a story where a person fights the odds. Like most people, I love an underdog. It’s human. So yes, when a woman fights back against a traditional system of oppression to become a pretty awesome character anyway, I enjoy it. I adore Eowyn in The Lord of the Rings, and I’m growing fond of Aerys in Game of Thrones (Thanks to John & Icy for your comments on my previous post.)

What I tried to express yesterday was that although this can be a good thing, it has been done before, and it isn’t necessary. Or it isn’t necessarily necessary. I was trying to express that writers should build the worlds of their stories with intention and forethought, and not only rely on stereotypes that readers are used to.

In particular in the Fantasy genre it seems that a sexist society is the norm. Kings naturally rule and princesses occasionally defy their fathers to become more important than they should have been. Although we can all think of examples of good female characters arising from this convention (such as the previously mentioned Eowyn and Aerys,) that doesn’t mean all writers have to step in line. Rather, they should consider why they’re resorting to that sexist society, what role it plays in their story and if it’s truly the best route to take.

It might be the best route. And I might love your story anyway. But for me as a reader, I’m growing tired of the stereotype. I would like to read about a female character in a fantasy novel that excels as a human being rather than a woman, and who rises above the expected for anyone, not just for a girl. I would like to read a woman in a fantasy who never has to consider that she’s meant to be smaller, weaker, and quieter. In fact, I’d like sexism not to be the norm in Fantasy.

Though I suspect from what’s on offer that I’m in the minority.

"Anything you ask m'lord," she says repeatedly.

Fantasy novels don't have to be sexist.

Even if you're writing about kings and queens in a feudal system, sexism is not a necessity. Being historically accurate about that system within a fantasy novel can be a good way to have the reader's expectations defined for you ahead of time, and if you're using it to break convention in some creative way it can be powerful. But you go for sexist in a fantasy novel just because that's how it was in the real world, is that creative and powerful? Or is that incredibly lazy?

It's lazy. And you may be alienating a good part of your audience. If you're world building in a fantasy novel, some of the reader's excitement is because they can imagine themselves in that fantasy world. They can place themselves as a rogue or a monarch, as a mage or a warrior. They can love your characters and make Mary Sues of themselves within the story, or break off within your multi-faceted universe to define their own stories. Fantasy writing is a terrific way to get yourself right into a reader's imagination.

But if every woman within the world that you've built is either a docile princess or a scullery maid, I wouldn't want to imagine myself there. End of story. It's fantasy. It can be anything. It doesn't have to be a depressing history lesson.

Please don't be lazy. It's not a good attribute in a writer.

---

Photo: Princess Aurora by Omnitographer on flickr

Faking British

I just passed the Life in the UK test. For those not in the know, this is a test for people seeking citizenship or indefinite leave to remain in Britain. It quizzes knowledge of politics, history, religion, and society in general, as well as your command of the English language. If you want to try it, this webpage has some (unofficial) tests you can take.

I'm relieved I passed. But I couldn't help wishing that passing the test meant I really did understand life in the UK in an all-encompassing way, so I could write like I actually live here (which I do) and like I was born here (which I wasn't.)

I've written a few stories and novels based in the UK, both Edinburgh and London. And every time I feel a sense of uncertainty, like I'm writing about an alien planet. I can write about my life in the UK, but that isn't fiction. I can incorporate those bits into my stories, but if my character was born here there are things that get missed. I can describe working here, using public transit, buying petrol, using a library, heading out on a Thursday night, Saturday in Soho, a sunny day in Regent's Park--but there's always something that seems to trip me up. I studied a lot for my Life in the UK test, but it didn't tell me what it's like to be someone who has honestly never left London (it happens, incomprehensible to me) or to have two parents on the dole. I can add Cockney rhyming slang, but not without sounding insincere. I don't really like football. At all. I will never personally go through the primary education system. I had to be told what Blue Peter was, and what it means to be "too orangey for crows." There's a layer of Britishness that I can't quite tap no matter how much time I spend here or what I learn. It's the layer that remains Canadian within me, no matter where I am or who I'm with. The layer that will always prefer hot chocolate and hockey to strawberries and tennis.

Oh, well. I suppose I'll continue to develop my UK lying/writing as well as I can, and remain satisfied that at least I can identify when someone makes a poor attempt at Canadianism.

Though in my experience that's never been a real joy to witness.