Volger annotation IV

In this reading, Volger discusses the first two stages of the hero's journey. The first part of any narrative should begin with an introduction to the "ordinary world" in which the audience is introduced to the hero, as well as the nature of the story to come (comedic, dramatic, metaphor driven, etc.). He begins with a very rudimentary synopsis of the "ordinary world" function through an except of a story as told by cavemen, to illustrate the universality and timelessness of this story telling component. He goes on to break down the various elements which should be incorporated into the introduction, and gives examples of different strategies through which they can be achieved. In order to introduce the audience to the narrative writers may use a prologue to set the scene, and incorporate foreshadowing to give the audience a sense of what is to come. This also illustrates the protagonists current state--his ordinary world. According to Volger, the ordinary world is also a critical point at which the hero is introduced, and his entrance, especially his first action must be very deliberate from a writers standpoint. In this section of the narrative the audience must recognize inner and outer problems which the hero faces, his "lack" in life (either physical, emotional or symbolic), as well as any past "wounds" that haunt him. The objective is to lure the audience into identifying, or sympathizing with the hero; it is also crucial that they recognize what will be at stake for the hero in the imminent journey. 

In the second section Volger describes the ways in which the "call to adventure" can take place, which serves as a catalyst for the hero to leave his ordinary world. The call to adventure comes as a result of various factors. Volger lists them as synchronicity (a chain of events set in motion by simply being at the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time), disorientation and discomfort in the ordinary world, a lack or need to obtain something, or running out of other options. The call to adventure can appear in many forms, and is answered differently by the different sub-categories of heroes, which Vogler described in earlier readings. The call to adventure is also the point in the story when the Herald archetype makes his appearance.

I found Vogler's take on these two narrative components to be as always engaging, though some of the sections were repetitive, paraphrasing information from a previous paragraph, such as the three titled "Making an entrance", "Introducing the Hero to the Audience" and "Identification", which all made the point of making the audience relate to and identify a characteristic of his within their own ego.

 I do however, agree that empathy for the hero is important. Even my favorite, and overused example of "the protagonist who isn't a hero"--the main character in "There Will Be Blood"-- has many relatable qualities at the beginning of the film. The writers were obviously aware, that if they made him empathetic at the beginning, the impact of his revelation as a monster of a man, will be unexpected and shocking, making the film more powerful and profound. 

I also enjoyed the examples Vogler used in this section to illustrate various concepts and approaches. Tom Sawyer painting the fence, is indeed a brilliant introduction to who the hero is and what to expect from him. Clint Eastwood burying a body in his yard was a good example of ONE possible way of introducing a story, by jumping in immediately and then backtracking. And of course The Wizard of Oz, which he uses several times, is a classic example of "contrast" between the ordinary world and the new one in which the hero ends up.

However, I was confused by Vogler's mention of titles, slogans, cover art, etc in the ordinary world chapter, because these promotional tools sometimes reflect later portions of the hero's journey, not necessarily the introduction to the initial setting. 

Questions for Discussion:

Of those described by Vogler, what is the most important aspect of setting the scene in the ordinary world?

Are there, or can there be narratives which don't follow Voglers formula, but start in at the middle or end of the story, introducing the hero throughout the narrative? What is the benefit/effect of such unorthodox organization? 

Is reconnaissance really that common in narratives? Why was it worth mentioning?

Is "relateable" not a word?

reviewing process

For me, the reviewing process on friday felt a bit rushed, but it was a good introduction to how we will be accessing our work throughout the semester. It isn't easy to read somebody's work and remain focused on the structure and purpose of the assignment, without getting lost in the content, especially in the case of a personal narrative. Since I hold content and most importantly style, in higher regard than traditional structure, which I'm not always proficient at following myself, I did not feel qualified to critique someone else's work, but hopefully my commentary was helpful to Chad. 

Revisions

My two strengths: I am able to provide clear vivid descriptions about visuals as they appear in the story. I am also very comfortable with creating realistic dialogue and weaving it into my narrative in a balanced fashion.

My two weaknesses: I sometimes stray from the main focus of my paragraph, going off on a tangent that only makes sense to me. I sometimes get a little too long winded, relying on a style that is used in novels, rather than short stories, as a result I end up rushing through some sections and devoting too much time to others.

Arechetypes (con't)

In the remaining sections of Chapter Three, Vogler introduces us to the rest of the archetypes, which as we have learned, are the embodiments of the personality traits which come together to create the Hero's Journey. We left off at the Threshold Guardian, who learned is not a villain, but rather a gatekeeper to the to the entrance of the new world which the hero is about to enter. I felt that the section explaining the Guardian was too short and not that Vogler did not provide enough specific examples to through which the reader could make more sense of this archetype. However, I found the analogy of a bouncer to be most effective in explaining the Guardians purpose. The Herald archetype is meant to symbolize a turning point in the story, usually providing the call to adventure, and, in a nutshell, they "get the story rolling". Heralds can be positive negative or neutral and appear in the form of a dream figure, a real person, or simply a subconscious voice. The Shapeshifter is a very complex archetype as it's name suggests. Traditionally, the shape shifter has been a character literally capable of magic such as a with or wizard. More commonly, though not necessarily, the shape shifter is a love interest of the hero with shady intentions, also known as the femme of hommes fatales.  Not all shape shifters are negative, positive characters such as mentors and tricksters are also known to use shape shifting for good. The Shadow is a dark force during the Hero's journey, but not the main villain. It can be a person or a feeling, representing repressed feelings such as shame or guilt, or other natural feelings that we feel we aren't allowed to acknowledge or show. The ally is the Hero's partner during his quest. The ally humanizes the hero through their intimate knowledge of him as their own ally, not the hero of a story. Psychologically, the ally represents the unused part of out personality. The final archetype in the chapter is the Trickster who represents mischief and the desire for change. This archetype can put events into perspective for both the hero and the audience by cutting big egos down to size. He uses wit over strength to get ahead, provides comic relief like the ally, and has an effect on the lives of those around him, though remains unchanged himself throughout the story.

I found the descriptions of these archetypes to be very comprehensive and was able to make a lot of personal connections to where they fit amongst what I have read and seen, even without Voglers examples from film or mythology. As I mentioned earlier, the threshold guardian seemed most abstract to me from Voglers deconstruction of it, and I was about to write it off as the one archetype which could be eliminated from a given story, without losing any effect. However upon further consideration, I realized that this archetype might actually be one of the most important and prevalent figures in any narrative, even if their appearance is brief and seemingly unacknowledged such as a snobby secretary who won't let the hero see the boss. It also made sense as to how guardians can become allies, as well as the part they play as a catalyst in the hero's journey, adding fuel to their drive for success. In fact, what I came to realize at the end of the chapter, is that just about every archetype has the ability to serve as the predominant catalyst, either for change, motivation or knowledge which sets the hero's journey in motion.

In terms of complexity, I found the shapeshifter to be the most interesting of the archetypes. Their psychological function, as described by Vogler was fascinating and unexpected. They represent the anima-- the male element in the female unconscious, which answered by earlier question of which archetype is the almost ever present love interest found under. Though Volger declared that the shapeshifter is the most difficult of the archetypes to grasp, I would argue that it would actually be the shadow. The shadow, as I understood it, represents thoughts, feelings and energies more so than a tangible character, and can easily be confused with darker shape shifters. I also didn't like the fact that Vogler stated that shadows do not thing of themselves as the villains, yet he illustrated his point with examples of classic villains from Disney movies, which are in fact, the quintessential, one dimensional bad guys, whose ONLY attribute is the fact that they're evil. While I agree with Volger's point, that the shadow can have more dimensions and layers than just "the antagonist", which is key to sophisticated narrative, I felt that he actually used the antithesis of the point he was trying to make while illustrating it. 

The Trickster and the Ally were probably the most straight forward of the archetypes described in the chapter. However, the Ally raised some questions. For instance, how do you determine the hero from the ally in a partnership of heroes such as Mulder and Scully? How much distance must the ally maintain from the Hero's journey so as not to become the hero himself in very close hero-ally bonds? I suppose the answer to this comes from the previous section about heroes which states that the rule of thumb for determining the hero, is assessing which character underwent the greatest change throughout the story. 

Questions for Discussion:

Can an ally cross the line to become the hero? Can a story can multiple heroes?

Can any of these archetypes be eliminated from the Hero's Journey and still allow for an effective story? Which is most likely to go? Which archetypes are least commonly found?

According to Vogler, which of the archetypes represents the most resistance during the hero's journey? Vogler did not pinpoint any particular one as the dominant antagonist.

Archetypes

After introducing the reader to a "map" of the hero's journey, Vogler's second chapter "Archetypes" introduces us to the cast of characters who appear in just about every narrative, in one form or another. The archetypes he discussed have been around since the dawn of storytelling, the same archetypes which appear in the Bible or Greek mythology are just as evident in modern day film and literature of every imaginable genre. 

Vogler first defines archetypes and why they exist. From a psychological stand point, they can be seen as "ancient patterns of personality that are the shared heritage of the human race"(p.23), and emphasizes their consistency throughout all of history and among every culture. He also stresses the importance of using "the function of the archetype" in storytelling.

The spectrum of archetypes is a critical component of the narrative for several reasons. Firstly, the hero archetype ( who represents the Freudian Ego) need the others them in order to complete his journey, which otherwise couldn't happen. Also, because archetypes are universally understood--as they represent our own needs, wants, flaws, desires-- they add social significance and identification to the story. However, Vogler also notes that even though character archetypes are universal, they are not rigid. A character can embody several archetypes throughout the course of the story, and some archetypes are not blatantly obvious.

According to Vogler the most common and useful archetypes are Hero, Mentor, Threshold Guardian, Herald, Shapeshifter, Shadow, Ally, and Trickster. He goes on to dissect and discuss each of these roles.

The Hero, as I mentioned earlier, intentionally or not, represents the Ego. He is the window to the story, and during its course we feel as though we become him or her. Ideally the hero should embody a wide range of personality traits--including character flaws and weaknesses which make him relatable. It is the hero who experiences the most "growth" or change during the narrative, and is the most active character. Historically, this archetype is rooted in self sacrifice and dealing with "death" either literally or figuratively. Vogler writes that there are different sub-categories of this archetype such as reluctant heroes, catalyst heroes, anti-heroes, etc. 

The next archetype which Vogler describes in the mentor, which can be seen as any character who teaches, protects, or regales the hero during his journey. To the audience, the mentor represents the Self, or the "wiser, nobler, more godlike part of us"(p.40). This archetype is linked to the image of a parent, but just as with the hero, mentors are can be represented in many different ways. They also fill a variety of roles such as the hero's conscience, his motivation, his initiator to new sensations and more. 

I found Voglers thorough analysis of each archetype and its purpose to be very engrossing. His reference of psychology in explaining how we interpret each archetype, added a great deal of relevance and authority to his definitions. He also seemed to cover all the basis when it came to defining the sub-categories of each archetype, as well as their duties. While reading, I kept trying to think of books or films which would defy the presence of a given archetype, but given each ones flexibility and range I found this nearly impossible. Even in "Requiem for a Dream", a tragic movie where the characters receive little assistance a mentor can be found for example in the man who pays Jennifer Connoly's character for sex, in the sense that he is helping her on her journey, even if it is one of self destruction. This goes to show how flexible and ever present archetypes really are, even if they aren't blatantly obvious. 

While in this chapter I was less familiar with the films Vogler uses to illustrate the various characters, I was able to appreciate his repeated referencing of Russian Fairy tales, which notoriously use the same cast of characters, yet the archetypes which they represent vary from one tale to the next. For instance the Baba Yaga witch is the same in every story in terms of her unattractive appearance and most importantly her residence--a house which stands on chicken legs. However, in one fairytale she may be plotting to kidnap and eat little kids who got lost in the woods, yet she may appear in a different story as very helpful to the hero who stumbles upon her home. Though Baba Yaga is a great illustration of the flexibility of archetypes, overall I found it kind of funny that he would mention Russian folklore as often as he does in a chapter about archetypes, since for the most part Russian fairytales are notorious for a very idiosyncratic archetype of the hero which is not congruent to the hero found in Western literature. Russian folklore typically sets the hero as a slacker whose journey is circumstantial rather than the result of personal growth, and definitely not self sacrifice of any sort. This point is actually a major point of discussion in the study of Russian fairy tales, and would be interesting to further explore.

The biggest question which the chapter raised is: according to Vogler, what is the difference between "hero" and "protagonist"? Is there one? Can a character be a protagonist but not a hero and vice versa? Also, I was confused by the category of continuing "mentors", perhaps due to my ignorance of the films he uses as examples of such a mentor--what exactly is a continuing mentor and where is one typically found?

A Practical Guide

Vogler's first chapter in "The Writers Journey" appears to be a brief overview of what he will be covering in greater detail throughout the book. He introduces a "took kit" of elements which comprise successful narratives. Before defining these elements he defines the cultural purpose of narratives and how they can be formulaic in the sense that all humans beings create and interpret them based on a set of inherent principals, or the "collective unconscious". Culturally, stories deal "childlike universal questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where will I go when I die? What is good and evil?" (p. 5) and so on and so forth. They are meant to provide people with, at least the illusion of answers to these queries. He also mentions that the major players in these stories are archetypes-- almost stock characters who embody a certain trait or traits which represent the "different aspects of the human mind" (p.4). Vogler then states that just about all narratives feature a "hero's journey", and follow a standard arch of events which are employed to tell his or her story, as well as give it significance.  The first step is creating a contrast between the "ordinary world" and the new one which the hero has entered. Next comes a call to adventure or action when the hero is introduced to the challenge before him. Typically this is followed by refusal of the call, in which the hero doubts himself or the cause. He then meets his mentor who guides him. Along the way he faces tests, allies and enemies before the final struggle to obtain what he seeks. He briefly reaps the rewards, before one final challenge on the road back, and then inevitably returns with what he sought out to find.  Vogler illustrates each of these elements with examples from well known films and TV shows, and also points out that despite the formula, there are infinite variations on "the hero's journey" narrative.

I have encountered this story telling rubric before, as it is essential to understand when reading or studying mythology. It has also been used in communications related models of persuasion, based on the theory that humans process all information in the form of a narrative, even when it isn't a "story" that they are being told. The examples Vogler used to articulate his point were solid, in the sense that they clearly embodied the components of the arch, I especially appreciated the fact that he pointed out how most of the ancient arch is applicable even to modern day romantic comedies, which don't necessarily feature quests of mythic proportions. 

I of course, agree that the map Vogler uses to chart narratives as they appear in on screen or in literature is the dominant rubric in story telling as we know it, however there are also those artists who go deliberately out of their way to avoid adhering to it. For instance independent film makers who pride themselves on making "slice of life" style movies with little plot, and no resolution don't a lot, if any, of the elements described in the chapter, but still succeed in creating a culturally significant narrative, thereby establishing a new story telling formula. I do however, understand that Vogler's background is in big budget film making, an industry bound to following the "hero's journey" model, as is most literature, and in the end it is the one we as humans process most coherently. 

What I found most interesting is that Vogler seems to be torn between defining writing, or rather story telling as an art or a craft. This, whether or not you can quantify creativity, is a very prevalent dilemma in the humanities. I have wondered this myself about fields such as writing and journalism. Vogler does not appear to have a straight answer, nor do I believe that one exists. While he doesn't disregard artistic ingenuity, he also seems confident in that all story telling follows one rubric or another, even "high art", such as the aforementioned indie movies adhere to guidelines which stipulate a deviation from the conventional "Hero's journey". In my opinion, some forms of story telling can be written of as a craft, for instance news stories reported on by journalists, for the most part follow one outline with different names, dates, locations and events inserted into it, which allows for little creative freedom. Certain Hollywood films, intended to draw revenue by appealing to a mass audience are very formulaic, preferring accessibility over ingenuity-- especially genres such as romantic comedy, teen horror and action flicks. However other dimensions of story telling are in no way bound to the components listed in The Practical Guide, or find ways to put a new spin on the traditional story arch.

Aside from the arch, I find it difficult to discuss the universal story telling formula without getting into archetypes, which Vogler briefly mentioned in the first chapter, but will elaborate upon in the next, which I look forward to reading and discussing.

Grains of Rice

Freerice.com is a pretty fun site for vocabulary and linguistics junkies as as myself. I enjoyed not only testing my knowledge, and figuring out the meanings of words I was unfamiliar with, based on their roots. Yes, I really do find that to be fun. In the fifteen minutes it took me get up to 1000 pieces of rice, I definitely learned some new words and definitions, that I'm pretty excited to use. Yes, I really do get excited about using new words in conversation. I would highly recommend this site to people who want to challenge their knowledge of the English language, and/or improve their vocabulary. Plus, quizzing yourself and killing some time goes towards a good cause! What a clever partnership between the UN World Food Program and Harvard University!

Disney Princesses

Its interesting that we brought up Disney in class on Friday, because my childhood hero's were all extracted from Disney movies--the animated classics that is. As a little girl I was very enamored of princesses in general so Disney provided a wide variety of characters for me to idolize. Of course I was picky with which heroines I admired-- I never saw Belle, or Sleeping Beauty or even Ariel as ones to look up, though i enjoyed the movies. I had two main heros throughout my childhood who I wanted to emulate in every way.

The first of these was Wendy from Peter Pan. She was both authoritative yet feminine. She hung out with a bunch of guys, plus she stole the heart of the biggest playboy in Neverland, resulting in great envy from the other women there. She also had a quiet courage to her, refusing to give up her mans whereabouts to Captain Hook, even if it meant taking the plunge.  I was about five when I first saw Peter Pan. I not only watched it religiously, I also demanded that people address me a Wendy and made my mother by me nightgowns like the one she wore, in which I would wait every night for Peter Pan to come knocking on my window.

My next Disney-made infatuation came several years later when "Aladdin" was released. I thought Princess Jasmine was pretty much the coolest chick alive. She was beautiful, well accessorized and rebellious. I too wanted to live as royalty in an exotic land, with magic on every corner and a sexy bad boy boyfriend by my side.

Basically my hero's were characters who I wanted to be because of their fortunate disposition and circumstantial adventures, not necessarily because of, lets say, their work ethic or personal achievements. Luckily my standards for personal hero's have changed drastically since then.