Im doing some research and a bit confused.

I notice some sites giving archtypes that to me seem a little narrowed minded when it comes to defining things
in a story.

For example, one I read was that nature was good , technology bad , and yet, although technology seems to lean more towards the bad, nature is not that good at times either i.e. floods etc

I suppose what im wondering is if its a good idea to change these archtypes or even reverse them to distort the readers perception or better to give them whats time proven in classics etc.

The idea that something collectively is this or that, or appears in such way, or strucure and meets that type of situation, so on and appeals to our unconcious seems a bit presumptious to me.

It's always good to challenge the status quo and commonly held beliefs and it's one of the reasons I love reading and writing.

The example you raise is a good one and it's one thing that really grates with me.

There are millions of 'bad' things about nature; earthquakes, floods, ebola virus, cancer, ageing, disease so on and so forth. There is nothing at all bad about technology only the way it's employed and that's all down the to nature of man, so it's all nature. Still you'll have a billion numpties try and argue otherwise.

The real trick/challenge is reversing these beliefs in such a way that leaves no room for doubt the ultimate challenge for the writer I suppose is not only achieving this but doing it in an interesting and accessible way.

Another thing that bothers me sometimes is the muse or simply intution , i tend to do that lot and find I write best when I do so but at the same time Im not really following as structure .

So far its worked great , but im thinking about trying to add other elements or experiment so to speak.

I already do some of things you mention.

I wonder though if there is any good sources for it that look / study this thing is depth , I suppose surreal art movements but as far as writing goes far harder to find.

Gorey too uses illustrations which allow him a lot of leyway.

As my book is also going to involve that too it would be easy to do the same , though I like the idea of conveying more through word to be honest.

The pictures alone in Goreys work are so apt that at times I wonder whether his works would come over near half as well without them.

Don't know if this is any help at all, but have you read Dorothea Brande 'On Becoming A Writer' - she talks about the intuition. So does Julia Cameron in The Artist's Way and her other, more specifically writing-oriented books. And I believe also Natalie Goldberg, Writing Down The Bones.
Susiex

If you are jst going with the muse/inspiration, without worrying about the structure, it may very well be that your writing style is the 'stream of consciousness' type.
There is a list of relevant literature on this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_writing

Thats how it works , though Im leary of definitions .

Whats your point though ?

Whats your point though ?

Just thought you might be interested in reading similar books, that's all - Writers are encouraged to read as much as possible, after all

<Added>

...and you may find more answers to your questions there, if we can't answer them on this forum.

When all is said and done, writers have license to create, invent, change and challenge the norm.
That's the beauty of writing, particularly fiction, where the writer determines how characters develop and can step outside reality.

You could dip into Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic Plots. In the end I got intensely annoyed with it, but there's not denying there's some extremely thought-provoking stuff along the way.

Emma

Yes I mean basic plots are sometimes unavoidable, or mini ones as I call them.

I was looking a at Joseph Campbells' " Hero with Thousand Faces " ( just extracts ) and from sites devoted to him and wondered , given so many of the most popular storys use that format and wondered really if the answer was not in the writing but metaphysical.

Beowulf,Harry Potter , Star Wars so on all use this plot structure with the same archetypes and their success speaks for themselves.

Im not sure about other stories that used this format and failed ,whether the writing was awful or whatever but I started wondering how much of that format comes down to the sort of things that resonate with us on a deep spiritual level rather than what is just written .

I dont mind archetypes at all or the Campbell format but it seems to defeat the purpose of writing, or at least changes it, if controlling these archetypes and retelling their stories is always guranteed to win people over again.

So you see although I dont mind experimenting I do wonder sometimes how much of it is writing or just retelling this cosmic interplay ?

The wise old man

The Trickster

The shadow self so on

When you look at culture all over the world its funny how the same images are retold or reached regardless of how they appear .

I might add too that using my own " methods " freebase if you will that I too keep bumping into these archetypes.

Its so instilled in our culture you could argue its hard to avoid but certainly when you want to look for a wise bird the owl for example for me is the one that springs to mind.


If I want majesty or more kingly qualties maybe an eagle.

Trickster a crow.

And so on

Its no fluke these types are used in the same roles much like Harrison Ford is always Indiana Jones in my mind I have trouble seeing any one else replacing them.



<Added>

You know what happens dont you when you have a popular franchaise or film that uses a different cast from the one that worked and was a best seller ?

Usually not much..

Can you imagine if they had Justin Timberlake as Indiana Jones ?

Yet like David Beckhman he seems to constitute the ideals that Indiana held for us back then ( not personally speaking ), but you try and take that face and put it in his shoes today - in fact almost any one and the magick is gone.

I think Indiana is the Archetype explorer like Darth Vader is the Archetype Intergalatic Bad guy .

These are things I wonder if its possible to change .

I dont think its possible for any one to create a better example than these models in these niches , do you ?

But then, you could say that women and men, the masculine and the feminine, are archetypes. And therefore it's the detail in the archetype that delivers deeper resonance. And that's the writer's job: to deliver that detail in such a way that the archetype resonates both deeply and broadly. Once you give archetype a character, its strength doubles - or more.
Susiex

But then, you could say that women and men, the masculine and the feminine, are archetypes. And therefore it's the detail in the archetype that delivers deeper resonance. And that's the writer's job: to deliver that detail in such a way that the archetype resonates both deeply and broadly. Once you give archetype a character, its strength doubles - or more.

M/F are too general to be archetypes , archetypes define are certain quality through nature with M/F its purely appearance if nothing else.

I disagree about detail , I dont think there is any detail any one could add to any established cultural archetypes like ( Vader & Indiana )you can outdo.

Theres been a thousand imitations and attempts , and thats just the point - they are imitations and still no one has managed anything to come close.

But then, you could say that women and men, the masculine and the feminine, are archetypes. And therefore it's the detail in the archetype that delivers deeper resonance. And that's the writer's job: to deliver that detail in such a way that the archetype resonates both deeply and broadly. Once you give archetype a character, its strength doubles - or more.

M/F are too general to be archetypes , archetypes define are certain quality through nature with M/F its purely appearance if nothing else.

I disagree about detail , I dont think there is any detail any one could add to any established cultural archetypes like ( Vader & Indiana )you can outdo.

Theres been a thousand imitations and attempts , and thats just the point - they are imitations and still no one has managed anything that comes close.

M/F are too general to be archetypes , archetypes define are certain quality through nature with M/F its purely appearance if nothing else.

"Nature splits into MASCULINE and FEMININE in order to reproduce. In symbolism this archetypal split is expressed on every level from god and goddess, down through to the mineral realm where every object can be given symbolic gender because of associations with male or female characteristics."
Tom Chetwynd

I disagree about detail , I dont think there is any detail any one could add to any established cultural archetypes like ( Vader & Indiana )you can outdo. Theres been a thousand imitations and attempts , and thats just the point - they are imitations and still no one has managed anything that comes close.

Maybe 'detail' is the wrong word. Specificsmay be better. What I'm talking about are the specific characteristics that are brought to an archetype by the writer. Vader and Indiana are surely, anyway, 'imitations' of older archetypes. And that's my point: Vader and Indiana are characters who have been created using specific characteristics, but they're based on archetypal figures. The combination of the archetype and the specific character creates not only memorable but resonant characters.
Susiex