The hero's journey

[commodore64]

I thought the writers did a good job of making Archer a likable and interesting hero.

He Pisses off Poisidon, not too smart if you have to travel on water.

That was his hubris talking. (Marcellus Wallace paraphrase.)

He dallies with Circe for ten years.

Archer was fairly celibate.

He takes risk that get his men killed.

Ah, so did Archer, but mostly himself.

 

[miriel68]

You know, I disagree. His voyage into the Expanse was very much like the Odyssey. We even have his words that come back to haunt him: he'll destory the weapon whatever it takes. Ohhh, irony! He realizes exactly what "whatever it takes" means and how expensive it is.

Now it is my turn to disagree . Unless, of course you mean "Odyssey" simply as a voyage full of adventures. Homer's Odyseey is a classical "nekuia", a long home-coming, and in order to achieve the goal, the hero have to grow up spiritually and be ready to settle down after a life of peril. Archer's voyage would be rather an initiation journey: leaving the home and going into the world (galaxy in this case ). Archer and Skywalker? There is a substantial difference, I insist: Skywalker's goes through tempatation and peril towards the final spiritual victory: the voyage to the light. Archer's journey is descend into (moral) darkness. Darth Vader comes to mind rather than Luke
In order to re-establish the harmony of the world Archer has to sacrifice his inner harmony. A canonical tragedy situation. If it were a work of Shakespeare, Archer would have died in Zero Hour. He SHOULD have died. Mercifully, this is not Shakespeare, but Star Trek so he is kept alive to make us happy in the 4th season.

In season 4, he has to reconcile his two halves: the guy who will do whatever it takes to accomplish success and the naive one who began the journey (Archer in seasons 1 and 2). How much more spiritual can ya get? I think that's incredibly moving. I think in season 4 we see him reconciled (although stupidly) -- he can be both caring and moral as well as someone who accomplishes his task. And he understands his own boundaries. After all, even with Surak's katra prompting him the logical thing to do would be to go visit the Vulcan captial city and deliver the katra, he goes after T'Pol, his friend.

Ok, I have to confess something: I don't like the 4th season. I know most people consider it excellent, but I, personally, was deeply disappointed by it. I have an impression that the producers were so eager to give as many lollipops as possible to the fans of Star Trek canon, that they forgot to follow the characters' development. There is a clumsy (IMO) attempt to deal with Archer's post-Xindi trauma in "Home", but I really do not think a sweet interlude with E.H. would be sufficient to heal his moral wounds. Something he said in that episode was very true, however: he told Erica that she should try to be an explorer (looking for the Graal, yeah) because he was not able to do it anymore. And in fact, in the 4th season Archer is no more an explorer, he deals mainly with nasty problems and threats to the Earth.
As for Vulcan trylogy... I am about to say a heresy, but I do not like it either. The idea to show Spock's planet was great, the idea of Romulans inflitrating Vulcans was exciting, but the plot's logic falls apart and Archer being given katra means turning him into a superhero he is not (I should probably explain it better, I know), or he WAS not.

 

[Penguin]

Commodore64 you want a tragic Heroic figure? Try Beethoven.

He had a Hero's Journey. given a great creative Genius, misunderstood most of his life. chosing the wrong parents so he had to kowtow to people who weren't qualified to kiss his feet.

Lastly slowly going deaf until he was stone deaf. Hell for a man who heard great Music in his mind.

then writing some of the greatest music even put to paper.

Lastly, a myth, raising on his death bed and shaking his fist at God.


Or Mozart, Probably in his own way even more tragic.

An aside. I am always amused at the movies that depict a composeer at a piano plinking out a note and then writing it down on paper.

Beethoven composed while walking in the woods; Mozart on his pool table; Schubert in smokey, noisy, ccoffeehouses, etc. None of them would have gone near a Piano.

Heroism like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[commodore64]

Archer and Skywalker? There is a substantial difference, I insist: Skywalker's goes through tempatation and peril towards the final spiritual victory: the voyage to the light. Archer's journey is descend into (moral) darkness. Darth Vader comes to mind rather than Luke

I think he eventually goes to light, but ... Darth Vader is also a Hero. His journey was something darker. Campbell gives the Shadow Hero as an example of a Darth Vader character. (But even Vader eventually sees the light.)

Ok, I have to confess something: I don't like the 4th season. I know most people consider it excellent, but I, personally, was deeply disappointed by it. I have an impression that the producers were so eager to give as many lollipops as possible to the fans of Star Trek canon, that they forgot to follow the characters' development. There is a clumsy (IMO) attempt to deal with Archer's post-Xindi trauma in "Home", but I really do not think a sweet interlude with E.H. would be sufficient to heal his moral wounds. Something he said in that episode was very true, however: he told Erica that she should try to be an explorer (looking for the Graal, yeah) because he was not able to do it anymore. And in fact, in the 4th sleason Archer is no more an explorer, he deals mainly with nasty problems and threats to the Earth.

I agree with you on season 4. I think it has some great stuff (The Forge) and some rather silly stuff (Home).

I agree with you about Home. The episode was a giant waste of story-telling time unless you want a reason why T'Pol and Tucker didn't get together. Archer healing process (as you indicated) was retarded and Vulcan didn't look incredibly Vulcan (not alien, not mysterious, not interesting), nor did the Vulcans on that planet seem particularly logical. I suspect Rommie infiltration to the writing team. Hey, at least T'Les confesses she had been acting illogical and sought enlightenment in The Forge.

As for Vulcan trilogy... I am about to say a heresy, but I do not like it either. The idea to show Spock's planet was great, the idea of Romulans inflitrating Vulcans was exciting, but the plot's logic falls apart and Archer being given katra means turning him into a superhero he is not (I should probably explain it better, I know), or he WAS not.

Ah, but such is the way of the Hero. (See how this comes full circle.) He delivered the katra back helping the Vulcan people, saved T'Pol and in the process became a more enlightened captain healing an old pain he had with the Vulcans. I like it because it ties up the learning curve for the character and sheesh, Vulcan seemed mysterious and alien. The Romulan baddies I can take or leave despite really liking the Romulans. (I'm more a fan of the female commander from TOS. I see her as the epitome of Romulans.)

 

[Penguin]

"This is good writing....... it also explains why I like A/TP

Certainly explains Campbell in that essay.

I fail to see how it explains why you like A/TP.

True T-Pol was assigned a lot of Hero Worshipping in the series but that was just to build up the Archer character. Make it look better than it actually was.

Trip was never accorded that kind of Hero Worship although his character often saved the day. Trip was denigrated also to build up the Archer character.

Archer was at first ordinary, then superlative and finally a Super Hero. But never came across as anything out of the ordinary. The series was a One Hero Series rather than the ensemble series it should have been. so the Archer character had to be better, smarter, braver, etc than anyone else in the series. Writers reallly never accomplished that.

That is just MHO for what it is worth.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

"This is good writing....... it also explains why I like A/TP

Certainly explains Campbell in that essay.

I fail to see how it explains why you like A/TP.

True T-Pol was assigned a lot of Hero Worshipping in the series but that was just to build up the Archer character. Make it look better than it actually was.

Okay, this backing-and-forthing has been interesting, and mostly relevant, despite the fact that most of the participants aren't making much effort to listen to each other.

However, Penguin, there is a big difference between analyzing Campbell's classical-myth paradigm and attacking a poster personally for having a viewpoint you don't agree with.

You will cease passing judgment on other members. Now. Otherwise, you're headed for a warning.

Also, I've had it up to here with you working in your Archer hatred into practically every thread you're in. Unless it is directly relevant to the topic, can it.

 

[bluedana]

Archer and Skywalker? There is a substantial difference, I insist: Skywalker's goes through tempatation and peril towards the final spiritual victory: the voyage to the light. Archer's journey is descend into (moral) darkness. Darth Vader comes to mind rather than Luke

Eh, I'm too old and too lazy to delve back into literary criticism or Campbell. (Been there, done that, sold the books back to the bookstore.) But I do think the Luke Skywalker analogy is a good one because Archer's journey does not end in moral darkness. Season 4 is really all about coming out of isolation. In Season 3, only the humans go after the Xindi. Archer himself takes on a suicide mission as kind of a lone wolf. He crosses ethical lines and throws away his moral underpinnings. But in Season 4, he (as humanity, generally) gradually gets to the point where it's all about bringing as many people to the table as possible, culminating in his speech in "Terra Prime." Along the way, he learns to work together with Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, and even Klingons (despite the hefty bounty still on his head). There's a scene at the beginning of the Terra Prime arc where the crew is understandably pissed that the minister guy is taking all the credit for the crew's hard work. Archer's response: look happy. As in, this is not all about us (me) anymore. And that is a solid light year away from where he started in Broken Bow. That, to me, is a journey worthy of a hero - not the comic book, who gets the girl in the end type of "Hero," but as the person through whose experience you measure the beginning, middle, and end of the story.

 

[AntiArcherTPol]

http://www.divineparadox.com/Arts/archetypes_on_the_path.htm

"We experience the Journey through the eyes of the Hero."

A direct quote from Campbell. That's Archer. It's his story. And what helps us believe that other than the camera following his steps and starting with him is that it ends with him and why -- for example -- others can die.

No, it really wasn't Archer's story. So I guess by the link you provided, he can't be the hero. Because honestly, how you can watch Enterprise and think that all four seasons were about ARCHER'S journey? If anything, they were about Trip or T'Pol's journey. In fact, I'd argue that T'Pol is the hero way before I'd argue that Archer is.

Star Trek doesn't live on having ONE central hero. For every Kirk, there is a Spock. Which do you argue is the hero there? For every Picard there is a Riker. Which do you argue is the hero there?

As for the silly bits about father issues, you know who else thought that? Freud. Why don't you link to Freud's BS, too? It has every bit as much validity in showing Archer's "heroism" as Campbell's "theory."

 

[miriel68]

Darth Vader is also a Hero. His journey was something darker. Campbell gives the Shadow Hero as an example of a Darth Vader character. (But even Vader eventually sees the light.)

Well, I was thinking only about the first trylogy (or rather the second ), which is the story of Anakin's fall.
May be I should stress that I like Archer exactly because he manage to keep his human dimension, in spite of the heroic things he is forced to do. In the same way, I liked better Aragorn in the LOTR movie (even if I had some riservations to the movie itself) than Aragorn from the book. There is a similar thing about Star Wars: I have yet to meet someone who likes Luke better than Han Solo.

My problem with the 4th season is that I do not see the "journey" any more. Ok, in the season 3 Archer saved the world, but he needed the full season to achieve it and they did it together - Trip, T'Pol, Degra even Phlox they all had their imput. In the 4th season Archer saves the world or rather galaxy every two o three episodes much more like a Superman than like Archer in previous seasons. There are some glimpses of how the previous experiences have changed him (Augments trylogy: Archer from 1 or 2 season would have never killed Malik the way he kills him now), but mostly, the character is not acting as his personality would dictate him but as the plot requires him to act. Oh, well, at least he doesn't get a girl in the end.

 

[Mach5]

About this whole "heroes journey" - "it's the hero who's supposed to get the girl, not some catfish eating sidekick" stuff:

Spoiler: JJ Abrams' magnificent reboot/sequel

Kirk hits on Uhura, but it's Spock who gets her real name, and wins her heart.

 

[commodore64]

About this whole "heroes journey" - "it's the hero who's supposed to get the girl, not some catfish eating sidekick" stuff

Where exactly did you see this in *any* of my posts? You're quoting Jolene Blalock, the actress who portrayed T'Pol, not me.

If you read my posts you'll see I thought Archer eventually getting the girl worked for his character as part of his journey, since he starts the series hating Vulcans. Heroes don't always get the girl, though. Luke, for example.

Muriel, yeah, season 4 is less centered around an arc, but where Archer lands is pretty much the opposite of where he starts off. He turns into a skilled diplomat (a huge improvement from the guy who refused to talk with the Kretassans [sp?] in ANIS).

 

[Mach5]

About this whole "heroes journey" - "it's the hero who's supposed to get the girl, not some catfish eating sidekick" stuff

Where exactly did you see this in *any* of my posts? You're quoting Jolene Blalock, the actress who portrayed T'Pol, not me.

Sorry, but I didn't intend to quote you at all, I was simply exaggerating (sadly, no emoticon for that).

If you read my posts you'll see I thought Archer eventually getting the girl worked for his character as part of his journey, since he starts the series hating Vulcans. Heroes don't always get the girl, though. Luke, for example.

Thank God for that. TESB may be my all time favorite movie, but that kiss still gives me nightmares. I was never big on incest...