The hero's journey

[commodore64]

Someone asked me to create this thread a while ago. I'll give it a shot, hoping for good discussion.

Joseph Campbell, a Jungian, suggested that myths play a part in the kinds of stories we tell. He indicated they have a hero who is given an impossible task that he must perform and go through several trials in order to complete said task. Each trial is harder than the last one and creates more risk/hurt for the hero. This is the hero's journey.

He also said the hero during his journey is given many people to assist him/her in the task(s) that serve special functions. For example, one might be there to provide mentorship, giving the hero special powers through advice/counsel.

The hero typically has flaws, especially hubris (or pride) that gets in the way of his tasks.

That's one thought to classic story creation. Do you buy it? And who do you think is the hero of Enterprise?

I buy it! I think Campbell does a good job of outlining a good, solid story creation and can't at this moment think of a story that doesn't use this as its model (even for the antihero). I believe the hero of Enterprise is Archer. The camera takes his POV throughout the series and he's given the special powers and difficult to achieve powers, especially since we begin the story with him as well as he's given the special powers to begin with (TCW and Future Guy see him as a threat).

In the end, he ends up victorious, but not without cost. During seasons 1 and 2 he learns to keep his hubris in check for the ultimate goal of space travel, in season 3 learns that sometimes the journey is impossible and could mean death and in season 4 learns diplomacy.

I think the other characters have their place as the hero's helpers and that the hero couldn't have done it without them, but they aren't the "Hero" (with a capital h), but heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth - link for reference

 

[lceb]

Oh, I asked for it! I think it could be a fascinating discussion!
What I believe is that there are archetypes in every story and the reader, viewer or listener accordingly identifies himself or finds his ideal in some of them.
A hero is such an archetype as are the healer, the judge, the king, the mystic, the soldier/protector, the pioneer/explorer, the genious/scientist/engineer and many others.
I don’t suppose a character in a story has to express only one archetype since it would be too one sided or monolithic.

In the case of Enterprise I don’t believe it is a hero quest because even though Archer is very important and he's the captain, it's not his show. Star trek is never a one man show.
I believe that the archetypes of the “pioneer” and the “genious” would apply to more or less all of the crew. Malcolm would easily be considered also the "soldier", Archer the "judge", the "king", the "soldier".
For me Trip and T’Pol besides other things are a "sysygy" a term used by Jung "to denote an archetypal pairing of contrasexual opposites, which symbolized the communication of the conscious and unconscious minds" ( it’s a Greek word, in Greek, husband and wife are called syzygoi, the co-bonded)

I suppose one can interpret things and see in characters different aspects, according to what he looks for in a story.

 

[commodore64]

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.

Star trek is never a one man show.

In TNG, the main character until probably season 3/4 was Riker. Ergo, it was his journey. I do think though Enterprise is a lot more plain. What special powers did Trip get? What journey did he go through, including the trials and refusal of trials? More over, there's usually the tie to the father. Did they mention Trip's father in an episode I'm unaware of?

 

[Vulcan Princess]

Looking externally, Archer is the hero of the story, but I also think that in Season 3, Trip goes through an internal hero's journey.

Trip's impossible task is to heal from the death of Elizabeth. He has to deal with his hatred of the Xindi, and with the pain and loss. Phlox and T'Pol are the biggest helpers, but Archer and Reed assist as well.

 

[lceb]

What special powers did Trip get? What journey did he go through, including the trials and refusal of trials? More over, there's usually the tie to the father. Did they mention Trip's father in an episode I'm unaware of?

Well, the one who really had father issues was Malcolm. Maybe he was the hero? I think the father thing is a little cliche, I really dislike the idea that a grown man has to have father issues to define as a hero.
Besides what I said in my post is that there is not only the hero archetype (and nobody says it is the most important), there are others as well.
http://rgsmedicalinsight.homestead.com/archetypes2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy#Psychology

 

[Penguin]

There are real life Hero's and fictional Hero's

Real life Hero's are usually ordinary people who on occasion do extraordinary things.

I don't consider Sport Stars as Hero's or that ilk.

A real life hero is a scientis who injects himself with a virus that he knows will blind him in a number of years unless he finds a cure. So he has that number of years to find a cure or go blind. that to me is a hero in real life. Or a person who will run into a burning building to save someone even though the chances are that person will be trapped in the fire and be killed the person still runs in to the building.

Police Officers and firemen who routinely risk thier lives on a daily basis are Hero's to me.

fictional Hero's are larger than life.


Achilles and Hector. Hector was a hero but Achilles was not but since the story was written by a greek Achilles was the hero.

Hector was an ordinary man who wore ordinary armor and ordinary weapons.

Achillles wore magic armor was invulnerable since his Mother dipped him in th eriver styx. Achilles couldn't lose and Hector couldn't win.

So with Archer. the writers made him larger than life. He did many things that while maybe not impossible were highly improbable.

In the forge he had never been on vulcan, but nevertheless defeated three Vulcan Commandos who had been born on the planet, grown up used to the gravity and atmosphere. ARcher should not have be abble to do that.

T-Pol who had vulcan strength could not lift the pillar but Archer could. Again Archer should not have been able to do that.

I cannot remember the eisode but Acher was shot into space where supossedly he was beamed aboard the entrperise. If I remeber correctly he seemdd to have a covering of frost when he was first beamed aboard.

Since the temp of space is around absolute zero he would have been flash frozen as I counted about five or six seconds before he was started to be beamed aboard. Not to mention the fact that there is no external pressure in space and the human body internal pr3essure compensartes for the external Air Pressure. No pressure in space his internal presure would have caused some problems.

Anyway, the others on Enterprise were simply there to make Archer look better they were just props.

Archer was no Hero as far as I am concerned

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Looking externally, Archer is the hero of the story, but I also think that in Season 3, Trip goes through an internal hero's journey.

Trip's impossible task is to heal from the death of Elizabeth. He has to deal with his hatred of the Xindi, and with the pain and loss. Phlox and T'Pol are the biggest helpers, but Archer and Reed assist as well.

Good point. An epic story like Enterprise would have a main protagonist who drives the story, who learns and grows over the course of the journey. That would be Archer. But there would also be "hero" figures for each of the smaller storylines we see. I agree that Trip had a journey in Season 3. So did T'Pol. Even Hoshi undertook a journey over the course of "Countdown/Zero Hour." For each protagonist, other characters would serve as supporting friends, mentors, opponents.

Another way to look at story structure is to regard every character as the hero (or protagonist) of his own story, with a goal and motivations and obstacles and opponents. This tool helps to make each character multi-dimensional. So a villain like Paxton, who was Archer's opponent, would consider himself a hero--he has a worthy goal (in his opinion) that he is focused on achieving above all else, and his antagonists are Trip and Archer.

So with Archer. the writers made him larger than life. He did many things that while maybe not impossible were highly improbable.

In the forge he had never been on vulcan, but nevertheless defeated three Vulcan Commandos who had been born on the planet, grown up used to the gravity and atmosphere. ARcher should not have be abble to do that.

T-Pol who had vulcan strength could not lift the pillar but Archer could. Again Archer should not have been able to do that.

"Hero" has a lot of meanings, depending on context. In story structure, the "hero" is the protagonist, whose struggle to achieve his goal drives the story.

That being said, heroes in fiction are often depicted as "larger than life." And if a story has structural or continuity errors, that doesn't necessarily mean Archer isn't the protagonist. He still is, but it's probable that the storytellers fell short of a clearly delineated, effective structure that would work for everyone.

Since the temp of space is around absolute zero he would have been flash frozen as I counted about five or six seconds before he was started to be beamed aboard.

There's also a difference between "real time" and "reel time" in TV/movies. Time is often stretched out to serve the needs of the medium, i.e., get all the shots in.

 

[SFRabid]

...Since the temp of space is around absolute zero he would have been flash frozen ...

You have to remember that the vacuum of space, while cold, is also void of matter that would aid the transfer of heat. The same type of vacuum that manufacturers try to create when insulating high end coolers and thermos bottles. Satellites don't reach near absolute zero when orbiting earth. If they did the batteries would not work. Electronic circuitry creates a bit of heat, but the effect of direct sun creates even more.

 

[SFRabid]

In Star Trek the captain has always been the hero. Kirk was the focus of TOS even though Spock may be more popular. Picard was the center of attention in most of TNG and saved the universe several times. It peeked with “The Sisko” and continued with Janeway defeating the Borg. Archer was set up to be the hero but people don’t like stupid hero’s and too many things they wrote into the show during the first two seasons was stupid. ANIS is not the stuff of hero’s.

What I really like about Enterprise is that hero’s change with the episodes and they are more real to life. TOS gave us Vulcan neck pinch and Scotty’s miracles to bail out the crew. TNG relied too much on Data to get out of a problem. And of course, “The Sisko” just called upon the worm hole aliens to solve his problems. Enterprise gave us T’Pol choosing what is right over her race in “The Andorian Incident” and Trip fighting for survival in “Shuttlepod One.” Archer finally became a hero in season 3 and did so by making hard decisions rather than relying on superhuman crew members, Q, or wormhole aliens. It's too bad the writers could not get him on track from season 1.

 

[commodore64]

Well, the one who really had father issues was Malcolm.

No. In Broken Bow, we learn that Jon got involved in Starfleet because of his dad. We don't find out about Malcolm's dad until ... season 2? Archer's issues with his dad is a theme that carries through every season and part of the reason he's so angry at the Vulcans. (He blames them, ultimately, for his father's death.) His misperceptions about the Vulcans caused more issues than needed and set back a needed skill: diplomacy.

Once he overcame that in the Vulcan arc, he became a better diplomat and began to complete his journey. We start seeing a commander that has all the skills necessary.

Trip goes through an internal hero's journey.

Since there is only one Hero for the Hero's Journey, I disagree. Trip goes through some character development, but not a hero's journey.

Character development is not the same as being tested, denying the call, provided special powers and ultimately achieving the goal.

fictional Hero's are larger than life.

Yes. But, you're confusing "interesting" and the Hero.

If you and others check out the link provided in my original post, there are a series of steps that happen in order for the Hero to become engaged and complete his journey. Luke Skywalker wasn't the most interesting character, but had it not been for his journey, we never would have met Han Solo. Han Solo is a lovable rogue, a helper Skywalker needed in order to complete his destiny.

Heroes (with a cap H) have destinies. Larger than life makes them the winner of special powers granted by the gods, like the ability to travel in time (Shockwave I, II, Future Tense, etc.), Vulcan katras, hatred from whole alien races (like the bounty on Archer from Judgment), etc.

 

[pookha]

uh malcolms issues with his father are around in season one.. especially in silent enemy and shuttle pod one.

 

[miriel68]

In Star Trek the captain has always been the hero. Kirk was the focus of TOS even though Spock may be more popular. Picard was the center of attention in most of TNG and saved the universe several times. It peeked with “The Sisko” and continued with Janeway defeating the Borg. Archer was set up to be the hero but people don’t like stupid hero’s and too many things they wrote into the show during the first two seasons was stupid. ANIS is not the stuff of hero’s.

That's right. However, I found Kirk and Picard rather boring, because they are heros from the very beginning, they do not have to grow up. The most interesting thing about Picard's inner changes is his post-Borg trauma, which is not really part of a typical "hero journey".
Archer is not an "epic hero". Not at the beginning, at least. Initially he is a kind of everyman and his flaws are very human (ANIS is also about hubris, only we could not have a comic rapresentation of Achilles's hubris in Iliade). Hence the sense of the story being more "real" than "mythical".
If I were to compare Archer to Tolkien's heros, I would say he is more like Frodo than like Aragorn

 

[commodore64]

Pookah, Archer's daddy issues start from the first scene in the first episode of the series which means there's a big red circle drawn around it. Why? Enterprise is from Archer's POV and the set up for Broken Bow shows us that. Since Enterprise is about him, it indicates he's the Hero. These daddy issues threaten to prevent Archer from learning, too. Besides, it's a constant they have in the series. We don't hear any more about Reed's parents or sister after season 2. For example, the writers don't indicate it's why he went into Section 31, which would've been an easy link. On the flip side, we know precisely why Archer joined Starfleet and wanted to be the first captain to reach deep space: his father and his father's engine.

Muriel, heroes as described by Campbell are often ill-equipped to handle the "journey" at the beginning. Luke Skywalker is a classic example and Campbell himself uses Star Wars as the classic Hero's Journey. Luke is just a water farmer's nephew looking to buy some power converters. Instead, he embarks on a journey that leads to his hidden power given to him by the gods and fulfilling his destiny. I think Archer has a similar arc. He thinks (hubris) he's ready to explore space and gets his ass handed to him over and over until he starts learning some 1) humility (what A Night in Sickbay was all about) and 2) that the Vulcans actually have some good points (why I think Cogenitor is a hallmark episode). I don't think it's untli the Vulcan arc, though, that Archer really understands the Vulcans thanks to having their katra. Luke undergoes the same issues in Empire Strikes Back. He feels the rage from the dark side and realizes how easy it would be to slip into that world. And then he realizes Darth Vader is his father!

On Picard, TNG starts with the main character as Riker and transforms to Picard. Riker is the one who begins the journey. He is assigned to a mystery with his old flame. Picard does evolve a little, but he was already equipped to lead Enterprise; you're right.

Indranee used to argue that TOS was told from Spock's POV. I'm not sure. That might also be an interesting discussion.

 

[Penguin]

There are Hero's and Leaders. Sometimes a person is both but usually not.

An example of a Hero/Leader is Leonaidis at Thermopolye. He started with 7,00 troops. He allowed those who wanted to to leave to go home to try to defend their cities (which he knew was futile). He chose to stay with the 300 spartan volunteers under his command to hold the pass although he knew it was suicidal. He was a leader in that he inspired his men and a hero because he was willing to sacrficie himself for his city state and ultimately the Greeks.

Archer was neither a leader or a Hero.

He was a poor Officer and a Poor commander.

He did not trust hhis subordinates which is why he chose to go on away missions and take the suicide mission in Azati Prime. The person to take that mission was Travis. He new how to pilot the Insectoids ship and was an excellent pilot also he was expendable as there were other helmsmen on board.

He considered his subordinates stupid. He would give an order and follow up with "that is an Order." as if his subordinates were too stupid to know an order when they heard one. A good experienced Officer knows how to deliver an order in the form of a request although everyone knows that it is an order. Archer never knew how to do that even though he had been an officer for decades.

An example of his poor leadership and comand is in bound.

He is approached by an Orion. He should have immediately been wary.
he was not. He blithly told reed that he hoped that he could eliminate one hostile species against them. The Orions had a very nasty reputation and the Enterprise had a taste of them.

Archer accepts three Orion females. It soon becomes apparent that these females have a very disruptive effect on the male crew. Does he qurantine them? Confine them to quarters put female guards at their door and have females deliver thier meals while he contacts the Orion to come pick them up? NO.

Instead he falls under the spell of one and the other play havoc with the crew even to luring one into sabotaging the ships engines.

forunately trip and t-Pol save the day.

Aftermath. Archer says that he won't put in his log that trip shot a fellow Officer.

Lets say that Trip and T-Pol did not save the day and the enterprise was towed helpless, no engines and no weapons to the Orion raiders.

would the raiders be content with Archer? No. they would have boarded the Enteprise, captured the crew. Sold the men into slavery in the mines and the females in sex slavery exxept for those that they chose to keep for their own amusement. the enterprise they would repair it and use it in their own fleet possibly as a decoy ship.

So, if Archer were to try to courtmartial Trip a report would have to be filed by the Provost (reed), first Officer (T-Pol) and Archer. What would happen? trip probably would get a commendation and Archer would get a stiff Letter of reprimand in his file that would effectively end his career.

Acher was no leader and I never saw anything paerticuarly Heroic of him rather he took stupid risks that he should have assigned to his subordinates who were more qualified to take those risks. A good commander uses his subordinates and lets them do their jobs while he commands.

 

[commodore64]

There are Heroes and Leaders. Sometimes a person is both but usually not.

Ah, maybe I see our point of difference. I'm talking about Joseph Campbell and his definition of a Hero. It seems from reading this and other posts that you are not. It seems you're choosing your own definition of a hero. Yes?

 

[Penguin]

Commodore64, Yes I am chosing my own definiton.

But why is my definition not as good as Campbells.

I may be thick as two planks but I still have an idea of what a Hero is.

Calling a person a Hero doesn't mean that person is.

As I have said I do not believe sports stars are Hero's but they are called that in the media.

I still believe a Hero is an ordinary person who on occasion does something extraordinary.

Fictinal Heros are the exception. It is the wrter's concept of their Hero and what the writer puts the Hero through.

There have been many great and tragic Hero's in leterature but they are the creation of either myth or a wriers concept.

Myth by and large is writen by many voices.

Archer is a fictional person. I don't believe the writers suceeded in making him Heroic or even tragic. they made him superlative without actually giving him any superlative powers.

Had the Archer character been written properly he may have been heroic or even a a tragic Hero. He was not.

that is just my opinoin from the viewpoint of an average intelligence.

 

[miriel68]

Muriel, heroes as described by Campbell are often ill-equipped to handle the "journey" at the beginning. Luke Skywalker is a classic example and Campbell himself uses Star Wars as the classic Hero's Journey. Luke is just a water farmer's nephew looking to buy some power converters. Instead, he embarks on a journey that leads to his hidden power given to him by the gods and fulfilling his destiny. I think Archer has a similar arc. He thinks (hubris) he's ready to explore space and gets his ass handed to him over and over until he starts learning some 1) humility (what A Night in Sickbay was all about) and 2) that the Vulcans actually have some good points (why I think Cogenitor is a hallmark episode). I don't think it's untli the Vulcan arc, though, that Archer really understands the Vulcans thanks to having their katra. Luke undergoes the same issues in Empire Strikes Back. He feels the rage from the dark side and realizes how easy it would be to slip into that world. And then he realizes Darth Vader is his father!

I see your point but still, I do not think Archer really fits Campbell's definition (fortunately - from my point of view. I am not a great fan of epic heros). At least, he surely doesn't WANT to fit it, even if Daniels does his best to convince him of his "destiny". Archer does not belive in his "destiny" to save the world, even if he effectively saves it. This is a major difference, because a classical hero - ok, let's stay with Luke Skywalker - after the initiation fase does accapt their special status and fate. There is also another problem with Archer. He grows all right, he learns humility, he becomes more mature he overcomes his prejudices - we are not yet in a "heroic" dimension. Archer becomes a hero in the 3rd season but only as far as his "success" in defeating Xindi is concerned. This is not a sprititual journey any more - at least not in terms of spiritual growth. On the contrary, in order to achieve his goal he is forced to loose some of the moral values most dear to him. If Archer were Parcifal looking for Graal, after what happened in the third season he would know his heart was no more pure enough he could ever touch it.

 

[lceb]

Ok, let's turn the question around. Let's accept that Archer is the Hero. So what? Is it all a problem of definition? Will it make Archer a better character, more interesting or more loved? What is the use of writting a character according to Cambell if it doesn't reach the people?

 

[commodore64]

^ I thought he was a very interesting character who seemed to make great strides throughout the seasons. He had a lot of character development going from a guy who wasn't well-equipped to be a Hero and in the end turned out to be one.

But why is my definition not as good as Campbells.
I may be thick as two planks but I still have an idea of what a Hero is.

Not at all, Penguin. And it's valid. I think I was looking at your posts as if you were contradicting me. I don't think you are. You're saying: Archer's not a hero to me. I suppose Archer's heroism (with a small h) is subjective, as well as whether he's interesting.

I see your point but still, I do not think Archer really fits Campbell's definition (fortunately - from my point of view. I am not a great fan of epic heros). At least, he surely doesn't WANT to fit it, even if Daniels does his best to convince him of his "destiny". Archer does not belive in his "destiny" to save the world, even if he effectively saves it. This is a major difference, because a classical hero - ok, let's stay with Luke Skywalker - after the initiation fase does accapt their special status and fate.

Ahhhh - but it takes three movies. In Empire Strikes Back, Luke doesn't believe Yoda when he warns him that his anger might turn him to the dark side. He doesn't believe it until he goes to save Leia and Han and then faces his father -- Darth Vader. From there, he begins to understand his status.

Archer never believes he's "special," but fulfills his destiny anyway. For example, T'Pol tells Archer not to go to Azati Prime and to instead use diplomacy (should've listened!), but he does anyway. And yet, he fulfills his destiny partly because of Daniel's gift.

There is also another problem with Archer. He grows all right, he learns humility, he becomes more mature he overcomes his prejudices - we are not yet in a "heroic" dimension. Archer becomes a hero in the 3rd season but only as far as his "success" in defeating Xindi is concerned. This is not a sprititual journey any more - at least not in terms of spiritual growth. On the contrary, in order to achieve his goal he is forced to loose some of the moral values most dear to him. If Archer were Parcifal looking for Graal, after what happened in the third season he would know his heart was no more pure enough he could ever touch it.

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. 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.

How does this compare to other Heroes? Odysseus in order to fulfill his destiny has to leave his family. He goes through many trials, including some stupid decisions and is captured. Meanwhile, his son is growing and his wife has suitors. He has a great price for his destiny. When he returns, he's realized how much has been cost him and what his stupid decisions have done. He also reconciles hubris and confidence.

 

[Penguin]

Believe that Odyssesus is a poor choice.

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

He dallies with Circe for ten years.

He takes risk that get his men killed.

While he finallly does get home and rescues Penelope from the suitors he has to rely on athena who I wouldn't trust seeing how she betrayed Troy in a snit because she was not awarded the Apple.

Now Aeneis might be a better choice since he relied on himself.

funny how these guys in Mythology always stiff the female who helps them/loves them as Aeneis did.

Anyway, Don't think looking in mythology will give you someone to compare Archer to.

Probably because he was not blessed with writers who could write a proper Hero.