Vogler 2

These sections explained what archetypes are and described two major archetypes: the hero and the mentor. According to Vogler an archetype is not definite and attached to one character, instead it is only a temporary function that is performed by one of the characters to move the story along. Vogler goes on to describe the archetypes of the hero and the mentor with respect to each one's psychological function and dramatic function in a story. A hero's psychological function is the ego and the psychological task is to find wholeness through integrating all the different archetypes parts and finally becoming the self (this is what the mentor embodies). The hero's dramatic functions are providing a window into the story, learning, giving action to the story, and performing some act of sacrifice (the hero embodies self-sacrifice). As I said before, the mentor is the self personified, this means that he is a whole person that has probably gone through the hero's journey to reach this completeness. A mentor's dramatic function is to teach, protect, and give heroes gifts (whether material things, advice, a conscience, etc.).

Once again I felt like Vogler wasn't specific enough because his definitions of mentor and hero are so vague. He explains each one's archetype well and specifically; then, within the explanation of the archetype, he includes too many different types. For example there is the Hero archetype, the hero can either be willing or unwilling, inside of those types are different kinds of willing and unwilling heroes (anti-hero, loner hero, etc.). To me, the mentor archetype is even more vague. First, there is the overall mentor archetype. Next, inside the archetype are varying types of mentors such as: mentor as a teacher, a gift giver, a conscience, a sexual initiator, a fallen mentor, a comic mentor, etc. I think there are way to many, and that once again the author uses all the types to cover his ass so that he is right instead of making the readers/analyzers bend the definition and make the connection themselves. I do, however, like how he explains the archetypes as masks. The archetypes are not specific to each character but instead to each role that the characters play. He says that this can produce hybrids such as the hero-trickster; I agree with this because, with more complex characters, one archetype couldn't define their function to the story.

While reading this I began to notice that the author has a valid point when he writes about the archetypal figures of fairy tales (the wolf, hunter, stepmother, etc.); I can see that there are definitely stereotypical people put into the different archetypes. He says that there are now more modern archetypes like "Whore with the Heart of Gold" and "Arrogant West Point Lieutenant". I think the setting is modern, but the archetypes are still the same; the "Whore with the Heart of Gold" is just like Cinderella if you take away the job title. I've really started to realize that many of the new movies I see are the same plots and characters as stories from hundreds of years ago, just with different names and locations.

Questions:

1. Because the mentor is the Self (contains all parts) can it be a hybrid with another archetype?

2. Since the archetypes are like masks, can the characters "wear" both at one time?