Hero Archetypes: “It’s one story. The oldest: Light versus dark”

[butterbumps!]

(redirected from a tangent in an AA thread; I know there's other active hero threads, but this looks at it from a different angle)

There’s endless debate about which character is which mythical hero, usually framed around the idea that there will be an overarching archetypal hero to be found in this story.

Instead, I think the opposite of that is closer to what we see happening. That is, I think that Martin is deconstructing the concept of an “archetypal hero,” and that, by extension, none of the mythological hero figures, nor the characters who might purportedly fulfill their roles, will emerge as a singular, transcendent “one true hero.”

In opening this dialogue, I’m interested in exploring the less traversed ground of questioning the existence of a universal hero in the story, looking at how the concept appears to be deconstructed, and proposing a different way of looking at these mythological figures.

Essentially, I think Martin’s shattering the concept of a universal, archetypal hero that saves the entire world from all ills. I think that, in-story, the characters buy into the idea of a universal, archetypal hero savior. But, their ideas of what constitutes salvation are all limited by their own interests and perspectives. A Dothraki would see total conquest as the greatest good, a fire proponent sees eternal summer, an old gods worshipper believes in balance, and so forth.

I think Martin is showing us that the manifestation of the “universal hero archetype” is nothing but a matter of perspective. The characters subscribe to a “one true hero” idea, but I don't think the readers are intended to.

These heroes we see-- StMtW, LH, AAR, PtwP and so forth-- are manifestations of the specific interests of those who name them heroes, viewing them as panaceas from their own perspectives, all based on the universal idea of good vs evil, but defining that good and evil from their own point of view. So none of these figures is a transcendent, universal savior, but champions representing specific interests and perspectives.

Repeatedly, we’re shown that everything is a matter of perspective. Depending on “where you’re standing,” whom you define as “hero” or “villain” will change; one group’s hero is another group’s villain. Good versus evil is the universal concept—as per the Rust Cohle quote in the title, it’s the "only story." But what a group identifies as “good” or “evil” is variable, as that's a matter of perspective, and in this story, such clear heroes and villains don't truly exist.

With that said, I do think that there is still meaning behind each of these hero figures-- they're "real" figures in so far as they advance the interests of their various proponents, but none will be the one, true, universal archetypal figure that transcends perspective to us.

[MoIaF]

What can I say: I agree!

We've discussed this many times, in many ways GRRM is a logical writer. Logically speaking a country the size of Westeris cannot be save by one man or woman. It'll be done by many on many different fronts.

[TheBastardofBluegrass]

I agree as well, I think a lot of the reason there are so many flashbacks, and "bedtime stories" so to speak - NIght's King, Last Hero (mainly in Bran's POV chapters) is to give readers a sense of myth and legend for this particular world. In this particular context, the current setting of these novels, these people are becoming the legends for future generations and as the original poster said, heroism/villainy are in the eyes of the beholder. Martin has proven in the works that he is striving to smash our perceptions of good and evil, morality, justice, etc. I think it would be too cliche to have one character emerge above all the others.

[Guard of the Rainking]

Yes! I hope that all the chosen one prophecies will be BS.

[Ygritte]

Yes! I hope that all the chosen one prophecies will be BS.

I think most of them may be true, but true for several people at once. Like how there are several people who meet the "smoke and salt/bleeding star" stuff, and I think it'll turn out that everything's true in more than one way.

[Catastrophe]

I think there will be several people who fulfill the terms of the prophecy, depending on interpretation. When everything's said and done, both the in-universe characters and the readers will be left debating which of the heroes was the true Last Hero/Azor Ahai/Prince Who Was Promised. It's all a matter of perspective.

[DreamSongs]

I fully agree ButterBumps. There is no one hero archetype.

I am hoping that in between Bran, Sansa, Jon, Jaime and Stannis that there is enough courage, leadership, talent, wisdom and strength to save Westeros.

[Gallivant]

I agree as well, I think a lot of the reason there are so many flashbacks, and "bedtime stories" so to speak - NIght's King, Last Hero (mainly in Bran's POV chapters) is to give readers a sense of myth and legend for this particular world. In this particular context, the current setting of these novels, these people are becoming the legends for future generations and as the original poster said, heroism/villainy are in the eyes of the beholder. Martin has proven in the works that he is striving to smash our perceptions of good and evil, morality, justice, etc. I think it would be too cliche to have one character emerge above all the others.

I very much agree with this. One of GRRM's key objectives appears to be to subvert familiar fantasy literature tropes. He is setting up the notion that his own story will become yet another legend - his own 'song' of 'fire and ice', to match these bedtime stories and fabled tales of mythic conquest and heroic deeds. Yet his characters are constantly forced to face the gritty realities of life (and strife) in a wartorn world and their outcomes are perhaps reliant on how well they adapt to these harsh realities.

In many ways the experiences of the Stark children are the readers' key focalisers for this process. So, for example, we see Sansa, initially in thrall to balladic 'songs' of valour, romance and chivalry, quickly disillusioned by her experiences at Kings Landing - and notably now playing the 'game' (not necessariy of 'thrones', however it might be dressed up, but of 'survival'). Arya has been exposed to the grisly effects of warring lords on the 'smallfolk' and is processing this trauma in her own inimitable and bloodthirsty way.

Poor Robb was hailed as a plucky hero for the north - a potential legend to be sung of for generations to come - but was ultimately destroyed by politicking and others' self-interest. In contrast we have Jon, who does not appear to seek personal glory and due to his bastard status can be termed the runt of the Stark litter (like Ghost, originally), being valorised by readers as the true hero of GRRM's song - the one who will not actively seek legendary hero status but will, unwittingly, attain it (in true heroic style) through his earnest egalitarian and humanitarian approach to the Wildlings. He is therefore a key candidate, seemingly, to fulfil the prophesies of a saviour for Westeros - AA, TPtwP &c. However, if GRRM is deadset on subverting the value of these myths, then Jon's outcome is likely to be very disappointing.

The problem GRRM has, I feel, is how he winds up his 'song' in a satisfactory manner. This is not to say he needs to end his story with an archetypal hero conquering all for the good of the realm to ensure a happy readership; more that he is so embroiled in demonstrating a state of war and the bloodsoaked violence and conflict which invariably serves as the backdrop from which these supposed 'songs' and legends would typically spring, he will not be able to find a suitable narratological endpoint! Inevitably his story has to reach some kind of climax - a key battle must be won (by someone).

Of course it is hugely impressive that he is authoring such a comprehensive, multi-plotted depiction of events from all sides of the argument(s). If only 'real' history could do the same thing. Instead different chroniclers favour different events and personalities to serve their own particular interests (or more usually, those of their masters). GRRM is perhaps laudable in trying to construct a truly comprehensive 'history' - but that kind of narrative cannot have a clearcut trajectory as it ultimately portrays a constant state of flux.

I wonder if GRRM will eventually find he has to cave to the literary tropes and heroic archetypes he seems so keen to debunk. It may be the only way he can ever manage to finish his story.

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

I wonder if GRRM will eventually find he has to cave to the literary tropes and heroic archetypes he seems so keen to debunk. It may be the only way he can ever manage to finish his story.

I wonder this, too. I've found that to be the case with a lot of the popular fantasy series of the past decade or so.

[Jankmaster]

I think that the idea of the monomyth as described by Joseph Campbell is a very real idea in the real world and will show itself in these books as well. Heroic Archetypes have existed since the oldest tales like Beowolf and the Illiad. What's interesting is that those characters in those tales are still very flawed and can be considered grey, but it is that the heroes made more recently embody a sense of total purity and black vs white. I think writing the monomyth is almost inescapable, Martin will modify it significantly perhaps, but the idea of the Hero's Journey is something that is imbedded in culture and a tale we somehow always are drawn to. We love that story, and I think for all his deconstruction of tropes it will be hard for Martin to escape that idea as well. There doesn't have to be only one hero's journey in the story, but I see characters like Jon and possibly Bran and Dany go through that cycle we know so well.

[Mladen]

I agree with OP that we won't see universal hero type where every prophecy of the world would tie up in knot around the one individual making him/her the savior. That being said, I am also not sure that we will see prophecies creating some sort of Avengers group for saving the world. I see some of them being, if not in strict, then in relative contrition and opposition to each other, and some of them, for me, have little to do with saving the world as much as conquering and taking control (like SWMTW) All and all, I am not sure that one hero or heroic group would be the solution for all the world's problem... Actually, I would say that there is little chance for that to happen in world of ASOIAF.

[joluoto2]

It's still the old story: light versus dark. This battle instead takes place inside each character.

[butterbumps!]

I think that the idea of the monomyth as described by Joseph Campbell is a very real idea in the real world and will show itself in these books as well. Heroic Archetypes have existed since the oldest tales like Beowolf and the Illiad. What's interesting is that those characters in those tales are still very flawed and can be considered grey, but it is that the heroes made more recently embody a sense of total purity and black vs white. I think writing the monomyth is almost inescapable, Martin will modify it significantly perhaps, but the idea of the Hero's Journey is something that is imbedded in culture and a tale we somehow always are drawn to. We love that story, and I think for all his deconstruction of tropes it will be hard for Martin to escape that idea as well. There doesn't have to be only one hero's journey in the story, but I see characters like Jon and possibly Bran and Dany go through that cycle we know so well.

Well, I think the way you "escape" it to deconstruct through perspectives, showing that there's no universally "right" side, which is what he's doing. I think he's almost making fun of the monomyth concept. It's almost like in the contained universe of the story, everyone has their own monomyth. Like, The Hero with a Thousand Faces exists in the story. But the reader sees all manifestations of these myths, and there's no fundamental "good or evil," just points of view.

--------------------

I know that the idea of the person, or persons, who defeats the Others is taken to be the most important "hero" typically. The way the series starts off-- with the mysterious, fearsome Others in the Prologue set up as the assumed big bads. We get almost nothing further about them, other than the sense of impending doom and unilateral "evil." aGoT also seems to present the ostensible solution to these bads: the dragons. The assumed bads and the assumed solution to those bads bookend this first installment, and I think this set up makes it logical to assume that anything aligned with fire, including the mythical heroes like AA, have a special place of importance in overcoming what's assumed to be the major problem (Others).

I think that this assumption might be one of the other facets to this that gets up-ended. I'm not suggesting that dragons and fire will end up being the big bads and that the Others are creampuffs or something. I'm suggesting that the assumption that one should overcome the other should be questioned, and in particular, the idea that the overcoming the Others is truly the "great good" that becomes the defining task of those who might be considered "heroes."

[kiasyd]

Indeed, if there is one main underlying theme in ASOIAF, it's perspective - even the narrative structure reflects that.

We can see this impact in the fandom as well - there are camps for the arch-mythical hero in being many different characters - again, it depends on the perspective of the reader. In summary and in agreement with the OP, I don't think "a savior of all" will be revealed as many expect, ASOIAF is way too postmodern for that. :)

[Ragnorak]

Nice thread, Butterbumps.

I agree mostly, but not entirely.

I think Martin is showing us that the manifestation of the “universal hero archetype” is nothing but a matter of perspective. The characters subscribe to a “one true hero” idea, but I don't think the readers are intended to.

I do think Martin intends his readers to which is why there are so many divisive threads about how my favorite character is better than your favorite character. Our devious author cuts a razor thin line through his readership with a frighteningly sharp sympathy tool that breaks sympathy for some yet not for others. Where this sympathy breaks and why divides the readers by which characters they do or do not embrace as a "true hero." True to life we see the flaws of the unsympathetic take on villain-like qualities and the flaws and mistakes of the unsympathetic downplayed. I don't think Martin was writing with forum debates in mind, but I do think he expected, and still expects, differing outcomes among readers of who is and isn't a hero. It is still a matter of perspective, but one that comes from the individual reader's beliefs, values, and experiences that they bring with them to the book rather than a thing that is purely inherent in the text and circumstances of the story.

Repeatedly, we’re shown that everything is a matter of perspective. Depending on “where you’re standing,” whom you define as “hero” or “villain” will change; one group’s hero is another group’s villain. Good versus evil is the universal concept—as per the Rust Cohle quote in the title, it’s the "only story." But what a group identifies as “good” or “evil” is variable, as that's a matter of perspective, and in this story, such clear heroes and villains don't truly exist.

I think Martin has true heroes and villains. Let's start with the true villains because they're a bit clearer-- Gregor and Ramsay. Ok, so apparently Gregor had bad headaches but I haven't seen anyone try and excuse his behavior for that. I guess the people sending marriage offers to Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer don't read ASOIAF. Ramsay is just as sick if not more so than Gregor and he doesn't even get the headache excuse. I'm going with "pure villain" with these two.

The Gregor "pure villain" brings us to Tywin. Lots and lots of people love Tywin. People like a winner, they admire success, they admire someone willing to cross any line to obtain a goal, etc. Tywin is written with a number archetypally attractive aspects. He's also written to deliberately parallel Gregor. So you have a pure villain and then a guy who is really, really damn close to "pure villain" in literary portrayal just with a much better marketing campaign.

Then you have Dany freeing slaves. That's about as "pure hero" as it gets. Dany is naïve at the start, which actually resembles the traditional black and white true hero telling. She sees slavers, crushes slavers and frees the slaves. Traditional hero story done. Martin goes further and shows us the consequences. There's a stability void flowed by "Oh crap we're going to need more Krazy Glue. Shit, there just isn't enough Krazy glue in the world we're going to have to start making it. How in the hell do you make Krazy Glue?" Despite the complicated scenario that arises later, I don't think we're supposed to step into the slavers' shoes, the ones ripping babies from their mothers to be killed as opposed to the general populace, and see the world from their perspective like we are with a Jaime who does perfectly fit with your OP.

We also have Ned who even in this grey world is pretty much the pure hero-- even for his enemies. LF wishes for all his enemies to be honorable like Ned. When Cersei "sees" Ned during her Walk of Shame I think it is fairly clear that even she understands that he was a classically heroic man. So even the in story characters have a certain objective view of "heroism" even if they are emotionally unmoved and willing to play the role of his enemy without ever seeing themselves as remotely villainous.

I think the majority of the story tends to aligns with your OP, but there's a thin black and white border around this grey picture of more than a thousand words.

[Balerion06]

Ooooooh, I really like this. Perhaps one way of ending such a story without falling into conventional tropes is to have the final conflict boil down to Protagonist vs Protagonist, with each side having its own good and bad points while leaving it up to the reader to decide for themselves which side has more credibility.

[Mdoggy]

what if the prince who was promised was not a person but a group of people?

It would be cool if it was the alliance that brings about the end

[jon rhaegar stark]

GRRM has reminded us often in books that the game of thrones and war for the throne doesnt matter ...the real threat is beyond the wall and it is coming

and when it is comes it is said darkness fell upon land and long night ....so there is the dark

according to light there will be many who will fight the dark ...but many people believe that say if someone has fulfilled some prophecy then that someone will be the only hero ...that's where people start neglecting what the books really say and go in denial because their favorite character is not the one that fulfilled some prophecy...why cant someone can be normal and fight a heroic battle and help to overthrow the real threat with combining other major forces that will fight with you

[Mdoggy]

GUYS I HAD AN IDEA....

WHAT IF....

the song of ice and fire is NOT about old heros coming back and myths being relived but about NEW HEROS and HEROINES that arise when needed.

It is a new story and a new myth not the old ones resurfaced.

[Mdoggy]

Maybe everyone who fights is the hero?