Anyone who has studied theories of epic narrative has most likely come across the notion that all classic stories contain the same basic elements -- themes of heroism and archetypal characters that are essentially the same across the board. The bulk of these patterns are summed up in Joseph Campbell's concept of the "monomyth," or hero cycle, a template for heroic stories that many modern day and historic stories unconsciously follow.
Interestingly enough, many aspects of the hero cycle resemble Biblical concepts. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a close parallel to the mythical hero's descent into and eventual triumph over darkness. Secularists would argue that the story of Jesus is nothing more than another incarnation of the monomyth, succumbing to the same archetypes as the rest. However, Christians like myself are of the opposite belief -- that archetypes resonate so strongly with humanity because God has "hard-coded" aspects of his being into creation.
A common form for the telling of such hero stories is the trilogy, a genre that has been especially popular in film throughout the last 25 years. Star Wars, The Matrix, and The Lord of the Rings are all saturated with monomythical elements. Again, I believe that Christian theology goes a long way towards explaining why the three-part structure is so well suited to telling epic tales.
The number three holds a high significance in Christianity, as it symbolizes the perfection found in the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In a discussion about trilogies I had with my cousin, he suggested that humanity found trilogies appealing because they mirror God's triune nature. While there is certainly something to this, I think the natural tendency of hero stories to unfold as trilogies has an explanation that goes a bit deeper.
When looking at human history through a Biblical lens, three divisions of time emerge. The first era, spanning the years chronicled by the Old Testament, involves the fall of man in the Garden of Eden and a period of waiting for Christ to come. Man currently lives in the second time period, where Christ has arrived and his work to redeem us from the clutches of sin is ongoing. The third and final stage of human existence will occur when Christ returns and the relationship between God, man, and creation is restored to its rightful state.
So, if people are living in the midst of a real-life trilogy, it makes sense that they would write their stories according to the same structure. Even non-Christians, like George Lucas or the Wachowski brothers, unknowingly divide their stories into three parts that correspond to the stages of God's salvation of humanity. I won't go into depth analyzing Star Wars and The Matrix in terms of Christianity here, but if you've seen those movies you probably have an idea of what I'm talking about. And if you liked the stories they told...
...I can think of a few books to recommend.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
I'm Not the Only One
Gillian Flynn's review of Alias that appeared in Entertainment Weekly's Feb. 18 issue is an excellent analysis of where the once-great show is now heading. She addresses the issues of continuity and simplification that I touched upon in my earlier post. Find the review online here. (Note that the EW grade of A posted on this page is a typo. The print version of the magazine lists the rating as a B-.)
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Television Power Rankings
One of the interesting things that the major sports websites do these days is to post weekly "power rankings" for the major professional sports leagues--sort of a simulation of college sports' top 25 polls, with greater weight given to teams who are enjoying recent hot streaks. These rankings hold no official meaning, as pro leagues still decide their playoff seeding purely based on wins and losses, but they're a fun way to compare teams' performance at the present moment. (See the current ESPN.com NBA Power Rankings.)
I'd love to see the same concept applied to ranking TV shows, based on their rising or declining quality. While I certainly have a high enough geek level to do it, I don't watch enough different shows or have enough time to routinely maintain such a list. Even so, here's my shot at what this week's TV Power Rankings would look like:
I'd love to see the same concept applied to ranking TV shows, based on their rising or declining quality. While I certainly have a high enough geek level to do it, I don't watch enough different shows or have enough time to routinely maintain such a list. Even so, here's my shot at what this week's TV Power Rankings would look like:
- 24
--Bringing Tony back into the lineup further solidifies what looks to be a banner year. - Lost
--Still generating X-Files level speculation as to "What the heck is going on???" - Arrested Development
--It's always fun to finally get a joke you heard four episodes ago. - The Simpsons
--Superbowl episode shows that it's still a contender, if no longer a dynasty. - Alias
--Sellout for ratings continues. Give us Rambaldi and the Covenant!
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Superman = liberal; Batman = conservative
Most of you have heard my frequently voiced opinion that Superman is a liberal and that Batman is a conservative. I believe that this opinion is consistently backed by the portrayal of both heroes throughout time, and not simply an instance of me projecting my own ideology onto my favorite character.
Demographically, both characters fit neatly into the stereotypical left/right categories. Clark Kent is not only a big city journalist, but is married to one as well. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, comes from wealth and is the head of a large corporation that makes money from defense contracting. Superman's best friend, Jimmy Olson, is also a member of the news media, while Batman's is a cop (Jim Gordon). Lex Luthor, Superman's archenemy, is a corrupt businessman with an innate hatred of foreigners (hence his feelings towards the Kryptonian). Batman's rogues gallery, however, includes two environmentalists (Poison Ivy and Ra's al Ghul), a psychologist (Hugo Strange), and a college professor (The Scarecrow).
The personalities of each hero also support these labels. Batman believes first and foremost that criminals should be punished, and he never trusts a villain who claims he has reformed. Though he frequently works with the police, Batman neglects to follow any of the civil rights-based restraints that bind the arms of the boys in blue. Batman willingly uses physical violence to intimidate and extract information from a suspect, and doesn't concern himself with probable cause when conducting a search.
Conversely, Superman sees himself primarily as an inspiration to humanity, even to those on the wrong side of the law. While he has put his fair share of bad guys behind bars, he would rather forgive than incarcerate. Though it can be debated whether or not it presented an accurate vision of Superman, the movie Superman IV shows the Man of Steel unilaterally disarming the nuclear capabilities of the Cold War superpowers. Superman is an advocate of multiculturalism, preserving the remnants of his Kryptonian heritage in the Fortress of Solitude, despite the fact that he has never technically set foot on Krypton. (The modern version of Superman was "born" in the United States, once his ship opened up on Earth.)
Does all of this mean that Superman cannot be enjoyed by a conservative like myself? Even at his worst, Superman mostly embodies the good side of liberalism, and the universe he occupies is basically a vision of what the world would be if liberals were right. My argument does, however, lend further validity to the notion that Batman is the superior character, and that he, like most conservatives facing liberals, could probably defeat Superman in a fight.
Demographically, both characters fit neatly into the stereotypical left/right categories. Clark Kent is not only a big city journalist, but is married to one as well. Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, comes from wealth and is the head of a large corporation that makes money from defense contracting. Superman's best friend, Jimmy Olson, is also a member of the news media, while Batman's is a cop (Jim Gordon). Lex Luthor, Superman's archenemy, is a corrupt businessman with an innate hatred of foreigners (hence his feelings towards the Kryptonian). Batman's rogues gallery, however, includes two environmentalists (Poison Ivy and Ra's al Ghul), a psychologist (Hugo Strange), and a college professor (The Scarecrow).
The personalities of each hero also support these labels. Batman believes first and foremost that criminals should be punished, and he never trusts a villain who claims he has reformed. Though he frequently works with the police, Batman neglects to follow any of the civil rights-based restraints that bind the arms of the boys in blue. Batman willingly uses physical violence to intimidate and extract information from a suspect, and doesn't concern himself with probable cause when conducting a search.
Conversely, Superman sees himself primarily as an inspiration to humanity, even to those on the wrong side of the law. While he has put his fair share of bad guys behind bars, he would rather forgive than incarcerate. Though it can be debated whether or not it presented an accurate vision of Superman, the movie Superman IV shows the Man of Steel unilaterally disarming the nuclear capabilities of the Cold War superpowers. Superman is an advocate of multiculturalism, preserving the remnants of his Kryptonian heritage in the Fortress of Solitude, despite the fact that he has never technically set foot on Krypton. (The modern version of Superman was "born" in the United States, once his ship opened up on Earth.)
Does all of this mean that Superman cannot be enjoyed by a conservative like myself? Even at his worst, Superman mostly embodies the good side of liberalism, and the universe he occupies is basically a vision of what the world would be if liberals were right. My argument does, however, lend further validity to the notion that Batman is the superior character, and that he, like most conservatives facing liberals, could probably defeat Superman in a fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)