The Problem of the ‘Designated’ Hero Archetype...

First off, I want to apologize for the delays in writing anything here at the Lexicon Blog, I’ve been overwhelmed with 'behind the scenes' projects with the proper Lexicon site, as well as some personal, and creative projects.

Last February, Past Lexicon contributor Chris Knowles was interviewed by Aeolus Kephas of the site, Stormy Weather, for a fascinating discussion, that can be archived here in two parts.

Stormy Weather pt. 1 interview

Stormy Weather pt. 2 interview

Aspects of this interview touched on some issues that I have been pondering and have been preoccupied with for years, the skeptical deconstruction of the Hero Archetype. Chris’s own site, The Secret Sun, is preoccupied with finding connections between contemporary symbolism and ancient symbolism. My personal preoccupations have always been how the hero archetype has evolved from classic Greek mythologies, as well as the mythologies around the world, into the kind of serialized notion of the hero.

Of course, all of the following points have been discussed without end, by others who are far more altruistic and intelligent than myself, but these are my gut observations about these issues.

The Hero archetype has been examined at length through the work and writings of Joseph Campbell. The classic hero archetype, the journey of the hero to find his place in the world, is ancient, potent, I believe is deep seeded in our consciousness, or to reference Jung, our collective unconsciousness. The development of what I coin, the "Designated" hero has evolved with the trend of the superhero over the last hundred years. Elements of the Superhero have always existed, but have become more narrowly defined within pop culture

Here’s my dilemma, once you think about, and analyze the role of "Designated" Hero, you forced to the see the flaw in the very notion, of the very nature is of this type of specific character archetype. That there is a diminishing return to the role of an individual saving others, or a city, or community, or the world on a regular basis, and this is what made the movie version of The Watchmen so fascinating. There has been accusations by some comic book fans that author Alan Moore hates Heroes. It is my observation that some of these accusations are similar to the types of accusations leveled at filmmaker Stanley Kubrick over his entire body of work. Both men have been dismissed for their cynicism; I would argue that Moore and Kubrick were less 'cynics' than realists about human nature.

It's one of the reasons why I found Christopher Nolan's Batman films to be so interesting, exactly for their insight into human nature. I have observed, from his past observations, that Secret Sun webmaster, Chris Knowles has been disillusioned about Nolan’s interpretation of the Batman character, and that we share a different reaction to these films. I have always felt that Chris Nolan is building up a point by point argument and illustrating that Batman's brand of vigilantism would never work in the real world, it is a flawed ideal to begin with, and only could lead to diminishing returns, in spite of good intentions. This is why I predict the final film of Nolan's trilogy will be the bleakest, and why it will lead to the self destruction of Bruce Wayne, it's already set in the cards.

One of the interesting things about the character "Dr. Manhattan" from The Watchmen was in fact that he was omnipotent, wise, and detached from other humans. It is hard to not see that Superman displays the same traits; the fundamental difference that prevents Superman from holding that same kind of detachment for humanity is the fact that he was raised on a farm by a mortal couple, the Kents. Thus, he has retained a connection. It’s one of the things I found interesting about the hero deconstructionist approach of Superman Returns, I predict Superman must die so that the son, a kind of alien / human hybrid, can lead his fellow mortals through example, though his son's own connection to humanity, and that his son’s diminished abilities will bring about a greater connection and sense of responsibility.

For myself, I find it much more interesting to find out what happens to Harry Potter after his daring feats of heroism, what price must be paid, what toll it will take on Harry to have the expectation of his friends that he can find a solution to every crisis, and what will happen when an older Harry can't find a solution to every crisis. A lot of my unpublished writing has been concerned with the very price to be paid for such heroes, when the nature of being a hero no longer works, I have found this an ongoing preoccupation as well as puzzle. When does the good example set by heroes become a self destructive obsession?

Billie Joe Armstrong, and the rock band Green Day, has focused on the issue of patriotic jingoism, as well as American mythic ideology, on their last two albums. The lyrics to the song "See The Light", from 21st Century Breakdown raises a very valid idea. And I’d argue, in their own way, Green Day is questioning the American hero archetype.

"I just want to see the Light, I don’t want to lose my sight, I need to know what’s worth the fight."

What happens when a hero is no longer clear about what he is fighting for?

Songwriter, Stephen Sondheim, brilliantly examined how fables, and by extension, certain archetypes, are interpreted and understood in the song, "Children Will Listen" from the musical Into The Woods.

"Careful the wish you make, Wishes are children, Careful the path they take, Wishes come true, not free. Careful the spell you cast, not just on children, Sometimes the spell may last, past what you can see, and turn against you, Careful the tale you tell, that is the spell, Children will Listen."

The tales we tell can have a potent impact on how we view the world and yet isn’t this the essence of why stories are told? Should the teller of such tales operate with greater care? If we cling too tightly to the conventions of our hero archetypes, don’t we risk having it working against us in real life?

A side preoccupation, brilliantly illustrated in Chris Carter’s Fox series Millennium, has been the danger of prophecy, which I have also become increasingly skeptical toward. The problem of Prophecies is not in their existence, Prophecies on their own are harmless, but the danger lies in their interpretation, and the willingness of men to take action and make them happen. Thus, the very fabric of the notion of 'Fate', does fate exist, or do we create out own fate? This is why I always identified in one of the key sentiments and phrases of Terminator 2: Judgment Day – "No fate but what we make."

In other words, will we take the final chapter of the Christian Scriptures to heart? Is the Book of Revelations a kind of wish fulfillment? Will we interpret those signs correctly? Or,... for example, the multitude of other religions that believe in Armageddon and reinforce the idea of a global fate in their own contructs? If prophecy is the construct of mortal men to begin with, then don’t we have the choice to reject those constructs?

I realize the following prior point is very loaded indeed, and touches on a very Nietzscheian notion. Should we spit in the eye of such beliefs, such constructs as fate and destiny? What if all of the scriptures of the world’s religions, which were interpreted by mortal men, no less, what if those interpretations strayed from the real intention of a higher power? Historically, there is ample evidence to the negative outcome of religions to cling to rigid dogmas. To tie this together with the issue of mythic archetypes, what does it mean if the accepted archetype of the hero itself has been misinterpreted?

Which brings me now to Mulder and Scully, (did you not think I’d bring this up?), relates to this question. Mulder falls into the same example of the "Designated" hero, and we have witnessed the same diminishing returns as well as the cost illustrated throughout his history and his actions. While Mulder’s instincts have nearly always been correct, and his obsessions might have brought about great good, it came at a terrible cost for himself, Scully, his parents, and associates. Was Mulder's decade long efforts worth the final outcome? I guess it would depend on understanding what was at stake, of knowing what was worth the fight, and what wasn’t. With a destination that hasn't been reached in the X-Files mythos.

This isn't to say the message and the meaning of the hero is inherently wrong. During this period of our history, we do need heroic examples. The central point has always been the same and will always remain true, that everyone is capable of being heroic, and it doesn’t have to result in grand sweeping gestures, or the ultimate in self sacrifice. Heroism can be found in daily little gestures, as well as the bravery of holding true to ones convictions. If we have the choice to reject the constructs that drive the belief in destiny, then the "Designated" hero can simply choose to walk away, and let others set the example.

This isn't a bad thing. To hold into this skepticism of the traditional role of the hero archetype, it is indeed healthy, and it might be needed as we move into the 21st Century.

Ultimately, perhaps the role of the hero is no longer needed if we can learn to stop being passive in our interactions with the world around us, or dependent on others to guide our lives. If we can keep things in perspective, with a clear and objective view about how to live our lives, and use as an example the best qualities of what makes someone heroic, as a template for how to deal with real world challenges, then we can move into something that I see as hopeful.

There is a lot of wisdom in the concluding point: You can't save others, until you can save yourself.

The show's title inspired by a music video?

I came across something interesting last night while watching the music video for Jon Bon Jovi's 1983 single, "Runaway". On the opening montage, there's a series of newspaper clips about some kind of nuclear fallout and exposure. There might even be a reference to Pyrokinesis. There's a piece of paper with the following: FILE X-8026, check it out.

Bon Jovi music video, "Runaway"

The video, directed by Phil Griffin, seems to have a loose paranormal theme, it's really inspired more by Steven King's book "Firestarter" than anything else. Nevertheless, this is interesting, people should be reminded that "X" in mathematical terms represents the unknown. Yet, could the video have been an indirect influence on Chris Carter when he came up the title of the show? I'm looking into this through direct sources, and so stay tuned for more on this....

Remembering Past Genres...

First off, my apologies for taking so long to update here.

One of the interesting outcomes of my recent interview with Bob Goodwin, was the connection I felt with our shared liking of old 50s genre films. I was very much tickled to look at the posters and lobby cards for “Alien Trespass”, it triggered memories of my avid interest in 40s and 50s Science Fiction and Horror posters, I had an huge interest in the subject when I was younger. I share many of the same favorites that Mr. Goodwin mentioned. Some include War of The Worlds, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, It Came from Outer Space, Howard Hawk’s The Thing, invaders From Mars, the iconic The Day The Earth Stood Still, as well as such interstellar epics as Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, and George Pal’s Destination Moon. Unfortunately, with today’s contemporary eyes, and due to the sophistication and production values that Sci Fi genre fans have become accustomed to, many of these films probably seem quaint or crude. By fans dismissing them, they miss out on an important part of pop culture history, and most importantly, many of these films for their time, successfully captured that sense of wonder that a 10-year-old holds.



Much in the same way that, by the mid thirties, the Flash Gordon / Buck Rogers Universal serials with Buster Crabbe captivated children, and those serials were upholding the tradition of the Science Fiction Pulp magazines of that era. There’s something to be said for the naive exuberance of that era, before astronomical science had caught up to the point of changing the sensibilities of genre writers. One of my great collecting obsessions has been the premiere Science Fiction Pulp magazine of the 20s and 30s: "Amazing Stories." Before Steven Spielberg co-opted the title for his 80s anthology. "Amazing Stories" was a ground breaking publication in the mid 20s. below is a copy of the one of editions I have.



Yes, I’ll admit the aliens with the huge ears is hokey, but there was again a charm in the naïve exuberance to the magazine, the artwork, and the stories. Its publisher, Hugo Gernsback had as an interesting and compelling story, as compelling as the personal life of H.P. Lovecraft, or Edgar Rice Burroughs. Gernsback was an entrepreneur who was born in 1884 in Luxembourg, Germany and immigrated to the United States in 1905. He founded radio station WRNY in 1925, and was involved in the first television broadcasts and is considered a pioneer in amateur radio. He published "Modern Electronics" in 1909, as well as founded the Wireless Association of America. He created "Amazing Stories" in 1926, and it is generally considered that he founded modern science fiction by creating a magazine dedicated to the genre. He even founded the phrase "Science Fiction", although it was awkwardly dubbed "Scientifiction" in the beginning. He also wrote Science Fiction in 1911, "Ralph 124C 41+", although, it should be noted, it was an awkwardly written book filled with interesting ideas. The magazine depended on reprints of H.G. Welles, Jules Verne, and Edgar Rice Burroughs in the beginning, yet talented writers did start their publishing careers from the magazine, such as A. Merrit, and E.E. "Doc" Smith or eventually John W. Campbell. It could be argued that editor Farnsworth Wright for "Weird Tales", did recruit a more important and influential pool of talent for that magazine. But Gernsback’s important role should not be ignored. The "Hugo" award, given out by the World Science Fiction Society, is named after him. He died in 1967 in New York City.

I mention all of this, to remind fans, that is it important to be aware of the past history of certain genres, both on film and in print, as such knowledge can only enrich your appreciation of it.

The Danger of "Seeing is believing"

One of the problems and dangers for ufologists, or people who believe in alternative theories, is taking certain photographic evidence at face value. The adage, "Seeing is believing" isn't necessarily true concerning photographic evidence, and for those who do believe, or who are open to the extreme possibilities, they should allow for a degree of skepticism. There are two examples I will site, to illustrate my point. The first is a controversy that brewed in the summer of 2007, in various locations throughout California, the alien "Drone" ship(s) flap.



Photos were taken of various drone objects between April and May 2007, the most circulated were from Capitola in May 2007.



As well as evening photo’s in Lake Tahoe May 2007, and Big Basin.





To complicate matters, there were earlier reports of similar objects in Birmingham, Alabama in 2006, and allegedly Georgia (Russia, assumed) in 1996.



There we’re also claims in a disclosure from someone named "Issac", who worked in Palo Alto, California in the eighties. That he was working on a project to reverse engineer UFO technology. And had documentation to prove these "drone" ships were real.

Mufon has investigated the "Drone" issue and issued a report, determining is was an elaborate hoax, as well as the claims from "Issac" and this can be found at the following PDF file (you will need Adobe Reader to pull).

Mufon report

To any objective eye, the photos should have looked suspect. They looked a little too pristine, and looked like the construction of CGI modeling. It was probably due to some on-line viral marketing campaign. Yet, as I recall, some of these pictures went out to the national media. The problem lies with Ufologists who mistakenly took this at face value.

The second example of the problem of "seeing is believing" has to with Richard C. Hoagland, a former science curator and advisor to CBS news during the Apollo missions of the 60s and 70s. This is problematic for a great many who follow his work. He has argued that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon, as well as Mars, and some of the Moons of Jupiter. That the American government and NASA collaborated to keep these facts a secret, he has published a book titled "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA."



He was interviewed in a program titled: "Project Camelot", which featured his claims that the Apollo NASA missions were executed to secretly uncover evidence of ancient glass domes on the surface of the moon, as well as evidence of the head of an android that can be seen in one of the landscape photos. Mr. Hoagland makes the standard argument that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would trigger a crisis of global faith. An argument I never personally understood for the following reason: Why couldn’t God create life on this world and life in other worlds in the universe? and why would such a possibility be a conflict?

Indeed, is it hard to know what to accept with Mr. Hoagland. He seemed founded in the principle of scientific research, yet it is possible somewhere along the line, he went astray in his scientific pursuits. Regarding his claim of a droid face on the moon? It is human nature to find patterns in nature and objects. Examples would be shapes found in a cloudy day, or a face that can be found in the shrubs of a tree: "Seeing isn't always believing".

Then there is his other assertions later in the interview, that NASA astronauts photographed evidence of glass domes, and that these domes we’re twenty times stronger than steel, he argued generally, if you mix the glass with various minerals and metals, there are various things that could be done with glass.

He basically argues that if you turn up the brightness of certain photos from the Apollo missions, you find various hidden patterns, grid work, structures, scaffolding and buttresses, as well as evidence that support the argument for glass domes because of light prisms in some of the photos. These discoveries were made based on image processing that was analyzed by architect Robert Fritech, where a model grid was created. He also asserts that after these photos were taken the negatives were tampered with. My issue is, my question is, was an outside, objected party brought in, and recreated exactly the methods behind Hoagland’s image processing analysis? It would add to the credibility of his argument, and would demonstrate an example of proper scientific method. There’s no known evidence of such an effort being made.

It should be noted, based on arguments from detractors, that Mr. Hoagland once argued the lunar landings were fake, and has done a reversal to support his present arguments, which can be found here (although the tone seems needlessly hostile):

Bad Astronomy argument

I asked a friend with a fairly solid background in structural engineering if Glass could be stronger than steel in outer space. He concluded it's not possible in theory. The other point that should be questioned is the possibility that light distortions are being misinterpreted in the photographs. Unless someone can come forward with a credible explanation, can anyone claim or fully conclude that video and film imagery reacts in outer space exactly as it would in our atmosphere?

The issues concerning Richard C. Hoagland are more complicated, but no less problematic. For those who believe, or are open to the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, they should be careful to take at face value Mr. Hoagland's conclusions: "seeing isn't always believing", and for those who want to believe, that there are truths out there, they should allow themselves to be discriminating in the pursuit of such truth.

Special thanks to UFO casebook and Mufon.

Obama and real X-Files Intelligence

There's a long spell where I haven't added anything to here. It's really hard to believe that with this election, we have officially entered the 21st Century. We'll soon see how things develop, both pro and con. My deepest hope is that we will no longer be bound and shackled to 20th Century thinking. There was an interesting article about Obama's appointment for Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m1d16-US-Navy-XFiles-known-to-Obamas-Intelligence-Chief

Blair will have limited access to the intelligence communities classified files on UFO's and Extra Terrestrial life. On a side note, a random thought, there's a rumor that CIA Director, Leon Panetta's associate, John Podesta is a big X-Files Fan, As well as being known for advocating for the declassification of Government documents.

Something from Chris Knowles....

They're isn't much I need to comment on about the following Link. Chris, who's contributed to the Lexicon in the past, has his own blog and his approach to myth and pop culture is taken from a deep influence from Jung. Therefore his take on "I Want To Believe" is interesting.

http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2008/12/looking-for-signs-at-end-of-age.html

Regarding Those Public Service banners....

First off, I hope everyone who visit here will consider entering our contest.

For those who have visited the new redesigned site, you probably have noticed the two public service banners. Both are subjects that I have a passionate concern for and, ideally, if I can get others involved, then I’ll be quite content. Let me try and explain why the issue of Internet Neutrality and Cyberbullying is such a concern and why it should be important to others.

All webmasters, especially in America, should be far more invested in the issue of Internet Neutrality. To put this as simply as possible, to quote from the site: Net neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on it’s source, ownership or destination. Various corporate telephone and cable companies want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data, to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, while blocking or slowing down their competitors, to limit the bandwidth, and no longer have a level playing field. In truth, this issue is something I could envision The Lone Gunmen being involved with….and this isn’t a conspiracy theory. The legislation for Internet Neutrality already exists, it just needs to be reinforced and strengthened. While many on-line users and webmasters may think: "This will never affect me," such thinking is incorrect and I’d advise everyone to visit the website we have a banner for and research this for yourself.

Now Cyberbullying is another issue that seems to be overlooked, or off the radar of most users. Yet it is a very real problem which people should educate themselves on. Now, I have never been affected by the kind of Cyberbullying that some teens experience, but I can sympathize. I had an internet experience that indirectly related to the issue, during the period of 2000 through late 2001, I was involved with another website and met a person that eventually put me into a situation that was similar to the book and the film of “The Night Listener”. This person would invent crisis after crisis and invent people who didn’t exist. This ended badly for me, damaging my reputation with the site I was involved with, only for me to find out the truth after the fact, and the experience was so devastating for me, that I nearly swore of all internet activity for a period. You live and learn.

I hope this will compel users and webmasters to look into these issues.