[UA] About Avatars (was: Question)

[Stuart.Kenny]

I had a weird thought...

If Archetypes are defined by the collective consensus of the population,
what 
would happen if someone tried to channel an Avatar by trying to shape 
public perception of the Archetype.

Views on Archetypes do change with time.  In the 1970s / post-Vietnam era
(at
least here in North America) the "Good Soldier" would have had a very
different
connotations than that of 20 or 30 years earlier.

The modern view on the "Knight" is someone with honor, chivalry and romance.

IIRC, Richard the Lion Hearted wrote (dictated?) his views on what he saw as

the ideal "Knight", a blood thirsty psychopath by modern  perceptions.  
Mallory had Lancelot (his ideal knight) routinely sleep in other peoples
tents 
and kill the owners if they objected.


In this day of spin doctors and publicity campaigns it is almost easier to 
change public opinion than shape yourself into an Archetype.


Stuart

	-----Original Message-----

	You're looking at the world through a fundamentally different
viewpoint
	than were Stolze and Tynes when they made the Avatar system.  The
	Avatars/Archetypes are /predicated/ on the notion of a unified
collective
	opinion of certain things.  That's why there's a Mother Archetype
and not
	a Joe, the guy who works at the Kwik-E-Mart Archetype -- because
there is
	unified opinion about the Mother and not about Joe.

	Now, that's not to say that everyone will believe exactly the same
thing
	about the Mother (or whomever), but there's assumed to be enough of
a
	consensus about her to make generalizations about the Archetype.  If
you
	follow a personal vision of what the Mother is or should be, bully
for
	you, but you aren't following the Archetype.

	Mike

	_______________________________________________
	UA mailing list
	UA at lists.uchicago.edu
	http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua