From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


The link to Shadow from this page goes to the phenomenon of light, not the Jungian concept of Shadow. I hope someone will have the knowledge and energy to correct this.

Very, very easygoing approach to archetypes: for Jung, there are 4 archetypes: Self, Shadow, Animus & Anima. Anyone can check in "Man and his symbols" or in classic books by June Singer and Anthony Storr, as well as on Jung's linx online Mir Harven 22:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Isn't the Persona an archetype as well? And is the Shadow in fact technically an archetype? From my reading, the Shadow is a complex, formed by the social environment, but connected to the archetype of "the enemy".

Problems with "archetype" use[edit]

I couldn't quite figure out what two parts of this article were trying to say. The first, which mentions the misuse of "archetype" for "prototype," "stereotype," and "epitome," immediately precedes a list of "examples." It isn't clear whether these are supposed to be prototypes, stereotypes, epitomes, or some combination of the three. Unless it's the last (which I doubt — how are any of these "epitomes?"), this should be clarified.

I agree. We need to collectively determine whether or not these two sentences are correlated and edit once we've collectively arrived at some sort of consensus: "Archetype is sometimes broadly and misleadingly used to refer to a prototype, a stereotype or an epitome. It may thus indicate a type of person, e.g. a mother, a father, a hero, a warrior or a martyr." First, we're saying what archetypes are not, and then giving examples of a mother, father, hero, warrior, or martyr. Are these archetypes, prototypes, stereotypes, and/or epitomes? What -types are they? Specifically:
  1. What is my mother?
  2. Someone else's mother?
  3. Eve?
  4. God?
  5. The gods?
  6. Christ?
  7. Satan?
  8. And the Gods of myth?

Please discuss! Piewalker 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that a Archetype is a standard accepted type. In other words an example of what is considered standard for whatever something is a type of. A stereotype is what people automatically expect when they first encounter soemthing, regardless of the fact. A prototype is the first example of that type. For example, Superman is considered a Stereotypical super powered hero, like hercules and achilles, but he is ALSO a Prototype of comic characters.

Comics characters encounter many things that are VERY different from tradition heroes that came before, thus prototypes had to be formed for them. Superman was an adaptation of a traditional type of character into a non tradition genre.

I'm not quite sure what epitomes mean, but I'll check that out. Corrupt one 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a couple interesting points, Corrupt one. Superman is a derivative prototype of other heroes. A savior, not the savior, but one who rescues, one who saves. And since Superman has been popularized for greater than a half century, I would argue that he can be referred to as an archetype. You write above that "A prototype is the first example of that type." Wrong. An archetype is the first example. The first orginal model on which all other prototypes are copied. Let me put it this way: Archetype = The architect of the blueprint; Prototype = an early working model of that blueprint. But, for reference, a Prototype is synonomous with Archetype, as evidenced by the dictionary description from Webster:
  • Main Entry: pro·to·type
Pronunciation: 'prO-t&-"tIp
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Greek prOtotypon, from neuter of prOtotypos archetypal, from prOt- + typos type
1 : an original model on which something is patterned : ARCHETYPE
2 : an individual that exhibits the essential features of a later type
3 : a standard or typical example
4 : a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (as an airplane)
Thus, as we see above in definitions 1-3 of prototype as indicated above defines the synonomous relationship with archetype in which we're trying to understand. And then, as you can see in definition 4, the meaning of prototype leaps from the blueprint, it takes it just one step takes us to the moon because Saturn V became a reality. Definition 4 will aptly describe the first prototypical man-made nuclear fusion reactor (there are a few in development...they are prototypes...all other nuclear power plants are fission, not fusion). If something is archetypical, it's the absolute first, if something is prototypical, it's a working model. If something is typical, it's a copy. Granted, I believe archetype and prototype can certainly be interchangeable, but I like to reserve archetype to being the absolute first, the arch, the overarching idea, person, concept, or idea. Pro - to - type ... "pro"... to do. To implement. Like professional. One who implements. So, we have somewhat of an evolution of meaning here. Types. Archetype. Archetypal. Prototype. Prototypical. Type. Typical. Catching my drift? Let me know what you find out about epitome. You might want to check some psych lit. Piewalker 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, you have it a bit wrong. If an archtype is the first of its type, then each archtypical character is therefore the first of its type, which goes against everything that has been said so far.

I agree with 1, in the way that it says it is an original model on which something is patterned. If something is patterned on it, then it becomes the archetype of that something, the main and most basic example of it. Numbers 2 and 4 I accept without explaination. Number 3 is something I will be thinking about.

I have also noticed you did NOT include the definition of archtype from that dictionary as well, in order to compare the definitions.

I will give you this, and only this so far: A prototype can be considered to be the first of that archtype, and is THUS the archtype of it. However, not ALL archtypes are prototypes! Corrupt one 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Second, down at the bottom of the article, there was a line that didn't seem connected to anything:

Water_ The unconscience of one's mind

I assumed this was a badly-formatted, misspelled attempt to add to the one-item "Archetypes in Cultural Analysis" list, and fixed it up accordingly. However, I'm not at all happy with the result. If someone can figure out exactly what is meant by this, please fix it up. Thanks. — Jeff Q 02:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that idea originated from Jung, but Joseph Campbell always said that in dreams, water symbolises the unconscious mind. He talks about that in episode 1 of his "The Power of Myth" interviews.

More disturbing still is that some of the examples are ones Jung himself elaborated on as being archetypes.

The Sixteen Master Archetypes[edit]

I cut the below list from the article, as it is awkwardly written (what noun does "by reviewing history" modify?), makes unsubstantiated claims (as I can think of characters that are neither male nor female and I myself do not identify with any of the listed archetypes), and appears to be plagiarized from "The Complete Writer's Guide to Heroes and Heroines:"

By reviewing history, myth, legend, movies, literature and the world around us, 16 master archetypes have been created, 8 male and 8 female. At core, every well-defined hero or heroine falls under one of these archetypes. Because they are so widespread in real life and fiction, we unconsciously identify with each one.

HERO: The Chief The Bad Boy The Best Friend The Charmer The Lost Soul The Professor The Swashbuckler The Warrior

HEROINE: The Boss The Seductress The Spunky Kid The Free Spirit The Waif The Librarian The Crusader The Nurturer

If the list above is commonly accepted as a complete list for writers, please include sources. The Rod 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural archetypes analysis[edit]

The "Cultural archetypes analysis" section says that "archetypes" are "psychologies" that have "infiltrated mass thought." I think it is trying to say that some branches of cultural analysis use archetypes to explain (perhaps sociological) behavior, but I'm not familiar with the topic so I hesitate to copyedit that (unsourced) content. Can someone familiar with cultural analysis elaborate on and copyedit that section? The Rod 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hero Within[edit]

A recent anonymous edit added the following to the article:

Commonly known archetypes from Carol S. Pearson's book The Hero Within:

Is The Hero Within a seminal resource on archetypes? If not, the above should probably be removed, as it is more marketing than authoritative. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Delete if you feel like it[edit]

Hey y'all, just adding Jack Sparrow to the list of trickster archetypes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I did delete it, but not for lack of appreciation. I think the brilliance of Johnny Depp is that I can't think of a single archetype that Sparrow really conforms to. He's not the trickster, as he's too unwitting in his own success, and he's also got elements of the reluctant hero and the man-child. And he's a drunk. What can you say of a character inspired by Keith Richards? Feeeshboy 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Where does this term come from? There is no hint as to the term's origin in the article. Rintrah 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

this term means an original model after which other similar things are patterned. a synonym is prototype

--minamato 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have of the definition

Archtype 1 the original pattern or model from which copies are made. 2 In Jungian psychoanalysis, a primordial mental concept inherited by all from the collective unconscious. 3 A pervasive or recurrent idea or symbol in legend, etc.

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage third edition (c) 1996

It may not tell you where it came from, but itr helps define it. I think Jung came up with the name. Corrupt one (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

C.G Jung did definitely coin the word archetypes he did in fact also call them the dominants of the unconscious and he named them archetypes after St. Augustine,-- (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Literature or psychology?[edit]

I find this page confusing in that it first promises archetypes in the context of psychology AND literature, and then restricts itself to psychology. Should there be a separate page for literary archetypes? I added a disambiguation link for literary archetypes that takes you to stock characters, although I am not sure that said page is sufficient to cover the concepts of archetypes in literature. Any comparative lit scholars out there, please weigh in! Feeeshboy 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we have to spin it off for disambiguation. As it stands in the article, the word's usage is prominently depicted first and foremost in the etymological context, its place in the literary world (of which psychology has contributed greatly to), and finally psychological usage, which conveys a scientific and humanistic approach to understanding archetype's role. I think this article has adequately captured the two primary functions of the word — I agree more examples of archetypes would be a wonderful addition. This could be expanded greatly, but I think it should be done here (until it gets too big or too confusing). For instance, in the current edition of the article, Shakespeare is the preeminent example (archetypical in and of himself), but there must be other individuals that, with explanation, can offer us excellent examples of archetypes, i.e. Greek / Roman myths, fairy tales, legends, biblical or other canonical types / characters (fictional or otherwise), classical lit, historical (founding fathers type stuff), innovators / inventors, geniuses, contemporary popular culture icons, and so on. Feeeshboy, I echo your call for comparative lit scholars to contribute, and anyone else who can take a quality run with this stuff in any of these areas to shed more light upon our prized word, archetype. Piewalker 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The literary archetype is derived from an archetype in psychology. They're the same thing. I think we can change the header back to "this article describes archetypes in psychology". — Donama 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the etymology section? "The usage of psychological archetype reveals that it was advanced by Jung in c. 1919 and generally adopted in the social sciences (see Jungian archetypes section below), although the study of archetype frameworks has undergone multiple academic treatments and applications." Psychological archetypes were advanced long after archetype had a definition. Literature was around long before Jung's archetype. Piewalker 01:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have. The term is a term useful in the study of psyche - ie psychology, including when studying a character in literature. It's irrelevant as to when Jung adopted the term for his writings. — Donama 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You imply that archetypes are foremost a part of psychology, and then pertain to literature as a subcategory. This is wrong. As Piewalker said, this page should do justice to archetypes as a facet of both psychology and literature. Removing any reference to literature in the introduction is confusing and harmful. Jung's work draws heavily on literature, particularly mythology, and is as useful in the study of writing as it is in psychology. Feeeshboy 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Further, psychology's use of archetype communicates its utility via literature. Piewalker 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice additions, Feeeshboy. Finally, someone's adding some thought to this thing. Piewalker 06:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is a confusing mess at this time, but I think that it's important to note that the apprehension of archetypes as a psychological concept comes primarily from Jung's work. While Jung was a psychologist, he was also an active Gnostic Mystic. Any doubts regarding that can be resolved by the doubter taking a brief look at his "Septem Sermones Ad Mortuos," (Seven Sermons From The Dead) which is a Gnostic spiritual text which Jung claims was dictated to him by supernatural entities that he claimed were dead spirits. While his spiritual preference is not a material issue, it's important in some degree because it informed his thinking on archetypes at least to some degree. I'm not a Gnostic scholar, but what I do understand of Gnostic cosmology has many elements in common with what is commonly considered to be "Jungian Archetypal 'Psychology.'" 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jung came up with the name archtype, but other people had been using the concept before him. As to whether it belongs to literature or psychology, here is a definition I have found

Archtype 1 the original pattern or model from which copies are made. 2 In Jungian psychoanalysis, a primordial mental concept inherited by all from the collective unconscious. 3 A pervasive or recurrent idea or symbol in legend, etc.

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage third edition (c) 1996

I hope that helps sort it out a bit. The way I read it an archtype is any reoccuring theame, idea or other such thing, and it does not matter where it comes from to me. After all, what are stories but a reflection on how the author thinks? Corrupt one (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New Hero Archetype: the Steely-Eyed Missile Worker[edit]

I believe this example belongs in the long list of examples of the Hero Archetype. Steely-Eyed Missile Worker Another example of the Hero archetype resides within the aerospace industry: the Steely-Eyed Missile Worker. Currently as well as historically, Steely-Eyed Missile Worker is the backbone of the component rocket programs which are collectively, the American Space Program. The Steely-Eyed Missile Worker has an encyclopedic body of knowledge of the mechanical and electrical fields of discipline, which comprise the technical expertise relating to the components of a rocket’s structural and dynamic systems functionally organized as electrical, mechanical, or propulsion systems. If allowed, the Steely-Eyed Missile Worker could independently trouble-shoot and fix any resolvable anomalous issue that afflicts his rocket. He can readily identify any such issue through use of diagnostic equipment or his own senses. He “knows the rocket” and is familiar enough with the sound, look, and smell of his rocket, that he notices when any of these are “out-of-family” and further investigates the variance from the norm. The Steely-Eyed Missile Worker has a vast array of technical skills correlating to his technical knowledge. He applies these skills quickly and efficiently, taking a high degree of pride in the craftsmanship of his work. Against significant political pressure, he takes the time required to do the job correctly. His work ethic is above reproach. When the mission needs require it, he will work through breaks and lunch for double digits of hours, and will sustain this for double digits of days. The Steely-Eyed Missile Worker will work day and night and sacrifice his family time, sleep, physical comfort and well-being, in order to maintain the launch schedule. Without batting an eye, the Steely-Eyed Missile Worker will work in an exposed very high space or confined space, in close proximity to explosive and or toxic components or materials. Steely-Eyed Missile Worker nobly remains quiet, but rolls his eyes, while he remains unknown and unacknowledged, while the fruits of his labor, the glory and accolades pour forth onto people in suits, some of whom he’s never seen before. If anything goes awry, Steely-Eyed Missile Worker may see his name in the newspaper, or find himself in the unemployment line, if he survived the anomalous incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Relevance to this article, anon?? If you like, create a List of archetypes/stereotypes article where you can put Jung's archetypes and a whole nested structure of other archetypes (or stereotypes since many seem to think archetype=stereotype) identified in mythology, literature and in motion picture. I don't think the exhaustive list belongs in this article. — Donama 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Donama. There are thousands of archetypes, the most important of which are already described in this article. The Steely-Eyed Missile Worker is not an important one that advances our understanding of archetype in literature or psychology above and beyond what we already know. Even though it's a new one to me, respectfully, it doesn't hold relevance here. Make a new article for that one. And register on Wikipedia. As an anonymous user, your contributions to our community calls into question nebulous accountability. You'll be better received if you register. Piewalker 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
this user sounds like he/she considers themselves to be a steely eyed missile worker and is bitter about the lack of appreciation they get. defiantly violates POV. i also agree with Donama and Piewalker.minamato 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to add a slight point of disagreement with the comparison between "Neo" from the Matrix and Gilgamesh that appears at the beginning of the section on literature and archetypes. I personally feel that this comparison is completely without merit. Perhaps I would be less inclined to think so if the contributer had provided an argument, even a sentence-long one, for his/her claim. I have always understood Neo to be a Christ-like figure, in the sense of his redemptive capacity for humankind. Although Gilgamesh certainly shared Christ's "quest" for eternal life, there are large differences in the style and quality of the outcome of said "quest." And while I would strongly characterize both Christ (Neo) and Gilgamesh as hero archetypes, Christ (and Neo) are more definitely savior/hero types.
      • Yep, I see what you're saying. I can't remember who added that or why, and I'm too lazy to thumb through the page history...doesn't matter. Yeah, instead of Neo, why not Luke Skywalker (even though he kissed his sister), or Indiana Jones, or Jack Ryan, or Frodo for crying out loud. Who cares about Neo as a savior archetype? I don't. The Matrix was an alright film—not the best ever—but ok. The Matric trilogy as a whole was lame. No resistance from me if you want to delete the Neo reference, or modify it somehow. Piewalker 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know where the "Steely-Eyed Missile Worker" is from. I have never noticed one. An Archtype is a type of character to me; extras in the background or non characters, as they have no character of their own.

I believe that a before something can be called an archtype, examples have to be provided, and to have what they are an archtype of specified. Corrupt one 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


This website linked to you guys.

[ | Anti


It's a website that notes the plot similarities between StarWars and the Inheritance Troligy. It was referenced by Wikipedia in the article Eragon, in the criticism section.

Should this article's discussion page be tagged as being cited? By my calculations, the website is more of a blog than a media source, but if someone who know's about this stuff could check, that would be great. -- 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)A miscreant No-account

no Account

Michael Jackson[edit]

... does not belong on this page. Archetypes are types of literary characters, not real people. Feeeshboy 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Michael Jackson shouldn't be included. Not notable enough to me, but others may disagree. But I certainly disagree with the notion that archetypes are purely fictional or literary characters. That's simply not the case. Select adjectives point to how individuals may be titled as derivatives of the archetypes themselves, for instance "Shakespearean" (relating to Shakespeare), "Adamic" (relating to Adam), the pronoun "prophetic" - of or relating to the prophets, or if we say someone is "a veritable Tarantino" or "the Lee Iacocca of our day", or "the modern-day Ghandi", all archetypal labels based on real people, active as metaphors by virtue of their established archetype. An archetype is not just an example — it is the prime example. Fictional archetypes are essential in our culture. They shape us and our children to be sure. But what better archetypes are there to have other than real people, those who have lived and died, those whose legacy lives on, notoriously or otherwise? Imagine that. Piewalker 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. Certainly archetypes are often based on real people. What I meant to say is more that real people, although they can be described as fitting an archetype, aren't appropriately described as examples of them (unless, of course, the person IS the archetype). To do so could be potentially disparaging and unverifiable. Feeeshboy 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed! 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)~

Actually, I think a person can the an archtype, is a type of character is based on the, and michael Jackson IS famouse enough to be well recognized (as long as his latest plastic surery hasn't chanegd his face too much) as an example. The question I would ask is; an archtype of WHAT? A singer who would do anything for publicity and money? a guy who is believed to of molested children and gotten away from it? someone addicted to plastic surgery? a nutcase? Which one? Corrupt one 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A new Archtype? Magehounds[edit]

A magehound is a person with an attraction to or for magic. They can't live normal lives as something is always coming up. It is their blessing and their curse. They can see wonderfull thing and change the world around them, but they endanger the people around them. They can't controll it, and most often are unware of what they are.

Being a magehound hides itself between chance of manipulating peoples choices. They are often protagonists in the stories, or are close to them. There is a wide range of possible magehounds.

Examples include Buffy, Anne from Gunnerkrigg court, Ivan from the Wotch, Jen Stone from Zebra Girl, Children of Prophecy in A Magical Roomate, heroes in Beyond Reality, Brandi from Fairview High, Robim from Witch Hunter Robin and many others. Corrupt one 03:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm sure that Jung didn't use Magneto as an example of the Übermensch, and Obi-Wan Kenobi as an example of the Wise Old Man. Many of the examples are references to present day sci-fi and fantasy characters. This gives the impression of a certain slant in Wikipedia's editorship. Rhobite 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be better-explained (it is somewhat in the "Archetypes in Literature" section), but you're quite missing the point. Archetypes are repeated again and again throughout cultural history, and the use of recent examples merely reflects that those are the ones whom the readers are most likely to recognize and understand. It was part of Jung's point that archetypes will continue to be reused because they are fundamental to mankind in some way. Although he clearly wasn't referring to those specific characters, they are fitting examples of those archetypes, as the idea behind Obi-Wan was borrowed from Merlin, which was borrowed from... who knows? Feeeshboy 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Stick with the orginals he used. Overwise it can count as OR and be excluded. You may argue that they are carried on in modern culture and list the modern examples, but for the basic examples used by Jung, DON'T use the modern charcters Corrupt one (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I have found a referance to Spiderman as an archtype. the reason for him being one, I have listed on the Spiderman talk page. Corrupt one (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archetypes in Christopher Vogler's The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers (2nd Edition)[edit]

Christopher Vogler, a film analyst and consultant, applies Joseph Campbell's idea of the Hero's Journey to film. Additionally, Vogler identifies and explains seven key archetypes, many of which overlap with previous discussion. Vogler's list includes the Hero, The Mentor (wise old man or woman), The Threshold Guardian (a character the hero must defeat, bypass, or absorb on his journey), The Herald (an indicator that a dramatic change is about to occur), The Shapeshifter (a protean character, usually of the opposite sex of the hero, who is not what he or she seems to be), The Shadow (which Vogler mentions is often a single negative characteristic of the hero taken to an extreme), and The Trickster (valuable for comic relief; ignores the rules of society). Vogler also suggests that characters may adopt the masks of various archetypes throughout the story. Englishteach (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Englishteach


Why is "Architype" redirected to here? I was expecting information about architype fonts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Something for this article here? A Vedantist's View of Mary by Swami Yogeshananda Some interesting ideas.

Austerlitz -- (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Puppet Master[edit]

While there are several excellent articles for many of the common archetypes (though not all linked in the article), I can't seem to find one for the Puppet Master. I would definitely consider this to be a separate archetype from one already listed, though the Trickster can perhaps provide a starting point. Whether or not it deserves its own article is not what I'm pointing out but rather that it deserves at least some mention, especially since most of the archetypes spoken about are positive, while the Puppet Master is almost always negative. Another reason that it needs to be mentioned is that the article discusses both psychological archetypes and literary ones: the Puppet Master, though rarely mentioned, is both. I would probably do something like this myself, but I don't know where to start and would also like to hear the opinions of others before doing so. --Genzodus Thoth (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jungian "Toe" Archetypes[edit]

Pretty sure it's vandalism. No references from Google. --AdamGomaa (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, but vandalism. When I removed it, I didn't notice that you had already caught it a week after it appeared. Macspaunday (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


I am looking at the criticism part of the article, and to me it seems like the last half of the paragraph reads like a pitch for a relatively new book. Does that belong? (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article[edit]

Art and architecture[edit]

A Priori (a priori), Arche Tipo (archetype) and Genius Loci (spirit of the place) were leading general principals of a very effective movement (especially in architecture), called ‘Neo-Rationalism’ or New Rationalism, was one of the most powerful movement throughout the world beginning from Italy[citation needed]. Its pioneer is Italian architect Aldo Rossi and followers like Giorgio Grassi. Neo-Rationalism developed in the light of a re-evaluation of the work of Giuseppe Terragni led by Aldo Rossi, and gained momentum through the work of Giorgio Grassi. Characterized by elemental forms of vernacular and an absence of cosmetic detail, the Neo Rationalist style has adherents beginning from the architectural world then into other worlds of Art throughout European, American and Asian Cultures. Later, the movement calls, Post-Modernism, which almost opposite discipline of Neo-Rationalism, and Deconstructivism, one develop the similar based movement into a deconstruction of the elements, follows this powerful movement of 1970s and 1980s.

This makes a lot of lofty and unsourced claims in badly written prose. Perhaps the author might expand here and provide sources? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would need to be rewritten to focus on how archetypes are used or observed in art and architecture, and not so much on the history of movements in art and architecture. Feeeshboy (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The clown[edit]

Can the clown archetype be added to this list. He is the recurring fool and court jester seen throughout history. sealpoint33

I think you can add almust anything to the archetype list-- (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Richard II[edit]

"Richard II, the hero who dies with honor" - I find that a very unlikely interpretation of Shakespeare's Richard II, maybe someone could justify the inclusion. JohnHarris (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposing Views - Religious Ideologies and Folkloric Motifs[edit]

Since Carl Jung popularized the notion of archetypes with an apparent fraud ("the Solar-Phallic Man") there has never been substantiation for their existence. The way that Jungian psychologists and apologists for this religious spectrum of interest has promoted and described archetypes, they are in fact unconfirmable and undetectable by reliable scientific experiment. This qualifies them for the category of a religious ideology, and, in fact, religious by the droves have seized upon this notion from Jungians, as if it were legitimized rationally, and promoted it within their own groups to explain their worship of deities despite their materialist interests. Comparably, there are and continue to be very helpful analyses of folkloric motifs which inspire people in precisely the manner identified by psychology-oriented archetype proponents. These two theoretical positions deserve an 'Opposing Views' section on the Archetypes page, not only because by strict science they are undemonstrated as existing, but also because psychology is such a mouldable, soft, and uncertain discipline (one only need turn to the late 1900s and the psychology profession's acceptance of "Multiple Personality Disorder" out of Dr. Wilbur and "Recovered Memory Syndrome" out of Dr. Pazder to see the propensity for poorly-tested hypotheses accepted as fact too readily). -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Are you suggesting your view of Jungian Archetypes as being a religious ideology, or as something of an exaggeration of folkloric motifs should be represented in the "Opposing Views" section? Or are you suggesting that the Jungian view of archetypes itself should be listed in the "Opposing Views" section? -James L Schaeffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible link error[edit]

I think that there is an error in the cross-reference from the word "Quest." It doesn't go to "Quest" but to "Question Mark" (the grammatical sign ?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems with formatting[edit]

This article switches from using double quotes to single quotes partway through. I am not sure which is preferable.
Kethrook (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Again Wikipedia[edit]

An archetype is a specific person or character who is representative of a class of people. For example John Wayne is an archetype for cowboys, Bobby Fischer for chess prodigies, Oliver Twist for orphans or William Shakespeare for play writes. (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you be so kind and provide a source for your statements? USchick (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)