Supernatural Archetypes in True Blood and Being Human.

Happy New Year, Vampire hunters.

I assuming you’re familiar with the above TV series – if not go and watch them, they’re rather fun. Spoilers contained below though I have only watched the first two series of each programme. I believe series three of True Blood is airing in the US, and Being Human series three should grace our TV screens here in the UK soon.

Now, I’m sure this has been noted before, but True Blood (HBO) and Being Human (BBC) are basically the same programme. The same characters, situations and even plots just made in different countries – and therefore a good way to maybe examine the archetypes across this genre (with a few references of course to Buffy – how could I not?).

Both series are character driven- the plots springing from the protagonist’s communal desire to live a normal life, under the radar, rather than terrifying and killing us poor mortals. As a motivator it’s a pretty inactive goal, but shows their intrinsic yearning to be normal, one of the herd, a human like us – and therefore validates our own existence while acknowledging the darker desires we all fall prey to.

So it falls to the antagonists to create the story. When they are other supernatural beings, they want our heroes to remain in their world and play by their rules. When human, they want to destroy the threat posed by our heroes. Assimilate or exterminate! Either way our heroes – caught between two worlds – are pulled by the world they want to escape (the supernatural), and pushed away by the world they want to enter (the natural). Classic outsider premise, but adding the two worlds dynamic gives the set-up a natural tension and reflects the essential duality of human nature.

The antagonists also want to exploit the special powers of our protagonists - specifically Annie (Being Human) with her power over death and Sookie (True Blood) for her power over the mind, apart from the “normal” supernatural powers the other protagonists have. In both cases it boils down to the men folk protecting their not so helpless women folk.

So to the main characters. The mainstay – verging on clichéd – of the haunted, guilt ridden vampire who’s sworn off their evil ways and the blood-high is the main bloke in both drams (both Bill Compton – True Blood and Mitchell – Being Human). All very puritanical in some ways, reason overcoming bestial behaviour, which is a theme running through both shows (the werewolf/ shape shifter characters, the two worlds).

On a complete tangent, it just struck me that this is a continuation of the European enlightenment, when the Europeans replaced God/the other with Reason. This battle is now being fought in our collective subconscious with the ever so popular symbol of the vampire, who stands for everything “other” than reason – ie God and the beast and mysticism. Why else do these “good” vampire characters have such a Christ similarity in their suffering, self-denial and morality? They are spirituality/reason fighting against our darker side of mysticism, animal desires etc. It extends to psychology - the good vampires also represent the superego at permanent war with the dark desires of the id – the bad side of the vampires – something also present in the were creatures.

Anyway, this character/archetype is also reflected in Angel from Buffy – maybe the first incarnation of such a type? And I imagine it/he appears in Twilight too though I haven’t dared watch that, for the good of my soul.

In these programmes the female lead is always human but gifted – somehow a bridge between the two worlds – maybe even representing the ideal her friends are searching for. Sookie in True Blood is special as she can read people’s minds, and Annie in Being Human is dead but can resist the pull of the afterlife – whatever it may be. Buffy, of course, is The Chosen One. All are original/unique powers to add to the mix and give something different to each series. But these characters share many characteristics - their humility, courage, empathy and realness in such a weird world - and form the focus of the programme. They represent what is whole and good and needs to be protected – while doing some of the protecting themselves as well. These are the “empowered” and “strong” female characters we hear so much about, and are the heart of the programme around which all revolves. They are the heart that their vampire lovers lack.

Where vampires represent a spirituality of sorts – either good or evil, I think the werewolf and the shape shifter must represent our unconscious, primitive and animalistic side - slightly overlapped with vampires but with vampires they are pure evil, whereas Were animals are more uncontrollable and instinctive. This get slightly complicated in True Blood as Sam witnesses everyone else being bestial at the orgies, but he is tempted to his wild side by the lady shape shifter. George, in Being Human, unlike Sam has no control over his power and as such it is a curse, not a blessing. However, both characters provide some light relief while adding a non-threatening sweetness to the mix. Neither is seen as particularly sexually attractive or predatory, at least in comparison to the vampire. Both are loyal, a dog-like characteristic, and have a more certain morality than that of the vampire. They are the sidekick of the supernatural world, the third of the triumvirate.

And it all comes together in a big love triangle, the girl always choosing the vampire – how can one resist such repressed power? (who would Annie chose in being Human if she could? My money’s on Mitch). Then you can mix it up a bit, keep the tension, develop their relationships while they fight their good fights. All yummy entertaining fun.

So there you have it. The formula for a hit supernatural show. Three main characters, a love triangle, a woman with a unique power and two supernatural, tortured men lusting after her. Wrap it up in a new world, with the three of them trying to escape the supernatural and live “normal” lives, add a few antagonists on both sides (ie natural and supernatural) and you’re there.

Just please, no more good vampires. Think we’ve about done that.

The Future of Story - Ted Talks, creativity and copyright

I recently caught this Ted Talk by Larry Lessig, a Harvard professor who's an expert in copyright law. For me he coalecsed many thoughts I'd been having on copyright, namely that with the internet the paradigm is reverting to a pre-broadcasting model, where mixing, sharing, and crucially to my thinking, story evolution across authors is possible. This is after all, how many of our best stories - myths, legends, fairytales came about. With broadcasting (TV, radio, books) story was a "one truth" to be imposed by the one on the many. Now it's a merely a starting point for others to join, experience and share. Vive la Revolution!

And you've also got to watch it to see Jesus Christ sing "I will survive" pure class!




A friend also gave me a heads up yesterady of two authors who are actually exploring this new way of creating - Neal Stephenson and Greg Bear. They've started a wesite called Mongoloid which seems to be an effort to start an evolutionary story about knights at the times of the Mongol invasion of Europe. Everyone's free to add, create and consume the content - which is everything from sound to video to text and pictures - and being lead by two such Sci-Fi luminaries as Stephenson and Bear I'm betting it may go somewhere.

The internet is the new campfire. Food for thought.

Spartacus has blown up Robin Hood Airport!

Sounds like a mash-up time travel movie doesn’t it? Actually it’s slightly more surreal than that. The famous book, 1984 by George Orwell, appears to have crash landed in Judge Jacqueline Davies’s head – there was enough room - in a bid to punish the aspiring terrorist Paul Chambers.

Now there are crap jokes and there are crap jokes. "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" I hope was one of Paul Chambers’ worse ones.

But a fine of £2,000 for such a limited sense of humour, seems, even to me, fairly absurd.

Paul tweeted this immortal phrase when his dirty weekend to Northern Ireland was postponed due to an excess of snow at Robin Hood airport. It took our brave officers in blue a full week to track him down at his home address and arrest him. Arrested under the terrorist act, he was then taken to court and convicted of a minor infringement under a law the Crown Prosecution Service found down the side of the sofa, namely one dating from the 1930’s and aimed at protecting “female telephonists at the Post Office.”

Judge Jacqueline Davies then effectively called him a liar – which he might be - most of us are, before refusing his appeal and fining him £2,000.

And that was when the twitterverse exploded (literally. Tweets fell from the air) with thousands of tweeters (bear in mind that these are not real people – only electronic simulations of them) repeating his tweet under the banner of “I am Spartacus”. A real thumb in the face to the no doubt technologically challenged adntherefore unaware Judge Jacqueline Davies.

All these surreal shenanigans have been reported in the newspapers, and the twitter being Stephen Fry has offered to pay off Paul’s fine. Paul himself has admitted it was a crap joke and he maybe should have been told off for being stupid. Leave the stand up to Stephen, Paul.

A storm in a thimble? Undoubtedly, and I wish it had been about a decent joke at the least. But with other, similar cases looming one can hope that a case is being made for the repealing of some of Labour’s more draconian laws. We are, currently, living in a post-1984 world. The new clone government has done some good by, for example, cutting the ID card scheme but a lot more remains to be done. They can continue with cutting the Judge out of Judge Jacqueline Davies – I imagine the NHS would cover the operation.

The twiiterverse is a naval gazing indulgence for the media class, and while the Iran “green your icon” campaign did revolt me in it’s ineffectuality, in cases like this – where it is not a life or death matter and indeed, not very important, - then I think it is strangely apt. The story started in 140 characters, but I wonder where it’ll finish.