Perhaps the topic I'm asked to explain most frequently is that of my Camelot personality analysis! And for good reason, methinks, as it's a subject I've poured quite a bit of time into developing! Through both Jungian analysis, soulwork, and other meticulous methods of study, I believe to have finally arrived upon a satisfactory explanation for this whole business. Now, media-driven as our society is, I feel it pertinent to include some "pop culture" comparisons of the various Camelot Subtypes so that you, dear reader, may understand them easier! I'm sure most of us are familiar with the hit comedy "Seinfeld", yes? :).
A key component of Carl Jung's work ( rested be his soul :( ) is his explanation of archetypes. A quick explanation, for those unaware, is that these archetypes are meant to echo universal human experiences, emotions, and motifs that can be observed across history and culture. Anthropological leit motifs if you will, reverberating across the collective unconcious since time immemorial. Most commonly, this concept has been applied to analysis of mythologies and religions; for example, the "Great Mother" archetype is a figure common to nearly all human cultures in some fashion. However, one might also utilize the concept of archetypes when it comes to understanding oneself. Via merging Jung's groundwork with my own personal research, I've come to create something I call
As one might glean from the name ( L.O.L ), these archetypes draw heavy inspiration from the traditional Arthur myth cycle! Due to these tales' foothold on the collective public unconcious, alongside their lack of any religious association, I found the name quite fitting for my purposes. But I digress! The important thing to note is that the archetypes are divided into
Starting things off with the "big man" himself, L.O.L. ! :). As one might glean, those of an Arthurian nature have an inherently kingly soul. Do note, however, that this does not imply superiority! Heavy is the head that wears the crown, as the saying goes...:(. The Seinfield character I am using to represent this quadrant is
"Aurelius," I hear you begin to postulate, eyebrow quirked, "wouldn't the titular character of Jerry Seinfield be a better fit? He is, after all the metaphorical king of the show; the king of the fictional New York presented, even."
"An understandable argument," I chuckle, pushing my ( metaphorical + metaphysical ) glasses up the noble bridge of my nose. "But a very surface level one. To claim otherwise betrays one's lack of understanding in the concept of 'George Costanza' himself."
I hope you enjoyed that little narrative, L.O.L. !! But now, let us crack open the smooth-headed nut that is Mr. Costanza, and glean what we can of the Arthurian quadrant from its ( nutritious ) innards... As stated in the above summary, those of an Arthurian nature are individuals of both great talent and great internal struggle. Their nature as an active quadrant means that, for better or worse, they are an infernal dynamo. The machine that never stops, if you will. This is something also reflected in their elemental association; like the wind, they are ever moving and changing, seeking achievement and elevation no matter the personal cost. They are of a dolorous nature, beset by a noble suffering, their cerebral tendancies both their greatest asset and greatest cross to bear. Their drive to succeed may be mistaken for "neuroticism" ( terrible word >:(( ), but it is anything but. It's a sensitivity the world lacked by most, the combined knowledge of the world and self's flaws alongside the desire to change them.
Now, let us apply these traits to Mr. George Costanza! :). I firmly believe him to be one of Seinfields most complex ( and underrated!!!! ) characters; his soul is a vast one, something that both drags him down and pushes him forward. He's a cerebral, sensitive creature, painfully aware of the world's agonies and the heavy price they exact upon modern man's psyche. The fear that lurks within his heart is enormous, but so too is his capacity to love. Costanza is a man placed within the wrong era; a kingly soul, set adrift in a world and universe that seeks to see noble aspirations destroyed. I might even gently postulate some Christlike comparisons in his character arc, but that's a story for another day. :).
And here we have "The 'Feld" himself! :). Lancelotian individuals, as can be judged by their element and nature, are dynamos. Unlike Arthurian souls, they live more in the moment-to-moment, able to observe the situation without letting it consume them. Less cerebral and "in their heads" than Arthurian individuals, they act as a sort of balancing force, akin to their namesake! As is implied, their dynamic is that of the loyal knight and leige. The yin to the other's yang, their relationship is vital to the wellbeing of both. A noble warrior's bond that can be seen echoing down the course of history, such as the brotherly fellowship of Achilles and Patroclus. In short, the kind of deep friendship that is vital to the wellbeing of any man—or woman! Despite the gendered names, the Camelot subtypes are never exclusive to any sex! This is a webpage that supports equality!!!
As aformentioned, the Seinfeld character I've chosen to represent this quadrant is Jerry Seinfeld! This is due to his suave, composed nature, and the grace with which he navigates situations around him. Eternally optimistic, his is the gift of charismatic success. In addition, his friendship with George is something truly admirable. They are two souls adrift in a world gone mad, their only moorings being that of the other. In the end, they need each other; they need each other as the sun needs the sky, as the bird needs the wind. One may not live without the other, and this is an inherent knowledge that haunts them in the deepest parts of their viscera. Really, you could say it's almost romantic! But of course, their relationship is wholly platonic. :). Like any warrior bond, it simply happens to be the type of transcendental friendship that defies classification.
Next we have enchanting enchantress (L.O.L.) herself! .
