Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Love

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 111571

Caspen wrote:

> I apprecate your response Laurasia, but I'm a littl confused. 
> Nowhere have I said that "[although] ... the magic in the story 
> symbolises this spiritual level of the world.... that this has all 
> been consciously arranged by JKR, but yet the plots of her books 
> haven't been." Nor did I say that "...any major characters' death 
is 
> not actually relevant to the story." If I thought so, perhaps I'd 
be 
> inclined to be more of an HP fundamentalist. 


Laurasia:

Hi Caspen, sorry if I got a wrong impression of what you were trying 
to say. I got the impression you felt that JKR was extremely 
conscious of the metaphysical layers in HP by your frequent comments 
such as (From your original post 111400): 

"(this is JKR'S raelly brilliant point)"
"(and again this is what makes JKR brilliant, IMO)"
"Very clever and skillful, IMO."

which to me gave me the impression that you were saying that if JKR 
was truly to be clever, brilliant and skilled she *must* have been 
consciously including all the multi-layers.

I got the impression that you considered this theme more planned out 
than plot issues from this comment (from 111400):

"I think her work may also, ultimately be
interpreted, not only as pro-Christian, but as anti-fundamentalist
(anti-literalist) in the broadest sense both for
fundamentalists/literalists who openly identify with and consider
themselves on the side of good (but are actually rule-obsessed
Percy's) and for fundamentalist occultists who actually believe in
real world magic (there are some out there). And, I might add, even
HP fans who, for instance, have become certain that beheadings of
major characters are essential to JKR's story!"

The last reference to the 'beheadings of major characters' gave me 
the impression that you thought HP fans who consider, eg Sirius's 
death absolutely relevant were just being too literal. It suggested 
to me that you were saying that JKR was creating a work which the 
thematic meaning of events (eg, death frees people from the physical 
plane of existence) was more important than any plot driven 
consequences they may cause (eg, Harry gets a connection to the 
other side of the Veil).

Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Caspen:

However, and more to the point, evaluating an 
> author's "brilliance" based upon speculation about how consciously 
> or not the themes developed in his/her work are, is just plain 
> absurd. 

Laurasia:

And I'm afraid I disagree with you on how we should evaluate an 
author's brilliance. I don't think its fair to evaluate a
*work* on what the author's intentions were- the work should
stand by itself. HOWEVER, I *do* think it's fair to evaluate an 
author on what their intentions were. 

For example: If George Orwell just wrote a book about a farm and 
pigs taking over (Animal Farm) then I would still allow the books 
itself to be an allegory of Communism, but I would give Orwell no 
credit for it as an author. If C.S. Lewis just wrote a series of 
books about a magic wardrobe (The Chronicle of Narnia) I would still 
appreciate the book as an allegory of Christianity, but give no 
credit to Lewis as an accomplished writer.

This point also goes back to my first impression that you considered 
JKR "brilliant, skilled and clever." I don't. I think she's written 
a few fun books. And I think the context she chose to put Harry into 
had theme type of themes inbuilt into it. 

I still stand by my opinion that *all* Fantasy literature has 
conventions, themes and meanings inbuilt into it simply because 
Fantasy literature is about the scientifically unexplainable. I 
think that any story which works on a level where The Age of Reason 
cannot explain it, it refers (however poorly or unimaginatively) to 
the notion that there is a higher plane of existence above the 
rational.

To use your reference to Jung's archetypes: It is cliche beyond 
cliche to insert a wise white haired and beared wizard into Fantasy 
stories who acts as the hero's mentor. I've seen it a thousand 
times, and I continue to see it because this type of figure is, 
according to Jung, an essential archetype which we all need to see 
reaffirmed. The Mentor is somebody who we know we can immediately 
trust who has experience and wisdom and who will illuminate what 
path we must ultimately take. Mentor figures also are associated 
with gift-giving.

JKR also uses extensively the archetype of The Shapeshifter. But 
werewolf stories are not new. Stories involving people who can 
transform into animals at will are not new. 

She also uses Jung's archetype of the Shadow. But, really, a bad guy 
who likes to dress in black? Not truly human, and not truly alive? 
These are all very worn-in roles. And we all respond to them 
because, like Jung says, we *need* these roles to appear so that we 
can "play out" all these different roles which we would never get 
the chance to live.

I don't agree that JKR acts on a purely technical level. I think she 
acts on an intuitive level- the reason she inserted Dumbledore 
wasn't because she was unoriginal and couldn't think of any ideas. I 
think it was because he 'felt' right- as a subconscious level, right 
where Jung's archetypes operate. So, I agree with what you've said 
about universal themes. However, that to me only reinforces my 
opinion that JKR is not "brilliant, skilled and clever" but merely 
responding to a human need which only operates on a subconscious 
level.

 
Caspen:
 
> Herman Melville's works have been analyzed in terms of alchemical 
> symbolism, but nowhere have I read any assertions of great 
expertise 
> in the occult on his part. Does that undermine his work? Hardly! 
The 
> quality and effectiveness of the artist's expression of thematic 
> content and the artist's degree of "consciousness" of any 
particular 
> theme are entirely separate issues. 

Laurasia:

Yes, I agree. That's why I stated in my previous post that whilst I 
do not agree these themes were conscious, they are still valid.

Caspen:

> Therefore, your conclusion that "...the only option I can see is 
> that JKR *accidentally* included the theme" is not only, once 
again, 
> an example of another very "fundamentalist" view ,expressed on 
this 
> board, but also simply illogical. 

Laurasia:

I feel JKR's writing style and process (from what she has shown us 
in interviews) contradicts an anti-fundamentalist view. How can JKR 
insert an anti-literalist theme in her books when she is a pro-
literalist writer? That conclusion was based only on logic and 
nothing else. I was referring to the one interpretation of theme 
(about the place of metaphor, about anti-literalists/anti-
fundamentalists) which you brought up as opposed to all themes in 
general.

However, I should've perhaps chosen a different word 
to 'accidental.' Maybe unconscious, intuitive, subconscious, 
instinctive would have served my intent better. 

There are some themes, relating to the spiritual domain, which, IMO, 
JKR has consciously inserted. 

What is the one force in HP that even wizards can offer no rational 
explanation for? That would be love. 

Instead of 'magic' existing in the real world (although beyond the 
physical and mental realms of human experience) I think her primary 
theme is that love (a very special and ancient kind of 'magic') is 
what links all humans on a spiritual level. 

The reason I think this is because magic is dealt with rationally in 
the books. Harry learns spells one wand-movement at a time. He 
focuses his mental energy to cast them. Muggles who will not accept 
magic are portrayed as stupid, backward, and even thought of 
as 'beasts' by some wizards. This all suggests, to me, that magic is 
an intelligence thing, as opposed to a pure, spiritual phenomena. 
Therefore, when even highly intelligent and rational wizards cannot 
explain 'love,' it confirms, in my mind, that JKR is consciously 
putting it on a much higher level than reason.

Hope I clarified a few things and that you are now less confused. 

~<(Laurasia)>~