Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Love

[zendemort]

No: HPFGUIDX 111589

> 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. 
> 
Zendemort: 

I am sorry, but this debate was so interesting. I just must add my 
two-cents worth of opinion. Art is a form of human expression. Being 
thus, we must keep in mind that "the mind is not a book that can be 
opened at will and read by any intruder... etc. etc. The mind is a 
complex and many layered thing." Keeping that statement in mind, we 
cannot judge an artist based on their explicit intentions. Because, 
like the master chess player completing agaist a computer, the 
artist might not be aware of her/his subconcious intentions. The 
master chess player can know only several moves in advance while the 
computer can calculate the entire game in terms of probability, thus 
seeing many more moves in advance than the master chess player. Yet, 
somehow the master chess player wins, not because knowing or seeing 
the outcome in advance, but something a little more intuitive. This 
intuition is not apart of the "heart" like some people would like to 
believe, it is apart of the mind (all of our decision come from our 
mind, especially our emotions). Thus, one cannot really distinguish 
properly between thinking and feeling, because they essentially come 
from one and of the same source. Thus, if JKR "felt" something 
worked or was right, and in doing so, made an interesting and 
brilliant series, it should be just as significant in judging her 
brilliance as what she logically and carefully "thought" through 
and "intended" for her work. It still pertains to her genie. 

> Laurasia:
> 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.

Zendemort: 

Sometimes, the artist might not realize on the subconcious level 
that they are writing an allegory, but that is what they create 
because of the times and the surrounding circumstances. Now, a 
writer doesn't write a story and it just happens to turn out to be 
this magnificent allegory of Communism or Christianity. A writer 
sits down and projects her/his thoughts to paper. What develops from 
these thoughts are truly the writers brilliance. JKR projected her 
thoughts onto paper, and what has come out of these thoughts is 
truly brilliance. I give the author full credit for his/her 
creation. Yes, JKR intended to write a children's series, but the 
result was not only a children's series, but a complex story with 
many issues of our world. Her "thoughts" and "feelings" on paper are 
what make her an author, not her "intentions." 
Now, Let's go ahead and judge everyone by their "intentions." The 
court of law will only put people in jail for their "intentions," 
not their actual actions. Just imagine that world. As I have said, 
we must remember that the brain is very, very complex, and sometime 
are intentions that we think at the time are not really our true 
intentions, or we do something completely different that undermines 
our initial intentions. JKR said she sat down and first started 
writing as though she was talking down to the child, but then she 
decided to write the books only for herself, not for any child, and 
the HP series is the result. 

> Laurasia:
> 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. 

Zendemort:

Humm... SHE built the context into which she put Harry. I have never 
read anything with such a context. I have read various fantasy 
literature, but NOTHING and I mean nothing like Harry Potter. It is 
completely unique. Yes, we might see some similarities here and 
there. The werewolf, the old wizard, the shape shifter... but adding 
these to her story doesn't necessarily make her books cliche ridden. 
In fact, it makes them unique. It's not the fact that they are what 
they are, but it is how she deals with them, what these figures 
represent in her books. I can tell you, I have never seen a werewolf 
represent an outcaste from society in the way Lupin is, distrusted 
and misjudged by the community just because of an illness, who 
cannot find a job because of prejudice and suspicion. It is much 
like someone with AIDS. This is part of JKR's brilliance. Her 
ability to integrate folklore, and use it as a means of displaying 
our society and its workings.  

> Laurasia:
> 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.

Zendemort:

Sorry, but I don't really see how "all" Fantasy literature has the 
same conventions and themes. I have come across many different types 
of Fantasy literature, and many, many are very different than 
the "conventions" associated with Fantasy. CS Lewis is fantasy, but 
it represents a christian allegory, this is very different from JKR 
where her books are essentially absent of any religious nature 
(although some themes come up which could be attributed to religion, 
her books attribute all significant power NOT to a god, but to the 
force itself). But, I will agree with you that fantasy does 
give "the notion that there is a higher plane of existence above 
rational." 

> Laurasia:
> 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.

Zendemort:

But, it's just that. In life, don't we all have mentors or have come 
across mentors. I certainly have. JKR's books are not just about 
following the "cliche" archetypes. They are about representing LIFE. 
And whether or not this is cliche, in most lives, there are mentors 
or "grandfather/mother" figures. I mean, you might as well go after 
the idea of including friends in her book as cliche. How many times 
has that been done? to give the protagonist friends? Come on, this 
is life! But you must realize that even her cliche of a mentor has 
his own character. Unlike many old grandfather mentors, Dumbledore 
is not just the nice old man, but eccentric and strange. He is not 
the know all nor is he the person to solve all, but is a person with 
much experience and knowledge that must also confront his weaknesses 
and difficulties. This aspect of Dumbledore is very interesting. 
Most cliche literature does not show the weakness of the mentor, but 
JKR DOES!!!!!! and this is part of what makes Dumbledore different 
form the mentor archetype. 

> Laurasia:
> 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. 

Zendemort:

No, shapeshifting is not new. But again, how JKR includes it in her 
book is very new. It seems that JKR is merging Native American 
folklore with western folklore. Animigus turns into the animal that 
symbolizes the personality of the person. This is very new. This 
merge between Native American thought and western folklore. 

> Laurasia:
> 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.

Zendemort:

Ummm... I've met really really bad guys who like to wear black!!! 
But then again I've met really really good guys who like to wear 
black!! If I remember correctly, what is the color of the Hogwart's 
uniform? I believe that it was, umm, BLACK!!!!!!! So the cliche of 
the bad guy in black is not really true, because it seems that the 
traditional clothes for people in the wizarding community is black. 
Yes, the bad guy wears black, but don't forget... SO DOES HARRY!!!!! 
Actually, Voldemort is not "worn-in." He is a part of the "dark 
side," which is cliche, yes. But his whole person is very different. 
He WAS a child, he WAS a person, and he has his story... Much like 
Hilter. He is very complex, because not only is he the bad guy who 
claims to be for purification of the wizarding race, he himself is 
not pure. He is half muggle, Now this is NOT cliche (well, maybe in 
history considering that there was speculation that Hilter was part 
jewish...) 

> Laurasia:
> 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.

Zendemort:

Clearing, I disagree. None of her characters are unoriginal. They 
might take on appearances of what we are familiar with. But they 
themselves are unique and complex. This is what makes JKR brilliant, 
taking these "cliche ridden" characters and putting a spin on them, 
making them new and different. But that is my experience in life. 
when I meet someone new, that person is usually just a spin on 
someone I have already met. But This is the same with ideas.. the 
same with life. Chimps didn't spawn directly out of bacteria, but it 
took ages for chimps and humans to evolve, with each new creature 
putting a spin on an existing one. Einstein didn't think about his 
new theories out of thin air. They were merely spins on existing 
theories.