[HPforGrownups] Re: Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Love --long

[Melete]

No: HPFGUIDX 111615


--- zendemort <zendemort at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > 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. 
> > 


Melete:  I find this a very complex and strange idea. 
Generally speaking as a literture student, its quite
difficult to evaluate author's intentions without
having the author to pick over yourself.  I've always
felt biographical and authorial studies to be very
faulty.  We are making suppositions without hard
evidence.  We can really only draw conclusions from
the text as to what is being said, what archetypes
could be employed.  Even then it is a sticky business
to talk about author's intentions.  We know Lewis
wrote allegory because he freely admits to it. 
Outside of that it is reader inference.





> 
> > 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.
> 


Melete:  But why not give credit to Lewis or Orwell. 
Yes allegory is an old device but the fact that other
author's have employed such devices does not detract
from the author's own skilled use of it.  If you are
so hard on author's but love the work of their labor I
would hate to see what you make of Shakespeare and
Chaucer.
> 
> > 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. 
> 
Melete:  Ah the old fantasy as unoriginal idea.  I
wonder why more readers aren't harder on 'mainstream
fiction/literature'.  We seem to find obvious uses of
archetypes trying only in fantasy and science fiction.
*can you tell this is a bit of a bugaboo for me?* 
Perhaps I might find Harry Potter unoriginal if it was
blatantly ripping ideas from other authors without any
good plot development, characterization etc.  It is
not the staid epic fantasy with mage, knight, thief,
princess warrior with unpronounceable names made up by
sound perhaps.  And even if it was, if the book was
employing said character types and genre in an
interesting or beautiful way then I should not mind
it.

If we think back to oh say Early Modern English
(Shakespeare), the idea behind a good writer then was
not how original the idea or character types were. 
Instead it was how successfully the author handled
them: the characters, the language, the plot devices. 
Let it not be said that Shakespeare was original (as
far as plot and character go..he filched those as it
was acceptable to do) or Chaucer for that matter.
*Only 2 examples but earlier literature (pre 20th
century) is rife with this idea.  Authors and audience
accepted the idea that not everything is new under the
sun, but a new handling a new way of turning a phrase
and recreating an old idea are still to be respected. 
Look how Shakespeare took Petrarchan sonnets and
turned them on their head (by working with the
conventions and then turning them back on themselves.)
 The fair maiden whom the sonneteer is wasting away in
love for becomes the dark lady who destroys and the
fair young man who is the muse.  I'm only using
Shakespeare because he is something I'm sure everyone
has studied.

  
> 
> > 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.
> 
   I can agree that fantasy points to some difference
in how we perceive the world.  But with the many
subgenres, I can hardly say they follow all the
conventions.  I think fantasy works very well in a way
that regular fiction cannot.  It can deal with issues
to hard to swallow perhaps when presented in prosaic
circumstances.  Look at how Tolkien perhaps dealt with
some of his own confusion over how the world was
changing around him during the two Great Wars.    The
way his characters deal with the same situations
presents some of the most lyrical representations of
bravery and humanity I have read.  


And as far as using archetypes at a concious or
subconsious level, I do not think this is necessarily
a sign of regurgitation and mediocrity in writing. 
Even if it is at subconcious level it shows a depth of
thought and a connection to themes that are deeper and
more intrinsic that most humanity can recognize.  This
is the reason fairy tales, myths and great pieces of
literature still exist.  They deal with the
archetypes, the hero's quest our deepest values and
reveal truths to us that perhaps on our own we might
not have recognized.  (Certainly notice just how many
fairies are actually in fairy tales and what issues
they are dealing with...abandonment, abuse, survival).
 These themes are recurrent in HP as well.  Just think
of the way the books are cyclic (they always begin and
end in the same place.)  Harry is staying the summer
at the Dursleys where he is abused, neglected and
powerless.  Then he returns to Hogwarts where he is
loved, cared for and very powerful.  At the end of the
year having defeated the obstacle presented to him, he
returns to the muggle world.  I do think the planning
and execution of such a pattern was deliberate on JK's
part but whether or not she recognizes the depth to
such a journey does not lessen her skill.  She is
certainly attuned to these deeper parts of the
collective subconcious.  Her worldwide popularity
attests to that.
I just think it is important to recognize this as also
a sign of a particularly adept author.  She certainly
did a lot of research in naming her characters,
drawing connections, carefully planning her plot.  I
think it does her a great disservice to not recognize
her when recognizing the books she has written.   You
may be able to separate them when studying but
ultimately she is the author and the person that put
pen to page.  Just giving her some of her dues in my
own convoluted way...


Melete ---rather longwinded and rambling again.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail