The Scapegoat Archetype

[Hitomi]

No: HPFGUIDX 89945

> Janet:
> <snip>
> > I think that's one of the reason the whole Harry Potter series 
is 
> so 
> > appealing to so many age groups: J.K. has a good grasp on 
> universal 
> > archetypal themes.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Frost:  
>   Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the 
archetypes. 
> Yes, a lot of the characters have similarities, but they often 
break 
> free of them.  If she stuck through with archetypes (which is a 
> dumbing and destroying plague upon fantasy writing) we wouldn't be 
> here arguing about who (or what) Snape is, or whether or not Harry 
> will be good or evil, or live or die or be destroyed.  We wouldn't 
> be so suspicious of Dumbledore, we would know that Ron was always 
by 
> Harry's side.  

Hitomi:
I agree and disagree with both you, Frost, and Janet.  I think there 
are some archetypal themes in the novels, the good vs. evil theme is 
constantly present, but what I got from your post, Frost, is that 
even though there are "good guys" and "bad guys," Rowling continues 
to keep her characters quite human.  She gives us reasons for why 
the evil side might have turned out the way they are, though it's 
never an excuse, nor justifiable, just understandable.  And she 
makes her heroes flawed and uncertain; she lets them grow and fall, 
as we all do, ultimately making them stronger in the end, I think, 
or at least more ready to face what's coming.  

I see those archetypes most predominantly in old forms of 
literature, especially European.  More modern fantasy and science 
fiction has mostly dropped them, and I'll go out on a limb and say 
Rowling's appeal is probably her mixture of both.  In the first 
books, especially, there was a more defined good vs. evil, but now 
that Harry has grown, he is, of course, learning that the world is 
constantly a hazy gray, and very rarely simply black and white.  
That of course, includes himself and any he considers friend or foe.

 
>    I think that the archetypes pervade our society.  When we see a 
> hero, we expect the good buddy that will stick through thick and 
> thin. We expect there to be a mentor, we expect a nemesis.  I 
think 
> JKR has all of those in the books, but then she takes it and makes 
> it her own.  Snape fits no archetype that I can think of, and I 
> think he is a extremely post-modern character.  Harry is not, as 
Dr. 
> Zipes puts it, the perfect male role-model. His boy-scout days are 
> over, as we can see with his unreasoning and selfish hate of Snape 
> at the end of OoP.  He thinks that he'll never forgive Snape.  
What 
> does he have to forgive Snape for?  Snape responded to Harry's 
plea 
> the only way he could, considering how dangerous his Order work 
is. 
> (not that we really know WHAT it is, just that it's required of 
him 
> to hide his membership, and what side he is on.) It was because of 
> Snape's actions that Harry and the DA members were rescued from 
> certain defeat. (In essence, he called in the Calvary).   And now 
> Dr. Zipes' "perfect" Harry hates him, because he needs someone to 
> pin Sirius's death on, and he can't accept that something's don't 
> have blame, or that sometimes everyone is at fault.

Hitomi:
No Harry is not perfect.  But I always looked at a role-model as 
someone you admire for their imperfection as well as what little 
about them is good, considering we're talking that role-models are 
always human.  I don't think Harry is put on a pedestal, but more 
admired for the fact that he is who he is, despite having been 
through what he has.  Admired for being flawed, as well as "good."  
Someone you can see yourself as a lot of the time, in other words.  

The only archetype I've ever seen as true would be Biblical.  God 
vs. Satan, Christ vs. Humanity; and in that context, old European 
works mostly try to reiterate.  Modern literature is quite 
different, though such archetypes do still exist, and I think we 
still need them to an extent, but that is my own religious view.  
Everything comes down to God vs. the Devil to a Christian, and 
finding Christ in yourself.  Meaning as a human we're naturally 
evil, born into sin, and what good there lies within us is Christ.

I also always viewed Harry's reaction to Snape as incredibly human.  
Normal human response to grief.  Harry wants to resent the world for 
what Sirius went through, the world treated Sirius badly, and now 
he's dead, so Harry blames those whom he felt mistreated Sirius, 
including himself.  He wants to find the guilt in everyone 
concerning Sirius's death, because as far as Harry is concerned, it 
was still ultimately his own fault.  His deep-seated guilt, 
resentment, as well as his feeling of enmity towards Snape is 
unreasonable.  He's grieving.  That's what people do when they 
grieve; the world is suddenly a terrible place to exist in.  I find 
it a bit cynical to say everyone might be at fault.  No one was at 
fault for Sirius's death.  It will just take Harry a long time to 
come to terms with that fact, especially with the circumstances 
surrounding Sirius's death.  Which is totally normal, and again, an 
example of Frost's point.  That Rowling's characters are, if 
anything, simply human.


>     Archetypes aren't people.  Archetypes are symbols. Harry is 
not 
> a symbol.  This isn't a morality play.  This isn't an allegory.  
> There is no Red Crosse Knight who comes charging in on his white 
> horse to face the dragon Temptation.   If ever there were 
archetypes 
> in the story, the characters wore the robes awkwardly, with the 
> sleeves slipping off the shoulders, and their respective shields 
> dragging on the ground.  By now I think they have rather lost 
them. 

Hitomi:
I'll diagree with that, in I think there is a morality play.  JKR 
herself has said the main theme is good vs. evil, that these are 
very moral books.  We all hold archetypes within ourselves, what 
good and evil there is within us.  You can't have one without the 
other; it's the dichotomy of human existence - yin and yang, if you 
will.  I think I just view it as Rowling has molded the archetypes 
to her own design, while keeping her characters, her antagonists and 
her heroes, as completely and totally human.  Nothing more, nothing 
less.

 
> In summery of my statement:  Yes, there is a loose framework of 
> archetypes, but what is there is a mere ghost of those archetypes: 
> insubstantial not effecting the "real" world.

Hitomi:
Again, I think archetypes always affect the real world.  You can't 
escape stereotypes, nor can you escape that which is good and evil 
within us.  The point is to try to convey, and ultimately 
illustrate, both.  So, again, I agree with both Janet and Frost, two 
different extremes.  The mixture of extremes is what usually exists 
in the real world, anyway, and here we are, talking about fiction ;)

~ Hitomi, who loves Harry and the other characters for their flaws, 
too