The Scapegoat Archetype (long)

[frost_indri]

No: HPFGUIDX 89977


> Frost:  
> >   Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the 
> archetypes. 

Janet:

> I believe archetypes are universal, but they don't have to be 
> predictable. :o) An individual uses many archetypes in carrying 
out  their own personal mission or "contracts" with others. An 
archetype can be streeeeetched to mean different things. For 
example, there are many different types of "heros", including 
the 'anti-hero'. 
> 

Frost:  
  But in the end, an "archetype" is a category.  Yes, a person can 
fit into an archetype, but that doesn't mean that they are the 
archetype.  It is a way in literature that we have developed to name 
the commonalities of certain characters.  
  When it comes down to it, I don't think JKR is looking at the 
characters and saying "Well, he's of this archetype, and this 
archetype, and this one over there is this..."  I think she is 
viewing them and treating them as individuals, and their growth is 
subsequent of that.  The archetypes are something that we as readers 
and critiques are applying after the fact.  If she were trying to 
write the archetypes, she would be limited by them. 

Janet:

> Because the characters are actually using more than one 
archetypes, 
> and they interact with other character archetypes, it is that 
> dynamic that keeps you guessing.
>

Frost: 
  But that is only if you try to categorize them into pre-existing 
archetypes.  As I said, I think there is the shadow of the 
archetypes in the characters, but she is using them, in a unique 
way. Part of that way, I believe, is not thinking of them in terms 
of archetypes.  We can apply them after the fact because, well, 
we're human. We like to categorize things.  Not to mention, to a 
certain degree every writer builds on the history of the stories 
before.  


> Hitomi:
<snip>
> 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.
>

Frost: 
  ... Ok, I am really and very strongly disagreeing with you here. 
Mostly because I've been reading some books by authors about how 
they write Fantasy, and listened to a couple of them, and .. my god. 
They have lists of the archetypes the "must" be in the story for it 
to be a fantasy.
  You have to have the mentor, the hero, the strong female 
character, the weak female character, the good thief/ honorable 
rascal, etc.  And you can find it in almost every fantasy there is. 
(that is my own opinion.)    Fantasy writing is so bonded to the old 
myths and the influence of Tolkien that it is hard to break away 
from the archetypes.  
  Which is very disappointing for me, since I do love fantasy, but 
I'm finding that it lacks the intellectual stimulation I need, in 
general. There are some that break that (Harry Potter, and Gregory 
Maguire's rewritings of the old fairytales (and new ones too) are 
examples of that)  but... *sighs* the archetypes are there, and 
we've added modern-archetypes.

  I do think that archetypes can be applied to the Harry Potter 
series, but I don't think that JKR is thinking of her characters as 
archetypes, and therefore not actively using the archetypes.  Again, 
if she was, she wouldn't have the ability to allow her characters to 
be so malleable and layered. Archetypes are overarching categories, 
and such generalizations are limiting.  
  
 
> 
> 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.  
> 

Frost:
  I agree with you, but I was responding to Dr. Zipes' rather... 
different POV.  

<snip>
Hitomi:
 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. 

Frost:
  Yes, very human, but not perfect, IE not what Dr. Zipes saw Harry 
as.  Personally, I think that Harry is very wrong for choosing to 
blame Snape.  I think it's going to be one of those things that will 
have a very large negative effect, and I look forward to seeing how 
it's played out.  I hope that in the end he will forgive Snape (the 
forgiveness would be for him, since really, Snape probably doesn't 
feel like he's done anything to be forgiven for.).  But I do think 
that such a selfish emotional response is in keeping with Harry's 
character.  However, it is that emotional response that defies the 
archetype that Zipes tried to put Harry in,  because of it's 
selfishness.  

> 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.
> 

Frost:
  And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that everyone (well, 
who was involved) was at fault and no one.  Dumbledore for trying 
to "keep him safe," Snape for needling him, Molly for treating him 
like a child half of the time, Harry for ignoring his gift (that 
would have allowed for so much of this to be avoided.) Dumbledore 
for not being honest with Harry, Harry for not thinking enough and 
rushing held-long and without thought into the MOM.  The MOM for not 
wanting to believe Voldie was back, Voldemort for setting up the 
situation. Sirius himself for having treated Kreatcher the way he 
did. Kreatcher for his betrayal. Bellatrix for the final blow... 
etc.  The list goes on.  There were a lot of things that a lot of 
people did wrong to lead up to his death.  Sirius's death could have 
been avoided, but due to a lot of different actions, beliefs, and 
non-actions by different people, he was condemned to die.  Its very 
realistic and very tragic, and at the same time, unavoidable.  No 
one knew how their actions would spread their effects so far.  
Everyone did as they thought best.  How could they know?  You can't 
blame them, even though they are at fault.  Well, you can, but... 
*shrugs*  what's the point?  

> Hitomi:
> I'll disagree 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.
> 

Frost: 
  Well, in the face of a quote from JKR herself, I'll consent to the 
morality play thing (though I was thinking more along the lines of 
the simplistic story of the The Third Shepherds Play.).  I just 
think that the complexity of the moral questions being posed take it 
beyond that of a morality play.  As for the archetypes, I don't 
think JKR is using them, in that she isn't setting people up as an 
archetypes or collection of archetypes.  It's just that the 
characters unavoidably hold similarities to the archetypes due to a 
long history of story. 

Frost