The Scapegoat Archetype

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 89978

Frost:  
> >   Actually, for me it is that she doesn't stick with the 
> archetypes. 
> 
> 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'. 
> 
> I think Snape has some obvious Archetypes:
> 
> Coward/Bully
> Alchemist
> Spy
> Mentor/Teacher
> Saboteur
> 
> However, I don't think his character has been fleshed out enough to 
> know what exactly he's doing...and why!
> 
> 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.


Carol:
I wonder if the people in this thread are using "archetype" in the
same way. For me, it suggests the archetypes identified in Frazer's
"Golden Bough"--those that appear in the myths of virtually every
culture. IIRC, there's the maiden/mother/crone, the hero, the dying
god. . . . It's been a very long time since I read it. (Is trickster
on his list or is that only in Campbell?)

At any rate, an archetype is the original model on which all others
are based (paraphrased dictionary definition). I wonder if some of us
are using archetype in some other way, possibly synonymous with "type"
 ("a thing or person that represents perfectly or in the best way a
class or category," Random House College Dictionary, def. 4) or even
stereotype (a standardized conception or misconception based on age,
race, ses, etc., e.g., the WW's conception of Muggles).

Just wondering if it would help if we defined our terms. Also,
allegory and symbolism are not the same thing. I haven't seen any
discussion of symbolism in the HP books (I might want to think about
that), but she very definitely is not writing allegory, in which
there's a one-on-one correspondence between characters and places and
real-life things or conditions. Bunyan's Faithful and Slough of
Despond immediately leap to mind. Tolkien states explicitly that he
loathes allegory and has avoided ever since he first recognized its
existence (or something like that!) I'm pretty sure that JKR would agree.

Anyway, a character can have archetypal (or even stereotypical) traits
without being an archetype (or stereotype). Snape, IMO, is neither
one. He may be compounded of traits we've seen before in villains or
anti-heroes, but I've never seen this particular combination of
traits. We can predict the style of his speech and his movements, but
never what he's going to say or do (other than give detentions and
criticize the Gryffindors). IMO, he's his own character, sui generis.

Carol