The Scapegoat Archetype (long)

[Hitomi]

No: HPFGUIDX 90011

Hitomi wrote:
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.  
<snip>

Frost wrote: 
... 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.
 
Hitomi now:
Hey again Frost!  I think you and I are defining fantasy (as in 
conventional vs. non) differently.  When I was thinking of modern 
fantasy, I kept going back to works like Neil Gaiman's, who is 
totally and completely off the wall, and doesn't hold to 
traditional standards, or categories, at all.  Most of his short 
stories, and especially his novel "American Gods" are bizarre.  (Try 
reading "Neverwhere."  You might like it, just be ready for the 
abstract.)  I agree with what you're saying, that fantasy that 
sticks to the confines of, shall we say, the "Tolkien-like-epic," 
have to have archetypes.  I just think a lot of modern writers have 
broken away from that.  But I also think of cross-genre series, like 
Terry Brooks' "Nest Freemark" works (which is his best break-away 
work, even though he copied of Tolkien for the "Shannara" series), 
or Pullman's "Dark Materials" trilogy for another example of 
children's books, Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels.  Stuff I read ages 
ago, but comes to mind.  A lot of it mixes with science fiction, 
theology, and traditional forms of basic literature.  You should try 
reading Orson Scott Card's "Enchantment," you'd probably enjoy it.  
But again, I totally agree, in the traditional fantastical-context, 
you have to have archetypes.  That's why I like a lot of Eastern 
folk tales, especially of Orient descent.  They usually hold to 
different rules, far different from the usual Western influence.
 
Oh, and when I was talking about old European works, I kept 
thinking of "Morte Darthur," "Utopia," Jonathan Swift's works (which 
is mostly satire, but still), I'm sure you get the idea.
 
Anyway, I agree completely that JKR doesn't think about archetypes 
when she writes.  It's just what readers get out of it, and like to 
analyze, neh?  :-)


Hitomi wrote:
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 wrote:
I agree with you, but I was responding to Dr. Zipes' rather... 
different POV.
 
Hitomi now:
Yes, he did rather place Harry upon a pedestal.  Which I don't agree 
with, and which I know Rowling is not trying to do.  She's trying 
to give us a normal teenage-boy hero.  Anyway, I agree.


Hitomi wrote:
<snip>
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 wrote:
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.
 
Hitomi now:
Yes, again I agree.  Though I think Harry's selfishness is more 
than understandable, although, no, Snape didn't really do anything 
wrong (in this instance, at any rate), and Harry will have to let it 
go, at least eventually.  Anyway, it makes their relationship more 
interesting, considering their mutual hatred is completely 
unreasonable.  Though, I'm still not quite willing to trust Severus, 
yet.  Don't know enough about him.  And JKR has said to watch out 
for him, so I guess it's a matter of waiting, and seeing how this 
plays out.
 
Anyway, back to the point, I think I just liked how JKR displayed 
the grieving process.  People who are guilt-ridden and depressed, 
are by nature, selfish.  I just want to see how Harry works through 
it, because he's not the type of person to be unreasonably biased 
without reason, and his bias towards Snape for Sirius's death is 
wrong.
 
   
Hitomi wrote: 
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.
<snip>

Frost wrote:
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that everyone (well, 
who was involved) was at fault and no one.  
<snip>
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 now:
I think that's more how I view it.  What's the point of placing 
blame, when even if one person had not made the choice they did, 
Sirius would still have probably died.  Placing blame on everyone, I 
think, is just a bit too negative for me.  People pass on when it's 
their time, and Sirius's death was a good death.  Things happened 
the way they did, and you have to move on from it, you know?


Hitomi wrote:
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.  
<snip>
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.

Frost wrote: 
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. 
 
Hitomi now:
You're right.  A lot of the morality questions do take it beyond 
that, again breaking away from the archetype, neh? ;)  I, too, 
highly doubt JKR sits down and thinks about what literary tools 
she's going to use.  She's just writing her story, and of course, we 
as readers, are going to nit-pick it, analyze it, and write 
ridiculous, and not-so-ridiculous, theories and conclusions on it.  
Oh well.  It's fun to do, anyway.  
 
Hope everyone has a great weekend!
 
Ja ne! ~ Hitomi