The Scapegoat Archetype (long)

[frost_indri]

No: HPFGUIDX 90017


> 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. 
<<snip>>

Frost:
	  Umm. Actually the books I mentioned have been written 
within the last ten years.  I am thinking of modern fantasy.  I want 
to write it, though not the way that I`m being told by everyone else 
how to write it. I'm working off m study of current fantasy 
authors.  Some are good, even with the "limitations" they put on 
fantasy. Some are even better because they break those limitations.

	As for Gaiman
 he's another one.  If you like Neverwhere, 
try reading his Sandman Comics.  !!!!  *sighs*  Dream is so... 
dreamy. ;)   But really, THERE is a total decimation of an 
archetype, putting the hero on a reverse course, from "god-likeness" 
to humanity.
 
	But I still think that he and JKR are in the minority, and 
are known for their amazing transformations of a genera.  Giaman 
took comic books and made one of the great Modern Myths.  JKR has 
taken children's literature and fantasy into a whole new level of 
intellectual appreciation. (Something that Tolkien never did. (he 
just was able to popularize fantasy.  I may be a "heretic" but I 
think he's just an ok writer with a good story.  And don't get me 
started on his dialogues. >_< ever tried to read them out loud? 
ouch.)) I mentioned Gregory McGuire because his re-writes of 
commonly known myths are astounding.  I'll never watch the Wizard of 
OZ the same again.  (Actually, I'm now a fan of Elpheba.  Go "wicked 
Witch" of the West!) 

	  But the archetypes still pervade most of the modern 
writers. Michelle West's The Sunsword.  Terry Pratchet's Disc World. 
(The Dumber they are, the harder to kill.) (Though, Small Gods is 
inspiring) Stephan Lawhead, Kristen Brintain, George R.R. Martin, L. 
E. Modesitt Jr.

	The archetypes are there and they are used, and rather 
heavily.  I don't think they are always used intentionally, though I 
know they are in several cases.   But Fantasy relies, even with 
modern writers, rather heavily on archetypes.  


Hitome:
>  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.  
>>

	Ok. Can't talk about Terry Brooks, as I never really got 
into him. Orson Scott Card does a good job, but he still has 
the "child-genius" who grows up to be the "mentor" figure.  And not 
to mention, that is Sci-fi. Sci-fi has it's own problems.

	And Pern... Ok, I'm working form memory here, so I'm not 
going to be able to give a complete list, but... Main female 
character (with the big 'ol queen dragon) is your "strong female 
character."  Then there are a couple of "weak" female characters, 
including that one with the long hair who gets her queen killed.  
Master Harper is your "Good rascal" for the adults, and when you 
start with Menolly's stories... well, they're everywhere in there. 

	Which isn't to say that I didn't enjoy the Pern Series.  I 
absolutely loved them, and Menolly was a favorite as a young teen, 
but...  They are there. Look at Star Wars. (that IS a fantasy. Not 
Sci-fi.) Look at Dune.  (from which two thirds of Star wars was 
stolen)

	I guess, in the end, we will be able to apply the archetypes 
to JKR's works, but I still really enjoy how varied and complex her 
characters are.  She didn't start out to write a fantasy, it just 
happened.  She's not in control of her archetypes, she's ignoring 
them, and letting them be what they are without categorizing them 
and pushing them into that sort of mold. I just feel that saying 
that she is using archetypes is inaccurate.