Theory of theme & Jung's Archetypes & Author's Intent

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 111768

I've replied to ideas from these four posts:

Caspen- 111580
Zendemort- 111589
Melete- 111615
Pippin- 111616

Some debate was common between them, so I only used one quote to show 
what concept I was talking about.

Zendemort wrote:
>>>the artist might not be aware of her/his subconcious
intentions.<<<<

Laurasia:

That's my point exactly, Zendemort. I think that awareness of action
is intrinsic to taking value of that action as a creator. If you are
aware of what your actions mean you are aware of other 
alternatives, you can weigh the pros and cons, you realise that 
you have a *choice* to do something or not. You are not blind. 

To use a great HP example- The fastest snitch capture ever was by
Roderick Plumpton in something like 3 seconds.  However, the 
snitch flew up the sleeve of his Quidditch robes without him even 
realising it. Of course, he claims to have meant it all along, but we
all realise he was not aware that it happened, therefore, whilst 
capturing the snitch in 3 seconds is still spectacular, none of the 
credit really goes to Plumpton. 

If, unlike me, you refuse to separate the intent from the act, then
it follows logically that you must actually consider a snitch flying 
up your sleeve a great display of the talent of Quidditch. 

If you are aware, you understand WHY something is good (not simply
that it is) and then you have control over it. 

Zendemort wrote:
>>>>Now, Let's go ahead and judge everyone by their "intentions." The 
court of law will only put people in jail for their "intentions," 
not their actual actions. Just imagine that world.<<<<

Laurasia:

To use your own example, the court of law is *all about* intentions
rather than simply the act. Killing a human in self-defense and 
killing a person in first-degree murder are two separate things, 
although they are both the same act of taking a human's life. 
People who show remorse are given different sentences 
to those who don't. 

If you refuse to take the intention into account (and focus only on
the action) then Harry should be given the death penalty because 
he directly lead to Quirrel's death. The fact that he did it because 
he was 2 seconds away from being killed himself, and was also 
trying to save the lives of millions of other people who would be 
destroyed if Voldemort got the Philosopher's Stone would 
therefore be superfluous to the action (killing Quirrel) he
undertook. 

If we ignore intent and focus only on actions, then Harry should have
been expelled in OotP and had his wand snapped in half because 
he did produce a Patronus. The intention that he was trying to save 
his own and his cousin's lives would be beside the point

This is complete nonsense. Intent greatly changes the meaning of
actions. This is why the criminal state of mind is so important in
trials. 

A court of law where strives to uncover one sole truth and judge
that. If JKR was aware that he book was conveying the theme 
that magic exists even in the real world above the physical plane 
(the topic which this discussion originally sprung from) then she 
has control over it. If she is not aware of it, then it is just the 
same as a snitch flying up your robes- still spectacular, still 
enjoyable to watch, but no credit to the author. The theme still
resonates with us, but the credit doesn't go to JKR for writing it in 
there, it goes to *us* for reading it in there. 

I think awareness = choice, and choice = good author.

Very recently there were interpretations that Harry Potter is
anti-French because many of the baddies have French names- 
Voldemort, Malfoy, Lestrange. I don't think JKR meant for that to 
happen, but there's no denying the three baddest people in the
 books have French names. If you want to give JKR the credit 
for all the themes which can be interpreted in her books (even 
the ones she didn't intend) then why aren't you convinced she 
really does discriminate against the French? Or are you?

Melete: 

>>>>I find this a very complex and strange idea. 
Generally speaking as a literture student, its quite
difficult to evaluate author's intentions without
having the author to pick over yourself.<<<<

Laurasia:

Intentions change the work. Letting the finished work stand alone for
the author completely removes all intent from it, (which, IMO, is why 
so all classics are by dead authors). Making the author anonymous 
means the work no longer has one truth to it which is either *right*
or *wrong* according to the author's intent. It can mean a thousand 
things to a thousand different people all beyond what the scope of 
what the author intended.

If we focus only on JKR, we see JKR's version of Harry Potter on the
pages, instead of our own. This is one of the reasons why I believe 
JKR's lack of anonymity is a bad thing for Harry Potter. Instead of 
relating to the story because (for example) we feel it shows that
Lily Potter was once a Death Eater and hence reinforces our real 
world view that nothing is ever really pure, our point of view is 
dismissed entirely when JKR posts on her website 'How dare we!" 
believe such a thing. 

You would think with JKR's continued ambiguity in interviews as to
whether H/H or R/H will sail, she understands that dismissing 
individual interpretations of stories is exactly what she shouldn't 
be doing.

If we can't evaluate Harry Potter as if by an anonymous author, then
the 'right' or 'wrongness' of theories is suddenly cast into light. As
in, JKR doesn't seem to have any relationship with anyone with 
AIDS, chances are Lupin *wasn't* portraying it then. More likely he 
portrays disability in general, or MS. Of course, Lupin specifically 
representing AIDS works much better, especially if we read that 
he is gay. BUT, if we can't separate work from author... we can't 
make this comparison, because JKR told us Lycanthropy 
represents disabilty in general, she never said AIDS.

Hey, I want to read that Lupin is gay and his lycanthropy represents
AIDS. I think it's a really great parallel. But to do that I need to
forget who JKR is and just look at my reaction to what's on the page.

Zendemort wrote:

>>>>>>>Yes, we might see some similarities here and 
there. The werewolf, the old wizard, the shape shifter... but adding 
these to her story doesn't necessarily make her books cliche ridden. 
In fact, it makes them unique. It's not the fact that they are what 
they are, but it is how she deals with them, what these figures 
represent in her books.<<<<<

Laurasia:

I think you've misinterpreted what I meant about archetypes in Harry
Potter. I was suggesting that archetypes are good things. 

One could argue that human beings have been passing the same story
back and forth for hundreds and thousands of years, only changing the
surface details (Joseph Campbell suggests this). The reason we never 
grow tired of it is because it satisfies a fundamental need which is 
part of what being human actually is. 

We change the story element- protagonist confronts antagonist in the
'belly of the beast' and apply it to specific plot element- Harry
duels withVoldemort in Riddle's graveyard. This is why, when 
reading GoF you *know* that the duel is the climax of the book. 

Archetypes are so common because we *need* them.  If the Baddie
was a white wizard who was kind to the hero and gave him 
presents and good advice, but them suddenly pealed off a mask 
we'd be confused. We'd probably laugh. Putting on a black cloak 
immediately lets the audience know who to empathise with and 
who to boo and hiss at (unlike life where things are more 
complicated).

I wasn't talking about surface details which make one archetype
differ from another- whether the hero's name is Harry Potter or 
Luke Skywalker, whether he's been told his parents were killed 
by Darth Vadar or Lord Voldemort, whether he's living with his 
aunt in Surrey or his uncle on Tatooine. Those are all surface 
details which define the milieu of the world but have nothing to 
do with the structural story elements. Take Harry Potter and set 
it in space and change all the magic to science and you've 
got the same story.

Zendemort wrote:

>>>>>Unlike many old grandfather mentors, Dumbledore 
is not just the nice old man, but eccentric and strange. He is not 
the know all nor is he the person to solve all, but is a person with 
much experience and knowledge that must also confront his weaknesses 
and difficulties.<<<<

Laurasia:

I think Dumbledore *is* the mentor archetype, and that is what his
role is in the story. I like archetypes, I think we need them 
because there is not enough time to go into elaborate detail 
about every single character. I am reaffirmed when I read 
Dumbledore because his role is immediately apparent to
me, he reinforces what I wish to believe about the real world. 
If you want to quarrel about surface details I think you've missed 
the point of what an archetype is. The idea is that they are 
constant over all stories- not just fantasy stories, but the appear 
in teen comedies and westerns and detective stories.
The idea is that despite any superfluous surface details they still
perform the same role.


Zendemort:

>>>>>Sorry, but I don't really see how "all" Fantasy literature has
the 
same conventions and themes.<snip.>
 But, I will agree with you that fantasy does 
give "the notion that there is a higher plane of existence above 
rational." <<<<<<

Laurasia:

I was specifically talking about the theme of 'a higher plane of
existence beyond the physical' (which is what this discussion 
was originally about) when I linked all Fantasy stories by 
in-built themes. I wasn't trying to suggest that there are no 
other themes possible. Clearly I *wasn't* clear
enough, or assumed you would all understand that my 
comments were specific to what I was replying to. 
Sorry about that.

Caspen wrote:

>>>>>William 
Shakespeare's "Hamlet" has been well-analysed in terms of Freud's 
formulation of the Oedipus complex, although all of his work 
precede's Freud's. Is it, therefore, an "accident" that Hamlet 
resonates so well with this particular theory of Freud's? I don't 
think so.<<<<< 

Laurasia:

Freud uncovered the Oedipus complex, and therefore he had *control* 
over it. He understood that stories where there was a certain kind of 
relationship between son and mother were popular and he uncovered 
a reason *WHY* this was so. Maybe Shakespeare knew that Hamlet 
was popular, but if he was asked to replicate the success of Hamlet
in another play, perhaps he wouldn't have been able to pinpoint the 
relationship between mother and son as one of the aspects which 
was resonating with audiences. It's one thing to produce an amazing 
work, it's another to have control over it.

Caspen wrote:

>>>>>I think you've missed the irony: she 
writes about these things (magical boy/magical world) not only 
because they make a good story and provide ample opportunity for 
whimsical fun, but also, because she has something to say about the 
concept of a supernatural altogether. Otherwise,
<snip>She wouldn't, for that matter have raised 
the issue of whether and to what extent the supernatural exists in 
the first chapters of her first book via Vernon Dursely,<<<<<

Laurasia:

I don't think JKR intended for the theme of 'magic as a real world 
existence in the spiritual level' to be in Harry Potter like you do.
I would believe it, if it weren't for the simple fact that Vernon
Dursley actually does believe that magic exists. 

Magic has had real physical impacts on his sister and son and
house... If Vernon continued to deny the belief of magic even 
when he was confronted with all these things, I would agree 
that you have a point. The problem I see is that he doesn't. Vernon 
*knows* there is such a thing as magic and is afraid of it in a 
very real physical sense.

I don't think I've missed the irony, I think you're inserting the
irony in. That's just my opinion, but it's only your opinion that 
I have missed the irony, so we're square.

Melete wrote:

>>>>>If we think back to oh say Early Modern English
(Shakespeare), the idea behind a good writer then was
not how original the idea or character types were. 
Instead it was how successfully the author handled
them: the characters, the language, the plot devices.<<<<<

Laurasia:

I agree. I think there is a difference between unoriginal & original
and aware & blind. To be aware is not necessarily to be original. 
To consciously make the choice of inserting an common idea 
means that you are aware of why it works. To be original does 
not mean you have an aware control over what you produce- 
you may still be blind.

Pippin:

>>>>>Let me see if I understand what you're saying here. Since we, 
unlike, for example, the ancient Egyptians, value artists for their 
originality, JKR as an artist must consciously strive for
originality. Since fantasy draws on the collective unconscious, it 
cannot be original, therefore no author who is trying to produce 
an original work will choose the medium of fantasy. In so far as 
JKR has incorporated fantasy, she must therefore have done so 
because of the promptings of her own subconscious. Is that 
right?<<<<<

Laurasia:

I was talking about one specific theme which I think is common
between all fantasy stories. I was *not* saying that every single 
aspect of Harry Potter is simply regurgitated cliche. I was 
saying *one theme* was common to all fantasy stories simply 
because it forms part of the genre. I was not saying that Fantasy 
is an unoriginal genre. I used the example of archetypes 
because they manifest themselves so clearly in fantasy. I think 
genre cues assist the reading of stories- something funny happens 
so we know we're reading a comedy and it's okay to laugh. 
There are aliens so we know it's a science fiction and aren't 
confused, there are wizards in pointy hats so we know what to 
expect.

I do give credit to JKR when I believe she has purposefully inserted
a theme- which is why in my last post I gave the example of Love 
as a spiritual force.

Seeing I spent most of this post explaining away wrong impressions 
about how I was talking about one theory instead of them all I 
have already made a mental to work on my clarity.

~<(Laurasia)>~