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

[zendemort]

No: HPFGUIDX 111859

> Laurasia:

> 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 once more: 
I believe you are missing one thing here. "Surface details" are what 
make art. I could compare Mozart to Beethoven, and find very similar 
melodies, but as I put on the extra stuff, e.g. "surface details", 
they become different works of art, with a completely different 
feel. HP and Star Wars share similarities, I wouldn't deny that. But 
they are ENTIRELY different stories. Why? Because of "surface 
details" which are what make many works of art different from one 
another. These "surface details" define the importance of an 
artwork. Saying that HP and Star Wars have the same story is like 
saying that the Book 1984 and a brave New World also have the same 
story, because they follow the same "archetype" of a "Big Brother" 
government. But they're not, they have completely different views, 
that create completely different stories... again because of 
the "surface details." It's like saying that one of Pablo Picasso's 
paintings of a nude woman is the same as one of Magritte's paintings 
of a nude woman. Both paintings deal with the a nude woman, so why 
wouldn't they convey the same meaning??? Of course they don't, they 
are completely different paintings that convey completely different 
meanings. Again, because of "surface details." 

I would like to warn you not to judge a person by their skeleton!!!




> 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: 

Hopefully, by now you understand. "Archetypes" are just skeletal 
structures of characters that come up in life (certainly in my life 
I've had a mentor figure...etc), but the importance is not these 
Archetypes, but their "surface details." This is what makes the 
story. This is what makes the books unique. 

> 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.

Zendemort:

Freud made up an idiotic way of analyzing people that is completely 
irrevelant in today's science of psychology. If I went to a 
psychologist, and he started talking about the Oedipus Complex, I 
would say that he is a complete idiot, and knows nothing about the 
science, which is more about analyzing many different people than 
exclusively the insane, which is where Freud got many of his 
theories, working in an insane asylum. Jung was not as bad, but 
completely archaic in terms of modern psychology... 
Oh, and we don't need "archetypes," that is another ridiculous 
concept by an archaic psychologist. The mentor, the bad guy dressed 
in black (actually most of the time, Voldemort couldn't dress 
himself at all)... the reason why these "archetypes" are so 
prevalent is because they actually DO come up in life. And remember, 
the good guy in HP is also dressed in black (or is that just a 
surface detail).