| |
|
On the subject of archetypes, and to refer back to Mako's idea of a "limited avatar": I don't see what this means exactly.
An avatar is essentially an embodiment of a quality, or concept; giving it a descriptive term denotes the degree of embodiment, such as "current avatar" referring to the present state of the concept, with a nod towards that concept that it can/will/has changed in the future or past. For instance, your current avatar on Barbelith is Ilhuicamina and your past avatar on Barbelith was tezcat.
If I were label Dracula as being an avatar of the Vampire archetype, this would be incorrect - the Vampire archetype, whilst being added to greatly by Dracula, is not fully embodied by Dracula. Saying that Dracula is a limited avatar is correct, in that Dracula is a limited representation of the Vampire archetype; saying that a kid dressed as Dracula is a limited avatar of the Vampire archetype is also correct, though it doesn't give weight to their contributions to the archetype, and so it's perhaps better to label him as a limited avatar of Dracula.
I think archetypes are very knowable, and instantiations of those archetypes in either Pop Culture or Old Culture are clearly recognizable.
As previously stated by Benjamin (but call hir Ben) the archetype of Mother, for example, is unknowable, but the manifestations of the Archetype (ie The Elder Mother, Gaia, Mary etc.)are not.
Tricksters are a bundle of contradictions, but specific contradictions: estranged from family/community
Some Tricksters are, sometimes, but not all and not all the time, which is why the Trickster archetype is unknowable.
For instance, Coyote, Crow, Wolf, Dog, and all the animals of the forest, were in meeting about when winter should come; Coyote was feeling a little down because his beautiful fur had been lost in a bet (though luckily some mice had taken pity on him and given them some of theirs, hence why his coat is so patchy) and the praise for beauty that was once his, turned to Crow and his shiny feathers.
As the night wore on and the meeting continued, Coyote took responsibility for stoaking the fire, which he did with logs covered in pitch. Eventually, Dog suggested that winter should come when his hair grew long, and as no one had come up with a better idea, it was decided that winter should come when Dogs hair grew long. The meeting finally over, they partied ways, however not before realising that Crows shiny feathers had turned black from the smoke.
Now in that story, Coyote is a limited avatar of the Trickster; he isn't estranged and turned away, no one is hostile towards him. In the majority of stories I've encountered with Coyote, he isn't alienated and hated unless he's actually done something to deserve it, but by the next story he's back at where he began.
Whilst in that story he's not fully the Trickster archetype as you've described it, he is living up to it in many ways - he contributes to the evolution of the community by turning Crows feathers black, he was entangled by his own strategem (gambling) and so lost his coat, etc.
Dennis, for example, has a stable home life and a structure which he doesn't violate.
Dennis does violate his home life in that he's consistently getting into trouble, and upsetting his parents because of this; they're constantly trying to explain his actions to others, and putting up with the disdain of the community because he is their son.
Whilst I see similar elements in Dennis as I do Coyote, just as I see similar elements in Coyote as I do the Trickster archetype, I don't think that Dennis is as poweful as Coyote, and I'm going to avoid saying that Coyote isn't as powerful as the Trickster archetype because that'd offend him and I like him too much to do that.
Now the difference is, as Zippy has made clear, the amount and type of energy that Dennis and Coyote have - I can recognise his being part of the Trickster archetype however I don't think Dennis is about to mess me up, or make me laugh as hard, as Coyote is. Sometimes however, working with Coyote is a little too much - he's too intense and opinionated for my own good, so in some circumstances it's just not good to invoke him, just as it's not good to use a gun to open a beer bottle.
I think the key distinction to make is to distinguish the action or the moment when Pop Character X is channeling the trickster archetype, rather than seeing Pop Character X is a "limited avatar" of the trickster.
To me there is no distinction between the two, especially when given that (as you've pointed out) some characters, both pop cultural or old cultural, exhibit different characteristics of other archetypes at different times; this goes back to what I've said previously about archetypes being unknowable, as their limited avatars draw upon other archetypes as the occasion demands, and so blur the lines of understanding those archetypes even further.
Something I'm curious about is how others feel about the representation of Gods in pop culture, whether as clear inspiration for characters such as Wile.E.Coyote or Gandalf, or as being represented as them such as Coyote in The Simpsons episode The Mysterious Voyage of Homer.
Personally I don't mind in either case, however I prefer that the sources are treated with as much accuracy and respect as the medium allows; I think that in the Simpsons this was done, especially given that it was voiced by Johnny Cash who was basically told by the modern music industry that his music was no longer relevant - he then went on to create some highly influential albums and died before anyone really apologised, apart from giving him a grammy. Seems like something Coyote would do.
 |
|
|
