Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Types, Stereotypes and Archetypes.

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    I’ve quite enjoyed this thread and look forward to reading the papers on this in Christmas future. Mike From: scribbler@scribblerworks.us Sent: Monday,
    Message 1 of 33 , Jan 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I’ve quite enjoyed this thread and look forward to reading the papers on this in Christmas future.
       
      Mike
       
      Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:57 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Types, Stereotypes and Archetypes.
       
       

      I like all you have to say here, Darrell - and I pretty much agree with it.

      Even down to the discussion of Aragorn. I admit that I linked him and
      "stereotype" for shock value, and because it's quite true that a less
      sophisticated reader would indeed consider him a stereotype.

      But I also agree that Tolkien's artistry in writing Aragorn is such that
      you can't really leave him at the "flat generalization" level. His easy
      comraderie when the hobbits first meet him is not the image of a sterling
      upright hero - he's savvy, shrewed and not without dry humor. Therein lies
      Tolkien's skill: he introduces us to Aragorn as Strider and shows us the
      characters much more accessible qualities before we learn the real weight
      of his destiny.

      Heh. There may be a paper topic there. But not from me at present. :D

      > Sarah:
      >
      > I am going to use
      your thoughtful comments as a springboard for some
      > musings that may or
      may not relate to what you are saying. That
      > disclaimer aside
      ...
      >
      > Stereotypes, simplifications, types, tropes (when worn by
      overuse into
      > cliches), and others I have not named because they do not
      occur to me at
      > the moment, are species of the genus "Generalizations".
      Archetypes,
      > ideals, and metaphors are not, although they are
      related.
      >
      > Generalization is a powerful tool for effective
      thinking. An inability
      > to generalize appropriately is at the root of
      many linguistic,
      > psychological, and social problems. When information
      can be assigned to
      > categories, then appropriate responses are possible
      which require less
      > effort -- and less need for more information -- than
      otherwise.
      >
      > My formal education is a B.A. in Psychology.
      Ironically, I was
      > diagnosed, in my late 40s, with Attention Deficit
      Disorder. A great deal
      > of this limitation centers on not being able to
      properly categorize, and
      > so often ignore, incoming information. The
      result is that *everything*
      > has to be attended to, and investigated,
      until something breaks through
      > and grabs focus; then nothing unrelated
      to that focus gets any
      > attention, until the next thing breaks in. Autism
      is similar in some
      > respects....
      >
      > Generalization has
      utility. When interacting with this group, I assume
      > that its members are
      above average in intelligence, consider reading an
      > important part of
      life, and have a baseline of knowledge about the
      > writings of C.S. Lewis,
      J.R.R. Tolkien, and Charles Williams. That these
      > assumptions may be
      inaccurate in a specific case is clear, but mostly
      >
      unimportant.
      >
      > Stereotypes, specifically, have utility or they
      would not exist. That is
      > true in both literature and life. If that is a
      defense, it is an
      > incomplete one, but the utility is real. We create,
      and use, stereotypes
      > because doing so *works* for us.
      >
      >
      Some will react negatively to that last paragraph because it questions
      >
      an institutionalized belief. Most of us are impacted by the subculture
      >
      which rejects all generalizations about people as ipso facto "evil",
      >
      especially when it involves race, religion, or ethnicity. Recent
      >
      additions to that anathematized list include physical or mental
      >
      handicaps, gender, and sexual orientation. To suggest that some
      >
      categories based on these forbidden characteristics might be both useful
      >
      and appropriate, is not seen as an invitation to discussion, but as the
      >
      promulgation of heresy.
      >
      > Aragorn is, in my opinion, an ideal. He
      is not merely a somewhat
      > differentiated member of a group with a limited
      number of simple
      > characteristics. Tolkien presents him as a man to
      admire and emulate.
      >
      > The son of Arathorn is also a member of a
      number of groups, and clearly
      > sees group cohesion as valuable in its own
      right. He is a Dunadan, with
      > all that entails. He is a member of the
      Fellowship. He is Elf-friend,
      > royal by inheritance through carefully
      recorded ancestry, and a fearsome
      > warrior.
      >
      > Whether one
      calls him Strider, or Elessar, he is also an implacable foe
      > of Orcs,
      Sauron, and those who align with them. He wants to know of any
      > he
      encounters, "Are you with us or against us?" Nuanced reasons do not
      >
      interest him if the answer is "against", and he never loses sight of who
      >
      "us" is. He is the antithesis of that vocal elite who insist that people
      >
      must never be seen primarily as members of a group -- except by their
      >
      choice, when they think it convenient -- but only as individuals (an
      >
      exception is permitted for male traditional Christians of northern
      >
      European ancestry).
      >
      > Aragorn may question his own role, or doubt
      his eventual success, but he
      > never wonders which side he is
      on.
      >
      > If his qualities seem shallow, or outdated in the early 21st
      Century,
      > then his presentation as an ideal will be jarring. If one does
      not like
      > this sort of thing, then Aragorn is most certainly the sort of
      character
      > one will not like. But he is no stereotype.
      >
      >
      Darrell
      >
      >
      >

    • Margaret Dean
      I just got an email from Kent State Press saying they d shipped mine! :) It s been backordered for ... a while now. --Margaret Dean margdean56@gmail.com On
      Message 33 of 33 , Feb 13 9:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I just got an email from Kent State Press saying they'd shipped mine!  :)  It's been backordered for ... a while now.
         
         
        --Margaret Dean
        On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Doug Kane <dougkane@...> wrote:
         

        All,
         
        It has come to my attention that Verlyn Flieger's new book, Green Suns and Faërie: Essays on J.R.R. Tolkien is now available for purchase, both directly from the publisher, Kent State University Press, and from Amazon and other retailers.  This book was originally due to be published last August, but was delayed by the publisher.  It doesn't seem to have been well publicized that the book is now available, so I thought I would spread the word.  I obviously don't need to emphasize how perceptive Verlyn's observations about Tolkien are.  Most of you are well aware of that fact!
         
         
         
        Doug


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.