I posted my "links" post before I read the nature of the latest debate. Other than being disappointed that it has turned into a debate over the value of Jungian categories being applied to Tolkien and Faerie... - I find it interesting, davem, that your criticism of Jung trying to apply his archetypes/diagnostic schemes to religion/philosophy/etc., could just as easily be applied to Tolkien in that JRRT left off subcreating and in later life started theologizing and philosophizing instead. Are we looking at two examples of "the folly of old age"? Or is the criticism just as invalid regarding Jung as it has been argued to have been regarding Tolkien? Granted, we're not talking precisely apples/apples, here, but it's close.
Nevertheless, I must argue against the idea that Jungian archetypes may only be used as diagnostic tools. The very fact that they can be applied to literary analysis, not to mention subcreation, speaks to the robustness of Jungian archetypes as creatively coalescing ideas in their own right.
I found it interesting, Helen, that you were speaking as a writer more than as a reader in your recent posts here. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Does that have to do, perhaps with our agreement on this, I wonder? (both writers) In other words, writers may have more invested in Jungain archetypes than do readers. I don't know if that's true, but it could be.
What does need to be remembered about Jungian archetypes and their application to Tolkien is the same thing that must be remembered about any model, literary or otherwise: they are models. They have their limits, and they are invariably wrong - somehow. Ask anyone who professionally works with "models" - that is, systems and strategies and such - and they will tell you that EVERY model is limited, and will break down at some point. Just like analogies. So Jungian archetypes can be useful, and analagous, but they will not be the only model that works or is valid.
|