My problem with taking a Jungian approach to any art is that it wasn't designed for that purpose. Its a mis appication of Jungs theories. Its not an issue of whether Archetypes are 'real' or not. Jung didn't just develop the concept of Archetypes, he developed the concept as part of a therapeutic method. The Legendarium is not a product of a neurotic mind (except to the extent that we're all neurotic to some degree!).
Besides, it seems to me we're on shaky ground with 'Archetypes' as the post-Jungian approach seems to be to label pretty much any figure or event in every myth, legend, fairy tale, dream & fantasy as an 'Archetype', & then go on to say how the theory of Archetypes must be true - look at all these Archtypes we've discovered! I just think its gone too far.
Also, let's not forget that Jung would 'interpret' myths, legends & ancient texts in his own way. Often he 'translates' & interprets the ancient writings in the light of his own theories, & then, amazingly, finds those writings 'confirm' his theories. He is especially guilty of this in his writings on alchemy, which had been investigated & analysed as a reflection of psychological processes long before Jung got around to doing it - despite what his followers might claim. I'd refer anyone to the chapter on Alchemy in Evelyn Underhill's book Mysticism, for example.
LMP, I have to say I think Tolkien's analysis of his own creation is different, not least in that he has a special insight into the subject, & especially in that he isn't trying to make the Legendarium 'fit' into a pre-concieved 'world view'.
Finally, I don't want to come over as anti Jung. I'm really not. But, as I said, Analytical Psychology was designed to cure sick people, not analyse Art. If it had been desined to analyse art, I suspect it would'nt have been very effective at treating neurosis!
|