Archetypal and Post Modern Criticism

In my opinion, an archetype is not a stereotype, as the archetype acts as a model in which a story is formed from. It is by no means the story itself. To me, the word stereotype implies a general, fixed and oversimplified idea of something. Archetypes provide a solid foundation in which to paint various stories. Though many archetypes are reoccurring in literature, film, art and mythology, such as the archetypes of good, evil, heroes, villains and tricksters, they differ greatly from tale to tale. For example, the iconic hero, Superman, is the epitome of bravery - tall, handsome, muscular and endlessly combats evil. However, not all archetypal heroes follow this pattern. Contrary to the typical, Superman-esque protagonist are heroes like Frodo from The Lord of the Rings. Though still a hero, he is not presented in the typical buff, crime fighting way. He is truly an unconventional hero, but one nonetheless. J.R.R. Tolken has used the archetypal quest eloquently and perfectly, however, the story is intensely unique, proving that archetypes are not stereotypes.

Based on the above, I would argue that there are no universal “truths” per-say to archetypes. As we read and write, we are not rediscovering ways to interpret the “truth” of archetypes, but to mold and alter the conventions of an archetype. As previously stated, I believe it is best to use archetypes as models and guides. There is no one way to write a story, and no one way to craft characters, as demonstrated by the post-modernism movement. Writing a quest does not mean that it must include all twelve steps of the archetypal quest to be real, or truthful. It simply means that certain elements will occur to not only engross the reader, but to successfully portray the struggles associated with a hero’s journey.

In the context of David Arnason’s short story “A Girl’s Story,” Arnason himself is portraying the trickster archetype. Though his antics and seemingly random ideas do not change the overall plot of the story, or even influence it much (as the majority of the story is simply the unorthodox hijinks of this trickster) it does “disrupt the status quo.” By doing this, Arnason is conforming to the norm of the trickster archetype. Arnason makes use of more trickster qualities, such as ridicule, as demonstrated when he insults other forms of literary criticism, most evidently feminism when he directly states, “I’m going to have trouble with the feminists . . . The feminists are going to say that I’m perpetuating stereotypes, that by giving the impression the girl is full of hidden passion I’m encouraging rapists.” However, the interesting quality of “A Girl’s Story” is that it is fully contrasting the traditional presentation of the trickster. Unorthodoxly, Arnason, the author himself, is the trickster, as opposed to character within the story playing this role. By doing this, Arnason is taking steps to morph the modes of archetypes, and also proving that archetypal characters do not have to conform to a stereotype.

Ultimately, an archetype is not a stereotype until the author makes it so. An author may chose to conform to the norms of certain archetypes, but will often add tweaks and quirks that make the characters interesting, engaging, and three-dimensional. It is a conscious decision to portray a character as stereotypical. When this occurs, it is evident that an author has failed to use archetypes as models, and created a cliched and formulaic story.