Harry Potter vs. Books of Magic: why is this formula so popular in youth fantasy?

"Is this sort of fantasy meant for geeky teenage boys who often feel like outsiders, so having a protagonist who's also a geeky outsider, yet is revealed to possess powers beyond anyone else, works as wish-fulfillment?"

yes.

But as far as I know fantasy is very popular with girls too. So are there any books with a geeky, outsider teenage girl as the protagonist?

This beedin' obvious has been stated by an adFINNistrator

Also, you'd think Harry Potter's popularity proves the formula works with non-geeks too?

everyone thinks they're an outsider?

Tuomas I wrote something about this on FT last week (not the Books of Magic stuff - I never read those beyond the miniseries)

http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/harry-pooter/

Reading book 7 hasn't changed my opinion (except that Lord V did actually have a plan)

Also, the "learning about your responsibilites" part is kinda interesting. I can't think of any book or comic where magic would be just a fun thing the protagonist plays around with, because, you know, adult world isn't supposed to be about having fun.

a geeky, outsider teenage girl

HP, one of the main characters is Hermoine. See also His Dark Materials.

I don't know about the books, but in the movies Hermione doesn't appear to be a geeky outsider.

I guess The Invisibles wasn't such a good example, because Morrison twists the formula a bit by making his teenager outsider a cool, non-geeky anarchist. But even he has to face his responsibilites.

She's definitely a geek b/c she's super-studious. She's also muggle-born which causes her to be out of step with the rest of the wizarding culture. All three of them are outsiders.

Also, see His Dark Materials for one of the greatest female protagonists ever.

Read everything C.S. Lewis wrote about myth and the sense of wonder. As for the age of the protagonist, as different people have written(and I agree with), the prime age to first be captured by this stuff is 12.

Read everything C.S. Lewis wrote about myth and the sense of wonder.

Er, couldn't you elaborate a bit?

I think if you haven't read these books we are discussing you should bust out your library card before starting a thread.

Er, I think I've read enough fantasy books to recognize this formula. And I've seen the Harry Potter films. What I want to discuss is, what makes it so appealing to be repeated over and over?

For one, especially discussing HP, it's a classic archetype. Orphaned hero called upon to fight in the war of good vs. evil. It's a winning formula time and time again, not just in juvenile literature. See Star Wars.

Also magic and fantasy are just fun. Fiction is an escape from reality and what better way to escape than into worlds which are entirely different than our own.

My comment about reading was not meant to be so brusque. Truly, if you haven't read CS Lewis's and Phillip Pullman's books, and this is a question that truly interests you, get reading!

your points 1, 3, and 5 are pretty much a part of the standard mythic hero archetype

xpost

kids dig the fantasy/magic, teenagers dig the angst, adults dig the jailbait

plus adults are allowed to drink

j/k obv. The angst I think is a big part of HP's appeal for all ages; I think most people identify with Harry's self-deprecation and having to face that so fucking many people are depending on him and making huge sacrifices because of him. And the fact that he's always out of the loop, other people are making his decisions for him, etc. It's that frustration that keeps me reading, anyway.

Two books to check out: C.S. Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism

and David G. Hartwell's Age of Wonders, which is more about science fiction but goes into the history of why fantasy and sci-fi tend to be written, published, and read by the same people. I've been reading it lately and it draws much from the Lewis book.

Yeah, I know there's an overlap with the classical mythic hero, but I'm still interested in thinking why the formula is so popular, especially in youth fantasy (in adult-oriented fantasy there seems to be a bit more variation). Why is the hero an orphan? Why is he an outsider? Why must he be socialized by elders to use his power in a "proper" way? Why must he fight evil in the first place?

(xxx-post)

Why must he fight evil in the first place?

oh ffs

get yo popcrn rdy

As far as the orphan bit. . .I think this gives the character the freedom to go and do ridiculous things like fight wizards and darth lords. If a kid had a parent there's no way s/he would be able to get away with that. Also it provides the angst to allow them to go out and risk everything. They've been abandoned, what do they have to lose now? Maybe this will get them recognition and love?

I don't think "good vs. evil" is such a clear theme in most books meant for small kids, nor (obviously) books meant for adults. Is there some reason it's so prevalent in (pre)teen fiction? (I think the fact that Books of Magic isn't about good vs. evil is one of the indicators that it is, despite having a similar formula, meant for older readers than H. Potter.)

the orphan thing is specifically popular in children's literature because every kid wants to find out s/he's secretly a wizard or space alien and can do awesome cool shit with lasers

I speak from experience

Also, the orphan thing is a convenient way of not letting them know about their special gift (if it comes from their parents). If they'd been raised right from infant with the knowledge that they are destined to fight evil, that'd make it less dramatic. Also, the character would be less easy to identify with, because he already is (and knows he is) special when he's introduced to the reader.

(xx-post)

the orphan thing is specifically popular in children's literature because every kid wants to find out s/he's secretly a wizard or space alien and can do awesome cool shit with lasers

And also b/c the sometimes secretly wish they were parentless.

Tuomas, I just plain disagree with you. I think the fight against good and bad (even if it's not so overt as evil monster-type characters) is one of the most prevelant themes in fiction, period. Also there's a fine line but juvenile and adult fiction. In fact, I think it's mostly made up by the publishing industry.

x-post, it seems to me most often the "specialness" and "call" derive from whatever made them an orphan.

http://czerniec.com/2007/03/26/joseph-campbell.jpg

Stories about heroes fighting evil have been around for at least 6,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces

As for the trappings, remember the target audience. If you're a 12 year old who kinda socially inadequate and normal life among the mundanes/Muggles/straights ain't working out too well, you seek an escape. You're usually too young for booze and drugs, and haven't found out about punk rock quite yet. So you get to reading, and you find out about these heroes who are just a bit different from their quitidian surroundings. The process of identification hooks you into the story, and you go from there.

tuomas I would consider engaging in some correspondence with the people in charge of your education that you've never heard of Joseph Campbell. I mean I forgot what your focus was in your university curriculum or whatever but I mean right now you're the liberal arts dude getting schooled on this topic by a couple of engineers (three if I count with my M.S. but I did anthro for most of my undergrad)

I know good vs. evil is prevalent in all fiction, but it seems to most prevalent in fiction meant for certain ages. How many classic grown-up books do you know which would paint the world in such crude Manichean terms as most teen fantasy does? Maybe it's because teenage is the age when you really learn and have to think about morality. Small kids usually trust that the world around them unconditionally, therefore you have lots and lots kids' books with no real conflict at all. In teenage you realize there's a lot of shit in the world, and often tend to think about in black-and-white terms. Whereas as an adult you realize making moral decisions isn't really that easy at all, therefore the moralities in grown-up fiction tend to more ambiguous.

Yeah, seriously. We could strain at trying to encapsulate everything Joseph Campbell ever wrote about the hero into several hundred posts, or we could just suggest you go check out two books:

1) Hero of a Thousand Faces

2) the PBS interview series with Bill Moyers, called _The Power of Myth_. There's a companion book out for it, too, which is basically a transcription of the interviews and very accessible. Hell, they start the series by breaking Star Wars down into its mythic archetypes.

So Tuomas, get to readin'.

http://www.wexarts.org/db/fv/1698_Return-of-the-Fly_226.jpg

Whereas as an adult you realize making moral decisions isn't really that easy at all, therefore the moralities in grown-up fiction tend to more ambiguous.

moral ambiguity/ambivalence != no clear boundaries between "good" and "evil." (Also HP is full of moral ambivalence)

“Shades of grey wherever I go. The more I find out the less that I know. Black and white is how it should be. But shades of grey are the colors I see.” - Billy Joel

(x-post)

Actually I major in social sciences. But yeah, I know of Joseph Campbell's theory, it's just that what I've read about it hasn't explained why this sort of a mythical hero is so appealing. Also, it's interesting to think of (post)modern variations of the theme, which I think are best exemplified in fantasy fiction: which parts can be considered timeless, and which are more like reflections of the era we live in?

(xxx-post)

WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE
IT WAS ALWAYS BURNING

it seems like all you're saying is that children's literature is more hamfisted with its symbolism than adult literature, but really in a lot of ways the thing that makes it seem hamfisted is the fact that we grew up on this shit and so it seems passe in comparison to Shakespeare or Heart of Darkness or A Clockwork Orange or what have you (all of which concern good vs. evil and seem more and more hamfisted the more you analyze them, just like every other work of literature)

xposts

Also, youth vs grown-up has nothing to do with it. Clear-cut good vs evil usually involves the sophistication(an unfortunately loaded but accurate term, here) of the writing and audience, not age. There's shitloads of books out there with stark, neo-con-like divisions, and Harry Potter ain't one of them.

fuck it, i'm talking about Star Wars now.

Moral Ambiguity = Han Solo. He goes from a very self-centric, neutral type to a hero. He begins to care about something or somebody other than himself, and in the process transcends who he was into something greater. We meet Lando Calrissian who acts as a contrast, showing who Han would have been had he not made the leap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_mythology

asking for a big fat "why" the mythical hero and good-vs-evil is so appealing seems to me to be a bit like asking "why do so many people love pentatonic noodling but hate the diminished 5th"

xxpost "You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

wtf this thread

I hate the diminished 5th but I love the augmented 4th

Moral Ambiguity = Han Solo. He goes from a very self-centric, neutral type to a hero. He begins to care about something or somebody other than himself, and in the process transcends who he was into something greater. We meet Lando Calrissian who acts as a contrast, showing who Han would have been had he not made the leap.

Yeah, but the point is that he still becomes the hero (and so does Lando) by the end. Had he stayed morally ambiguous throughout the whole story would've been a whole different thing.

Why are there these movies where the attractive man and woman eventually fall in love?

yes imagine if Star Wars were like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVg93pLHQQ

I thought that was going to be a link to the "Mind Playing Tricks On Me" video with Star Wars figures!

Had he stayed morally ambiguous throughout the whole story would've been a whole different thing.

Boring? Characters have to have a conflict to resolve.

Actually, I think quite many fantasy heroes initially doubt and try to reject of being a hero, but in the end grow into it. Such characters are usually more interesting than the ones who are heroes right from the beginning (like Luke). Actually, this can be seen as a variation of the orphan theme: the character doesn't initially know he's supposed to be a hero, and has a hard time accepting it, which makes him easier to identify with.

(x-post)

"It's not that I like the Empire. I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it right now."

Yeah, but the point is that he still becomes the hero (and so does Lando) by the end. Had he stayed morally ambiguous throughout the whole story would've been a whole different thing.

well fuck if they blasted the escape pod, the whole story would've been a whole differnt thing now wouldn't it.

Still, we're dealing with heroic myth, which has a part of the character(s) becoming more than what they are. The ambiguity for the characters comes from them having to decide who they're going to stand with. Han makes his decision, and crosses from the sorta-nihilistic mercenary("I wonder if he really cares about anything, or anyone") to a hero who actually makes the sacrifice and puts his(and his friend's) ass on the line to participate in a act he himself calls "suicide".

isn't there some way to frame this stuff in non-Star Wars terms...? How about Willow, or Howard the Duck...

Everybody knows how Star Wars goes.

Such characters are usually more interesting than the ones who are heroes right from the beginning (like Luke).

what? what are you talking about? the dude hears the Call and doesn't follow it. He has to see smoldering corpses of his family and the farmstead torched before he realizes that all his links to his previous life have been severed. "There's nothing for me now. I want to become a Jedi like my father".

Well, yeah, but my point was that his ultimate heroism is what makes him different from characters in more grown-up oriented fiction. If you take Shakespeare or A Heart of Darkness or A Clockwork Orange (mentioned by Curtis), the protagonists stay morally ambiguous right to the very end.

(xxx-post)

Yeah, but that's like twenty minutes into the film. It's not like the movie sacrifices much time for his moral conflict.

And I'm arguing Star Wars because it's both the most clear-cut display of heroic archetypes of the last 50 years(Lucas dove headlong into Campbell's stuff while doing anthro as an undergrad), and it's so saturated our culture that everybody knows it. Also, because i am a fucking dork. Wheee.

Hell, they even had Joe Campbell on the set of Willow(he was still alive) who explained the archetypes to Ron Howard, etc(e.g. the baby being found on a raft in a river). But I'm not talking about Willow on an internet mesg board, since that shit's far too geeky even for me.

xpost
Uh, the whole trilogy hinges on Luke's moral conflict. You know, the stuff about turning to the dark side and all that.

It's been like 15 years since I saw Willow, but I think in that one Willow = Luke and Madmartigan = Han.

It's not like the movie sacrifices much time for his moral conflict.

well no shit, the pace is kept high enough so that no time is sacrificed for anything. you get a beat of reflection for various deaths, then it's on to the next bit. Nobody's going to frame the first flick as serious, complex character-intensive stuff. Lucas went for E.E. Smith/Flash Gordon-style space opera. Characterization is sacrificed for plot, which is pretty standard in sci-fi/fantasy.

Uh, the whole trilogy hinges on Luke's moral conflict. You know, the stuff about turning to the dark side and all that.

Yeah, but this conflict is never easily identifiable to the viewer. We never really get why Luke should fall to the dark side (except that it's strong), because the whole conflict is done in extremely abstract terms, but it's quite easy to identify with Han wanting to just continue with his life and not getting mixed in a galaxy-wide conflict.

What are we arguing about again, I forget?

We never really get why Luke should fall to the dark side (except that it's strong)

and that he could RULE THE GALAXY with his father

We never really get why Luke should fall to the dark side

His father is Darth Vader.

xpost

The thing about the whole Joseph Campbell - Carl J Jung archetype study--that whole school of thought is not quite *Academically Correct*, so students eventually have to leave the path of "real" schooling and find "answers" the pop culture of Harry Potter, Star Wars, comic books, New Age, etc, etc.

Actually, what makes Luke "interesting" (theoretically) is how he diverges from the archetype, in his overeagerness to follow his quest. So the bad guys are all like "You are ready to rule the galaxy with us!" and Yoda's like "You have to stay in this swamp indefinitely learning to lift rocks with your brain."

wtf @ the hostility here

I would put off ruling the galaxy for a few weeks if it meant I could learn to lift rocks with my brain

guys you are arguing with tuomas

it's Monday, what other entertainment do I have

it's not Tuomas' fault that he hasn't scoured lucasfilm.com's "cool links" page - anyway i assume that's why he asked the question in the first place - hoping to draw upon some of you guys' limitless reserves of literary knowledge, rather than get barked at

Why are you fighting the ways of ILX, Tracer?

xpost
Excuse me, but I learned everything I know about Star Wars LONG before there was an internet.

David Lynch video aside, I haven't been (intentionally) barking at Tuomas; I think this thread is as valid as any

I haven't really studied literary theory at all, so maybe this all is old hat to you, but to me it just seemed an interesting enough topic to start thread about.

i was going to add Keanu Reeves as Neo here except he lacks the glasses (and isn't quite prepubescent but, well, close enough)

I strongly dispute that Harry Potter is fully of moral ambiguity: Rowling's pretty black-and-white about the good/evil, I think, with the sole non-exception of keeping Snape in the dark throughout the whole thing. And note that you spend those books basically waiting for Snape to be dramatically unmasked as either good or evil, not to find out some mixed ambiguous complicated thing about him. (I haven't read the new one, though, so I don't know what she does with him in the end.) Other than that, all the characters tend to be good, evil, untested normals, or just kinda neutral uncaring forces of nature (like the ghosts and whatnot).

I say that mostly to skip past the bizarreness of Tuomas gazing out into the seas of mystery and asking why children's books are slightly less morally complicated than adult high-literature, or trying to figure out why obvious thousands-of-years-old heroic archetypes work.

All of Tuomas's bullet points apply to Jesus, except Jesus got LASIK

No training with mentors for Jesus though, right?

neo wears sunglasses

well he did hang around in the temple a lot and ask questions none of the rabbis could answer

moral ambiguity/ambivalence != no clear boundaries between "good" and "evil."

-- Curt1s Stephens, Monday, July 23, 2007 10:47 AM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Harry struggles between his "goodness" (which goes only as far as his desire to avenge his parents and put to rest his fear of Voldemort) and "evil" (which, to be fair, only goes as far as Voldemort prying into his brain) and faces countless frustrations and pressures on both the "good" and "evil" sides (and there is the constant questioning, however arbitrary, of whether Dumbledore/the Order/the "good guys" are actually "good")

I say that mostly to skip past the bizarreness of Tuomas gazing out into the seas of mystery and asking why children's books are slightly less morally complicated than adult high-literature, or trying to figure out why obvious thousands-of-years-old heroic archetypes work.

Well, if you know the answers to these, care to share it with us? Also, my point wasn't that children's books are less morally ambiguous than books adults, rather than that good vs. evil seems to more prevalent in teen and preteen fiction than in books for smaller kids, where danger and conflict in general is less pronounced (Winnie the Pooh or Moomins are good examples).

(I will agree that it seems to be the point of most secondary characters to be "unmasked" as either good or evil, but the central characters aren't so one-dimensional)

it's less good vs evil than "these guys" vs "those guys" and ya know it

Children need to be shown that dragons exist, and that they can be defeated.

xpost Maybe the mentoring/training happens during the gap left in JC's life--"Jesus: The Dagobah Years"

"Children need to be shown that dragons exist, and that they can be defeated."

There are museums for that:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythiccreatures/dragons/

Children need to be shown that dragons exist, and that they can be defeated.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinodeath.html

haha xpost

Also, I think Christian bipolar morality has probably made Western youth fiction more concerned with good vs. evil than it is in some other cultures. If you look at manga and anime, it's actually harder to find such clear-cut examples of good vs. evil there.

yeah, metal gear solid to thread

"How dinosaurs became extinct is one of the greatest questions of all time.
Those who do not believe the Biblical account of Creation have to come up with other theories."

As for the difference in the increase of danger, that's part of just learning & growing up, now isn't it. You can't really handle much as a 6-year-old, but you can handle a bit more as you age.

No training with mentors for Jesus though, right?

John the Baptist, the Essenes etc to thread. (altho its true there is a large chunk of Jesus' bio that is missing, and it just happens to be the period when he would most likely have had mentors)

x-post

xpost

nabisco there is in fact a bit more ambiguousness than that, unfortunately most of it comes out in the last book

Tuomas, the reason people are kind of boggling here is that some of these things seem too transparent and obvious to even start explaining. I mean, geez:

- really little kids don't even have much of a moral sense yet -- they have a right/wrong sense based on what adults have taught them to do, and they have very little ability to imagine themselves into characters' moral situations beyond that

- along the way they learn the narrative conventions of "good guys" and "bad guys," without much caring or analyzing WHY one thing is good or bad (and usually the good/bad split is a pointless Macguffin where bad "wants to take over the world" or steal jewels and good wants to stop them)

- by the time they are a little older, they are ready to start imagining themselves into grand heroic adventures with slightly more moral shading, and to begin aspiring to the qualities of the heroes in them -- to want to be brave, loyal, intelligent, etc., or at least to ask themselves if they are those things, and if they could be

Western culture has, over many years, apparently decided this sort of system suits children better than the old system, where they were possibly told fairy tails, which are generally frightening and amoral, and unsettlingly inconsistent in which qualities they reward -- or rather, kids still get some of those, and I think they still stick in kids' heads as weird and complicated and lifelike on a whole different level.

hahahaha Also, I think Christian bipolar morality has probably made Western youth fiction more concerned with good vs. evil than it is in some other cultures. If you look at manga and anime, it's actually harder to find such clear-cut examples of good vs. evil there.

word

I love how all major villains in j-narrative redeem themselves in the end by explaining why they have been so angry at the world and how they let that anger blind them to the fact that their actions would not be approved by Kant. Right before they die from wounds inflicted in a battle which the hero(es) were FORCED to engage in for self-preservation.

Ever seen or read Akira? Or Ranma? Or Princess Mononoke? Or Battle Angel Alita? Or Patlabor? I'm not saying there aren't pure evil guys in Japanese teen fiction, they just seem less prevalent, and often even the bad guy's actions are given some sort of rational justification instead of him just being evil.

good vs. evil seems to more prevalent in teen and preteen fiction than in books for smaller kids, where danger and conflict in general is less pronounced (Winnie the Pooh or Moomins are good examples).

good v. evil was very pronounced in Care Bears!! The evil guys wanted to suck all the caring out of the world!!!

Japanese culture's senses of morality, good/evil, social order, and guilt-based versus shame-based behavior differ from those of the west in ways that go well beyond anime (which BTW is not necessarily comparable to Harry Potter in the age group it's directed at).

nabisco OTM as usual

yeah he's pretty 8080 when he's part four of four people saying the same goddamn thing (not a dig at nabisco just smc for being predictable)

American culture is fucked up partially because it abandoned the good vs. evil format for outlaw anti-hero "we make our own rules" cowboy bullshit (and then conflated it with the traditional Western/Christian good vs. evil dichotomy, thus vindicating asshole jingoistic bullshit like "America does what's good for America, and what's good for America is good, period.")

it is essentially all daniel boone's fault

yeah, fuck that prick

part 1000 of 1000... Tuomas, how did you miss the basic narratives of Western civilization?

btw I would read all this Daniel Boone As Told By Osamu Tezuka

For the 1000th time, I haven't missed the basic narratives of Western civilization, what I wanted to ask is why these are the basic narratives of Western civilization?

People be liking them.

Yeah, but why?

12 bar blues

root - second ostinato

Because it's an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious?

why do koreans think opera should all be in 3, at a tempo of about 20 bpm, and feature minimal orchestration?

why do white people enjoy the polka beat

AND WHY, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, DO BLACK GUYS DRIVE LIKE THIS???!

"western myths drive like THIS" is unfortunately what we're stuck with. prehistoric cultural conventions reinforced over time. nobody knows who told the first one! have you guys seen the brothers grimm? I thought that was a pretty fun movie actually

God wants us to love our 'basic narratives,' it's intelligent design.

Louis CK to thread!

note that good v. evil does not figure in Tuomas' bullet points - he even makes a point of saying that the book HP reminds him of viz. his bullet points ISN'T about fighting evil

by far the more interesting part of the question for me is why "the chosen one" is such a persistent theme in children's lit and beyond, into things like the Matrix, etc. part of it must be the classic mechanics of hero stories, in which the hero must be someone who doesn't have to play by the rules which would otherwise constrain him/her and make it impossible to do the extraordinary things required of the dilemma presented by the story. (this is why shakespeare plays are usually about nobles, who don't really have to obey the law, and why so many of our current dramas are about policemen or doctors or mafia figures, who have a special permission or leeway to just Make It Happen.) the "chosen one" trope isn't JUST about this though - there are plenty of TV cops who aren't "the chosen one".

when you get down to it, though, both are about Very Special People, and so annoy the hell out of me

The "chosen one" also portrays an individualistic view of the world: it's the one chosen person who ends up changing everything, not, say, a larger group of revolutionaries. The chosen one usually has a group of friends, but ultimately it's him alone who can bring about change.

Though of course from the narrative's point of view it's easier to write about a solitary protagonist than a larger group. (Though the reason why this sort of narrative seems more natural might be exactly the increased individualization of Western societies - older myths are often about archetypes instead of individuals).

two factors

1 - partly for religious reasons, narrative and literature in western culture have often been used for the purpose of moral instruction -- not in the sense of examining moral questions, but in the sense of telling you what the moral danger is and precisely what your Christian reaction to it should be

2 - I could be totally wrong about this, but I get the sense that in the west we are slightly more likely to look at the protagonists of stories as surrogates for ourselves, rather than observing them from more of a curious distance -- this is massively true of most American narratives right up until you get to pretty high literature

and both of those points apply PARTICULARLY to children

Right, and it also works for genre fiction. Like I said, helps with identification. If you have a 12 year old kid who feels a bit out of step and looking for something more, funny how that kid can get into a story about a kid who feels different and destined for greater things.

um wait hold on tuomas the protagonists in a clockwork orange and heart of darkness are not "morally ambiguous," they're bad. i don't think conrad/burgess were too ambivalent about hating imperialism and rape.

and yes i know conrad was a bit of a racist himself but if the point of HoD isn't "imperialism is bad" i don't know what it is.

the more interesting thing about western narrative (and something it has in spades compared to the japanese bidness discussed briefly above) is that lately even the most "cut and dried" good v. evil tales have started leaning on a major antagonist to drive the story and provide the wealth of tension, not just by being the most apparent threat to the hero but by also having an arc that's just as big or sometimes bigger - cf vader, snape, even gollum really. by the end of the cycle the jerk you've learned to hate and fear has as much to do with saving the world as the hero does, something that's nowhere to be found in the campbell model.

what, you mean redemption?

no, that's only a tiny part of the arc. 2 out of 3 of the characters I mentioned don't undergo any real "redemption" anyway, gollum just dies and snape's "redemption" is just a reveal of what's been going on behind the curtain.

and yes i know conrad was a bit of a racist himself but if the point of HoD isn't "imperialism is bad" i don't know what it is.

If I remember correctly the protagonist in the Heart of Darkness seems to be sort of a surrogate for Conrad. He obviously despises imperialism, but doesn't really seem to view Africans as his equal either, and doesn't try to do much to help them. He isn't really "good" or "bad", more like cynical and weary. If that isn't ambiguous I don't know what is.

Unless your point was that Kurtz is the real protagonist, which I don't think is the case. His actual appearance in the end is brief, and even the though the whole story revolves around finding him, I think he works more as a symbol of imperialism than as a proper character.

The family romance is a conscious fantasy, later repressed, in which a child imagines that their birth parents are not actual but adoptive parents, or that their birth was the outcome of maternal infidelity. Typically, the fantasy parents are of noble lineage, or at least of a higher social class than the real parents.

i had a fantasy when i was little that my parents were or were not my "real parents" but regardless were always hatching plans to kill me - i'd see them talking in the garden and i'd be like "yep, there they are, working out how to kill me". then i'd go back to playing with pieces of bark.

I wonder if the fact that real kids imagine their parents not to be their parents comes to them from fiction, or if it's a part of some sort of a psychological distancing process (or both)?

i had a fantasy when i was little that my parents were or were not my "real parents" but regardless were always hatching plans to kill me

I would sometimes become terrified that they were actually aliens or monsters who were about to kill me. Cf. Calvin and Hobbes.

cf PK Dick "The Father-Thing"

"yep, there they are, working out how to kill me"

heh. Like Bill Cosby's "Cream of Wheat" bit.

This is actually an interesting topic to me. I actually might have gotten the idea from Calvin and Hobbes but I feel like it really comes from awareness of how absurdly dependent you are on your parents, and of course they act in scary and inexplicable ways from time to time. Maybe I'm stating the obvious.

Dude my mom and dad actually TOLD me that my mom was really an alien for the first 12 years of my life. I was a gullible kid w/few social contacts and never questioned that they could be joking. Then they got worried and guilty when I asked them at age 12, "So if mom's an alien, then am I half alien?"

haha, you were too young to know about "V" growing up, weren't you