We think we like Tricksters, and sometimes we do. There are no public opinion surveys about mythological Tricksters, but the role is often displaced, to use Northrop Frye’s term, onto human beings, in both literature and life, and we find such characters appealing insofar as they are rebels against a falsely repressive order. In the Roman New Comedy that was Shakespeare’s Classical model when he began to write comedies, the young lovers who are prevented from getting married by the tyranny of arbitrary parental authority and social convention are often helped by a “tricky slave” who formulates a clever plot to outwit the powers that be and bring about the happy ending. Although the plot rarely goes as planned, and chaos ensues, all’s well that ends well, to quote one of Shakespeare’s titles. Shakespearean comedy plays many variations on the type.
Another excellent essay, thank you. Much of your writing reminds me of some of the notions I get from Heidegger and I wonder whether you've ever explored that angle. Why are some Trickster conventions okay in some cultures but not okay in others? Heidegger would say it's because the Trickster archetype, at some level, is a reflection of a collective cultural consciousness, aka Dasein. The same Trickster who mesmerizes one person horrifies another. Part of my fascination with Frye and Heidegger, I'll admit, is the training it provides to those of us who don't want to be tricked.
Another excellent essay, thank you. Much of your writing reminds me of some of the notions I get from Heidegger and I wonder whether you've ever explored that angle. Why are some Trickster conventions okay in some cultures but not okay in others? Heidegger would say it's because the Trickster archetype, at some level, is a reflection of a collective cultural consciousness, aka Dasein. The same Trickster who mesmerizes one person horrifies another. Part of my fascination with Frye and Heidegger, I'll admit, is the training it provides to those of us who don't want to be tricked.