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.
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.
Thank you, Richard. I feel very complimented that you not only read the newsletters faithfully but often as soon as they're published. All cultures have to enforce some sort of order, and that means that all cultures have to cope with pent-up frustration and resentment and repressed desires. Trickster figures and carnival-type rituals are one way to do so. More rigidly repressive societies might say "we are not amused," but there's always a price for repression.
I've read about Heidegger, but I find his own writing impenetrable, so I have no good answer to give about how his thinking relates. Social life is "inauthentic," and whenever the social order is relaxed and chaos ensues, whether licensed or unlicensed, in that moment of liminality there might be a glimpse of some kind of Being that underlies appearances, and Shakespeare often seems to hint that there is some kind of power identified with creative time that underlies and shapes all of the action., but itself remains invisible. If that is Heideggerean, then that is suggestive.
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.
Thank you, Richard. I feel very complimented that you not only read the newsletters faithfully but often as soon as they're published. All cultures have to enforce some sort of order, and that means that all cultures have to cope with pent-up frustration and resentment and repressed desires. Trickster figures and carnival-type rituals are one way to do so. More rigidly repressive societies might say "we are not amused," but there's always a price for repression.
I've read about Heidegger, but I find his own writing impenetrable, so I have no good answer to give about how his thinking relates. Social life is "inauthentic," and whenever the social order is relaxed and chaos ensues, whether licensed or unlicensed, in that moment of liminality there might be a glimpse of some kind of Being that underlies appearances, and Shakespeare often seems to hint that there is some kind of power identified with creative time that underlies and shapes all of the action., but itself remains invisible. If that is Heideggerean, then that is suggestive.