Trickster Figures: Contexts, And Criticism
Well, it was about a month ago so I’m over what I was initially asking, but I was wondering if you’ve read _American Tricksters: Thoughts on the Shadow Side of a Culture's Psyche_. It was alright (though I’ll admit the dedication page is perfect.) _Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms_ is better. Hyde’s _Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, And Art_ was really good, too. Of course, I disagreed with some points he was making, though nothing concerning humor or unreliables. All in all, the three books are right about one thing: Tricksters are everywhere! Endless examples concluding with the double purpose of a trickster. Furthermore, the three texts explain that the trickster is constantly moving forward, which
…show more content…
Also known as people who are visibly tricksters. Of course, people get mixed up between what is what. We’re at a place where people assume everyone is fooling everyone. Confusion blended with good ole’ honesty creates a whole different level of trickery that’s subconscious. Not the usual traits of a trickster— honesty and confusion. If it’s not just me who sees it this way, then it can possibly prove that no one is a trickster, but we’re obsessively inclined to see it in that context. Damn games! This idea is similar to the liar’s paradox. DeLillo, Eggers, and Doctorow have produced narrators who are honest and confused, yet they’re viewed as unreliable. Unreliable narrators could easily be placed in this perspective, _especially_ if they’re humorous. These authors do it so skillfully. Another way to see it: they're hiding. And what are they hiding? Yes, you guessed it, the confusion. Initially, the “trickster” should no longer be viewed as a persona. The trickster is caught up in between his conscious and unconscious mind. Like I said, I’m into the trickster stance, however I think I’ll make it more of an end point. It would be better to briefly discuss the trickster, instead of full-on taking it into consideration when analyzing each text because I simply won’t have enough pages. I think the
Also known as people who are visibly tricksters. Of course, people get mixed up between what is what. We’re at a place where people assume everyone is fooling everyone. Confusion blended with good ole’ honesty creates a whole different level of trickery that’s subconscious. Not the usual traits of a trickster— honesty and confusion. If it’s not just me who sees it this way, then it can possibly prove that no one is a trickster, but we’re obsessively inclined to see it in that context. Damn games! This idea is similar to the liar’s paradox. DeLillo, Eggers, and Doctorow have produced narrators who are honest and confused, yet they’re viewed as unreliable. Unreliable narrators could easily be placed in this perspective, _especially_ if they’re humorous. These authors do it so skillfully. Another way to see it: they're hiding. And what are they hiding? Yes, you guessed it, the confusion. Initially, the “trickster” should no longer be viewed as a persona. The trickster is caught up in between his conscious and unconscious mind. Like I said, I’m into the trickster stance, however I think I’ll make it more of an end point. It would be better to briefly discuss the trickster, instead of full-on taking it into consideration when analyzing each text because I simply won’t have enough pages. I think the