A while back, I posited that traditional archetypes should be fair game for religious authors to tinker with, subvert, and even transform. Like vampires. In my article, The Good Vampire, one commenter expressed the misgivings of the evangelical community in general when she wrote:
“My biggest nit with reclaiming vampires is that traditionally, they have stood with witches, black dwarves, orcs, dragons, etc. Vampires as sympathetic figures is a 21st century twist. Its presence in children’s lit (and it’s BIG) means setting common morality on its head–screws knight vs. dragon for knight and dragon BFF. This leaves huge marks on kids’ ever-evolving moral education. Subtly and by implication only, they’re taught that ‘bad’ and ‘good’ have permanent quotation marks.”
If you know anything about evangelical readers, this opinion should not surprise you. Certain tropes must remain symbols for evil. Vampires are obviously one of them.
As are dragons.
According to the writer above, if we suddenly go making dragons “good,” then we go about “setting common morality on its head,” which in turn “leaves huge marks on kids’ ever-evolving moral education.”
This is one reason why the early praise for Pete’s Dragon among Christian reviewers has been… surprising. Christianity Today calls the film “an uplifting tearjerker, [which is] deserving of your box-office dollars.” Focus on the Family’s Plugged In gives it 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars. Apparently, they did not get the memo that creating “good dragons” turns “common morality on its head.” Either that, or the views expressed by the commenter above are indeed waning.
So does that mean evangelical readers are now ready for good vampires, good Klingon, good goblin, or good ghost?
Part of discerning good from evil is separating stereotypes from actual actions or intent. Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, which flipped a common stereotype on its noodle. You see, to the people whom Jesus spoke, “Samaritan” meant one thing — bad guy. So obviously, part of His point was to challenge stereotypes and strip them of their inherent evil-ness. It’s worth asking, as I have elsewhere, whether or not the truth of the Good Samaritan can be retained while swapping out the stereotype. In this sense, the Good Samaritan might as well be a vehicle for flipping all kinds of images and models. Including, in a sense, dragons. After all, if the “good” part of the Good Samaritan is in his actions, rather than his reputation, then the most important part of “moral education” is not in simply rattling off a list of evil archetypes, but in discerning actions and intent. In other words, bad guys don’t always wear black hats and good guys don’t always wear white hats. Teaching children (or anyone) to look for “black hats” rather than “black hearts” is to ignore the nature of good and evil.
Which is why we need discernment rather than archetypal placeholders.
In regards to the longstanding motifs now changing, how much of that is because the culture as a whole is more open and loving of our neighbors than we used to be, in the sense of being willing to accept that others don’t look or think or speak like us and have their own opinions?
I’ve long felt that push towards diversity is what’s behind the trope-twisting, particularly since the argument that “This character type has always stood for X” is outright false.
Ever read about Asian dragons? They can be protectors, heroes.
Vampires, if you look into the folklore beyond what’s in common consciousness, could be interpreted as social tools—some regions’ legends used them to discourage some shameful behaviors, some legends gave openings to hide certain behaviors. If you go a bit further and consider the “undead” aspect, some areas have myths that speak to a fear of being buried alive, while some have myths that center on victims coming after those who wronged them (some myths displaying more fear of manipulators who cry victim, some myths displaying more fear of victims coming after their abusers).
Well said.
The dragon archetype is one that Jung noted as being part of what he called the “collective unconscious” — that is, the archetype is found universally throughout human cultures, even those that had no cultural mixing. It IS an archetype, one that resonates with humans, but it’s a complex one, representing the shadow self, the mystery of who we are that we don’t always want the world to see. It’s not surprising, then, that in Pete’s Dragon, the dragon is a legendary mystery hidden in the forest. Because it’s an archetype that largely represents the shadow aspect of humans, it’s no wonder that it can be both helpful and harmful to them. It’s both/and in almost every cultural myth. Even the Bible uses the serpent (same archetype) as an archetype of healing, while simultaneously holding it up as a deceiver that needs to be defeated. And isn’t that the way we are when our egos are stripped away? We deceive ourselves about who we are, but we have a hidden essence that is pure. Hence, in Pete’s dragon, Pete is a child (representing purity) that purportedly lives in friendly harmony with the dragon. I don’t mean to be esoteric; it’s actually the archetype itself that is esoteric.
Hmmm friendly dragons have been around for awhile. The original Pete’s Dragon came out in the 1970s after all.
“Which is why we need discernment rather than archetypal placeholders.”
Ah! Love this statement! I enjoy a great retelling of a fairytale from a different perspective (Wicked and Maleficent) for this very reason. Spot on reference to the story of the Good Samaritan. If Jesus used the marred stereotypical types of his time, it’s a worthy example to follow.