There are three types of female characters: whore (Shamhat),

>>8783902
Harry Potter and Rob weasley are not the same character

>>8783902
>Don Quixote and Sancho are the same man
>Christ and Achilles aren't fundamentally different

>>8784131
Sancho is a beast
How are Christ and Achilles fundamentally different?

>>8783902

That's a dumb theory that doesn't really add anything to the literature it is brought forth to describe.

>>8783902

Judas?

>ridiculous and useless claims and generalizations about every character in any book ever (unless that character conveniently isn't really a character)
>Sancho is a beast
I hope you die young and in great pain.

>>8784060
But in this case Harry does end up with Hermione and also his own little sister.

What about Holden's sister, Phoebe?

>>8784371
priestess and then whore

>>8784243
They both end up facing death for the sake of their duties. None of those duties is related to any other human being (even if they're aimed to humanity), but to what is expected from them by greater powers (or other stuff that falls out of what their human potential is able to achieve). There's a struggle between that duty and their human life.

>>8784375
kek

>>8784375
That's not op, it's been a long time since I read Catcher in the rye and I don't remember shit. From what I remember, I think she could play the wife-mother role. But again, I read it 6 years ago so I can't really say.

>>8784371
I'd say sisters are generally a mix between mother-wife and priestess desu

>>8784416
Wouldn't the rape make her a whore?

File: boss chomsky.jpg (6KB, 166x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 166x250px

>>8784468
Which is preposterous. You're starting from the point of an outrageously reductive theory that fails to encompass even the simplest of archetypes, the antihero and male supporting character are the first examples that comes to mind, but there are many more I won't bother going into. Then, working backwards, you're bending the definitions of the archetypes in such a way that a character that does not conform to the theory slides not-so-neatly in. The result, as >>8784235 neatly puts it, "doesn't really add anything to the literature it is brought forth to describe."

I would go a step further and say that using this theory as a tool to analyze a text would actually remove from the literature by robbing characters of nuance vital to a more holistic understanding of both character and story. Ask yourself, can we gain a clearer understanding of East of Eden's Cathy by typing her as a whore-wife hybrid?

In this way (the broad stereotypes that add nothing to textual understanding) your theory is similar to monomyth, which at least is so general it can be applied to vastly more stories.

Nice bait OP, getting all the (You)s you could ask for

any male character can be typed as a Jesus or as one of the disciples

>>8785054
Waiting for Godot can be read nice and biblically, so it should set a fine example. Which disciples, then, are Lucky and Pozzo? The boy? What about Vladimir and Estragon? Are they disciples simply by the virtue of waiting for a ~god figure? Is every antagonist either a Judas or a Christ?

Is Dostoevsky's underground man a Jesus figure? If so, how?

Hera/wife [+sensual] [+symbolic]
Demeter/mother [+sensual] [-symbolic]
Athena/maiden [-sensual] [+symbolic]
Artemis/daughter [-sensual] [-symbolic]

Where do trans characters even fit into all this?

>>8784187
The former had meekness and forgiveness as his ethos. The latter had the quest for eternal glory by means of warfare as his.

>>8783902
>Antigone
>Not a whore

>>8785091
>Waiting for Godot can be read nice and biblically

Can it, though? It certainly poses questions of a biblical and theological nature, and makes continues reference to the gospels, but I don't think you can go as far as to say that the characters represent disciples. Although, since there are four males, it would be interesting to see whether in their speech manner or actions they resemble one of the Apostles who wrote a Gospel.

>Are they disciples simply by the virtue of waiting for a ~god figure?

Not necessarily, though it surely is an interesting reading. But that would take for granted that Godot is a "God" figure, which is difficult to say because the text is ambiguous (the metaphysical and moral landscape of the play all but deny the existence of such a figure, but Lucky does mention that God has a white beard, and the boy, in the second act, says that Godot has a "fair beard", and Vladimir replies to this with surprise and disbilief).

>Is every antagonist either a Judas or a Christ?

This one I would without a doubt say is not the case.

>>8785945
Are you trolling or max pseud? They were clearly all rhetorical questions refuting >>8785054 's statement.

>>8785956
I thought it was replying to another post, didn't pay much attention.

>max pseud
How so? I took the post at face value and replied accordingly. If you want to refute anything I said or continue the conversation, do so, but don't throw meme words around because it makes you look hip.

>>8785921
Yeah, and Achilles doesn't kill any old lady and only has the patronymic, while Raskolnikov has also a surname. So?

>>8785921
If anything, you could say Achilles chooses his own sacrifice and Jesus doesn't seem to have any other option. However, the death of Patroclus pretty much pushes him to it.

>>8786646
>comparing the ethos of a person to incidental biographical details

I'm amazed that you thought it was an intelligent response.

>>8786656
That may be, but it is debatable whether Jesus chooses it or not

>>8787245
Ethos is as contingent as any other ambient details