[UA] Cannibal Avatar? (was

[Nick Wedig]

>> Hey, here's an almost completely unrelated question: should the Clown be an
>> archetype all its own, or is it just another version of the Fool?

How would the Clown be different?  Either you have a Fool or a Trickster.  If you have a significantly different interpretation on the Clown, then I"d love to see it, but at the moment I don't see much room over in that end of the zeitgeist.

>I've a Harlequin archetype in one of my scenarios, which was supposed to be a 
>bridge between the Fool and the Trickster. I think the clown would fall into 
>the same region. The scenario is at

A very nice scenario, I must say.  If I were to use the Harlequin, however, I'd argue that the Harlequin is someone free from consequences, which is very different from the Fool (in my understanding thereof), which means that though the Harlequin often is used in forms similar to the Fool or the Trickster, it doesn't have to be (perhaps that's just how the current IC member used the archetype, and another avatar could make a different take).

Here's a question: if avatarhood is about action (as Greg keeps suggesting) then why does the Fool's taboo involve his actual intelligence rather than how he uses it?  Shouldn't it be more focused on his use thereof rather than his inner, unseen potential intelligence?  (suppose a guy with Mind of 70 who recognizes the danger but acts as if he didn't; why couldn't he channel the archetype?)

Mr. Teapot
Fool

____________________________________________________
FREE Disinformation E-book - http://www.disinfo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua