of the paradigm created for this paper, a secondary Trickster figure, one whose primary duties are not those of a Trickster but who either chooses to indulge in Trickster activities either to assist himself (or herself) in carrying out his (or her) primary activities or simply because such activities have a personal appeal.
A number of possible explanatory models can be brought to bear to explain the commonality of the Trickster figure in so many different cultures and religious/moral systems. This paper examines two of them û one that seems the most appropriate for defining and explaining the primary Trickster character and one that seems to define and explain the secondary Trickster character.
A Jungian explanation posits the Trickster as both a creative and a destructive force, one corresponding to childhood (a time of both instinct and learning, of cruelty and naivetT, of an inability to distinguish between good and evil (Rigal-Cellard in Krupat 318). This model helps explain the fact that while the Trickster is often victorious because of his (or her û although almost always his) cleverness and skills, sometimes he is a bumbling, foolish figure. (It should be noted that the clever Trickster sometimes fails and the bumbling Trickster sometimes succe
...