So in Frye’s passage, the function of the micronarrative is not to use the figure of Micawber as evidence for some “evolutionary” theory, but rather to permit a return to Micawber himself in such a way that we rewrite this character together with all his predecessors and descendants in the form of a new composite and multidimensional entity. The purpose is not to replace Micawber with his “original” in the dolosus servus, nor to dissolve him into Jeeves, but to produce a new narrative component which may be defined as a Micawber-considered-as-a dolosus-servus.
Ruinization of literary archetypes. They are not mystical counterpoints like Jung says, but are instead built on the ruins of another. Remove the metaphysical aspect of story figures and see them as an evolution. They are not developing so much as our understanding creates a new function of them. Our understanding makes hybrids of multiple figures.
This complicates archetypes much more than necessary. But it works with the materialist viewpoint Jameson is working with here.
