Psychology of Young Indy

A reason I think Young Indy failed is because Indy is shown in a different light than the Indy in the films. What I mean is: for example, we never see Indy (in the films) interact with women outside of an adventure--they always come as part of the adventure and are thrust along for the ride, whereas in the Young Indy series he meets them like any guy would normally. We don't see how Indy indulged in social settings outside of his adventures, when he's Dr. Henry Jones Jr. and not Indiana Jones, whereas we do in Young Indy. What I'm saying is we see a completely different side only hinted at in the movies;

Many claim that the Indy in the AoYIJ is not Indy, that the way he acts is incongrous with the older character as portrayed by Harrison. I would say that is a half truth.
It is my opinion that Indiana Jones and Henry Jones, Jr. are two distinct identities. Think of how different Clark Kent and Superman are. Kent is a dorky, naive, nervous, nerdy guy; quite boring. Superman is a bad-ass and is handsome and charming, the kind of hero women love and men want to be. Indy and Henry are the same. They are two distinct identities in one man, and his part time job as a college professor is a cover for his other identity in the way that Superman works during the day as Clark Kent to hide his ''true'' identity.
Henry Jones, Jr. is, by his 30s, a mild mannerd,seemingly unassuming ivy league professor. His quite conservatively dressed, in a bow tie and glasses. His hair is neat, his face cleanshaven and somehow his young female students find him appealing.
Indiana Jones is a two-fisted, treasure hunter and gun fighter, who will at times work as a mercenary recovering ancient goods and is not neat: He wears a leather jacket and khaki pants and almost always has a week's worth of stubble by the time his adventure is through.

I believe that Junior, if you will, created this identity as a way of unconciously rebelling from his father. He eventually became everything his father was not: a man of action, a man who would destroy ancient tombs to find the object he was seeking, whereas his father would care more about the destruction of an ancient vase than the damage it did to his son's head. They are alike in one key way, however: They value the past.
Indy ran away from home at 16, and joined the revolution as an act of rebellion from his father. His spirit, as we've seen in the younger adventures, was adventurous, and while he may seem like a ''wussy'', it takes a brave man to go into the trenches and witness the horrors of WWI and come out as unscathed as he did.
Many decry that Indy's character in YIJC (saying it ''belongs in a museum'') is incongrous with ToD Indy, who lives for fortune and glory. However, I would say that ToD's Indy is incongrous with the rest of the series: In 1912 (as shown in LC), Indy believed it belonged in a museum, and flashfoward to 1938and he felt the same way. Somewhere between that time and 1935 he began to feel that these objects were worth nothing more than money. I believe it may have been because of his experiences in WWI.
Seeing the horrors he saw in that war may have led him to feel (even subconciously) that the past (represented by the artifacts he would search for) was meaningless except as a use for money and that the present and future was what mattered. I'm not a psychology expert, but I'd imagine that cynicism began to well up in Indy after WWI. After witnessing so much death, the ''magic'' of these artifacts wore off, and he decided that if he was going to search for these artifacts, he might as well make some money.
Indy would still love archeology, and ancient artifacts would become a good source of revenue for himself (especially during the Depression) and for the museum.
But after witnessing the supernatural events of ToD, something clicked in Indy. These relics were indeed much more important than simply as a source of extra money. IMO, the Sanakara Stones in ToD were the first supernatural artifacts he collected.

You nailed it. I think you make a good argument: The character we see in YIJC isn't Indiana Jones, it's Henry Jones Jr., who has yet to fully develop his alter-ego Indiana Jones. At his point, it's just a name he uses as a form of rebellion. It isn't until his later years when he develops this rebellion into an all-out alter-ego.

Great post Raiders112390!

The duality of Indiana Jones is all too often overlooked. Due to the fact that he does not truly have a "secret identity". But most of the people who know him as a college Professor don't see the other aspect of his life and vice versa. The Ultimate Guide has an interesting comment on this. Saying that sometimes even Indy himself is not sure which side is more real.

Very good post. In the movies, I think we would like to be in his shoes as well. In the show, maybe not so much.

Yeah in the show he's a much more regular guy--he's ''Henry''. And that's part of what I love about YIJC.

Great Post Raiders, really good analysis. One thing I've always noticed, within Young Indy regarding the alter ego thing is in the Petrograd episode where among his Work Colleagues, who he sees himself as better then hes cocky and arrogant, and more Indiana, whilst among his Russian Friends hes much more 'Henry'

But yeah, thats why I love Young Indy, cos hes a real guy, I can relate.

I completely agree. Another example of this, I always thought, is in "Raiders" when Marcus tells him the two army agents are here to see him. He looks worried, and even asks, "What am I , in trouble?" A clearly honest worrying response. Shows that outside of his travels and adventures he turns into a... how do you say... Nerd. Another great character aspect to the enigma that is Indiana Jones.

On a side note i think this makes him a more realistic character. We all act different to whatever situation we find our daily lives in, be it at work, or with friends or even with family. Same goes for Indiana Jones, just much more extreme.

I figured instead of making a new thread (in which I wanted to discuss the Psychology of Indy in general) I'd revive this one.
I've been doing reading on psychology as I'm taking classes in it--Now--One thing we were thought about is the idea of (psychological) identification--That when a person doesn't like or isn't happy with themselves they take on the attributes or charateristics of others, sometimes consciously but mostly unconsciously.

Considering the fact that Indy took on the entire physical appearance and occupation of Fedora (even down to the stubble), is it possible Indy for whatever reason really wasn't happy with who he was or himself?
Maybe what happened with Marion--Him knowing deep down it was wrong and hating himself for it--is what pushed from adventurous but just your regular adventurer Indy into the clone of Fedora he became.

Raiders112390 said:

I figured instead of making a new thread (in which I wanted to discuss the Psychology of Indy in general) I'd revive this one.
I've been doing reading on psychology as I'm taking classes in it--Now--One thing we were thought about is the idea of (psychological) identification--That when a person doesn't like or isn't happy with themselves they take on the attributes or charateristics of others, sometimes consciously but mostly unconsciously.

Considering the fact that Indy took on the entire physical appearance and occupation of Fedora (even down to the stubble), is it possible Indy for whatever reason really wasn't happy with who he was or himself?
Maybe what happened with Marion--Him knowing deep down it was wrong and hating himself for it--is what pushed from adventurous but just your regular adventurer Indy into the clone of Fedora he became.

Click to expand...

I think in Fedora Indy glimpsed once more the world beyond the stuffy confines imposed by his father. The opening of TLC portrayed to me a claustrophobic home-life, whereas we know from the YIJC Indy has already had a wide and varied life.

When he chances upon Fedora and his gang that past life is suddenly re-awakened, and he sees a way out. It's a way that combines the wishes of his father (historical studies) and his own wish for adventure.

Yet, he doesn't become a complete clone, since he retains a semblance of moral right, which we learn from the self-justification of his saying, "it belongs in a museum."

Montana Smith said:

I think in Fedora Indy glimpsed once more the world beyond the stuffy confines imposed by his father. The opening of TLC portrayed to me a claustrophobic home-life, whereas we know from the YIJC Indy has already had a wide and varied life.

When he chances upon Fedora and his gang that past life is suddenly re-awakened, and he sees a way out. It's a way that combines the wishes of his father (historical studies) and his own wish for adventure.

Yet, he doesn't become a complete clone, since he retains a semblance of moral right, which we learn from the self-justification of his saying, "it belongs in a museum."

Click to expand...

True, but sometime between 1916 (the Curse of the Jackal) and 1936 he lost the ''it belongs in a museum'' justification and just seemed to only care for the fortune and glory end of it. Even at the end of TOD, his attitude is that the Sankara Stones would collect dust in a museum--But by the next year he wants the museum to have the Ark and of course by LC we see he's firmly back to the stance of his youth.

Raiders112390 said:

True, but sometime between 1916 (the Curse of the Jackal) and 1936 he lost the ''it belongs in a museum'' justification and just seemed to only care for the fortune and glory end of it. Even at the end of TOD, his attitude is that the Sankara Stones would collect dust in a museum--But by the next year he wants the museum to have the Ark and of course by LC we see he's firmly back to the stance of his youth.

Click to expand...

"It belongs in a museum" was Indy's self-justification for "fortune and glory". His morality isn't firmly set, but there are lines he will not cross, though a man like Belloq will go to almost any lengths.

In 1935 TOD he was out for fortune and glory, and was only persuaded to help the children when he came face to face with the runaway. To say that they would only gather dust in a museum is an acknowledgement that they are better served remaining with the culture that understands and respects them for what they represent and what they can achieve.

By 1936 he is going after the Chachapoyan idol to bring it back to America, regardless of the wishes of the Hovitos who still revere the object.

When it comes to the Ark, it's a lost object with no owners. It must be recovered before Hitler can lay claim to it. After that it should be on public display as an artifact with significance to people across the world.

In TLC his main concern is rescuing his father. The Grail is of lesser significant to the safety of a family member. It's just as well that the Grail was lost into the earth, just as the Ark was lost into a warehouse, since their ownership would prove to be a hard fought contest.

One thing also:
In the Corey Carrier episodes of the YIJC, Indy is portrayed as being very adventurous, mischevious, wrecking trouble and havoc for the fun of it and disobeying his parents at nearly every turn.
After they return home, and Indy loses his mother and he and his father move to Utah, that adventurous spirit seems to have gone dormat--until the events of 1912. If you notice in the YIJC, Indy is still rebellious. He doesn't make for a good soldier because of his problems with authority, and even as a spy, he's not happy with the strict moral ''anyone is expendable'' code of espionage.
Just some thoughts.

Good character analysis in the opening post. There is however one point that I would like to expand upon: that being Young Indy's cynicism (which eventually as you say, becomes the mercenary that we see in 1935, and in a small way, in '36 too).

The end of the "Mystery of the Blues" episode, shows Indy's cynicism and disbelief in the System, especially how the police let Capone get away with murder. We see Eliot Ness in total outrage mode, but Indy though calmer, is disappointed and rather peeved and you can see he kind of expected the result of the work: that is dirty cops being dirty cops as Eliot continues to pursue the issue.

In fact, you can also see this continued depression at the beginning of "Hollywood Follies" (yes, I realise that "Scandals of 1920" occured between the two, however this is still worth noting), especially when his education becomes in danger, because he can't afford his tuition fees without work.

There are also times when he challenges authority even in the WW1 (the scene at the end of the Istanbul segment of "Masks of Evil" comes to mind when I say this) which shows a growing discontent with the way authorities handle things, especially when he sees they care little for the death of Molly. And it seems by the end of "Mystery" that we see that he's learnt (or at least feels that) he cannot change what people in charge do even if they're doing wrong and has decided to turn a blind eye. It may be from there, that he feels if they can do it, then I can too. Add in a rebellious professor like say Abner Ravenwood and there's the mercenary Indy we see in 1935.