The Villain of Rumpelstiltskin?

In every story we know from our childhood, there is a bad guy and a good guy.  It is a staple to our Disney movies, a necessity to every video game, and a crucial point to our books.  It is only recently that the "bad guy" has started to become something abstract - such as "understanding each other" being the main conflict of Brave.  Considering that Rumpelstiltskin was written long before this new pattern started to emerge...who is the bad guy?

Most of you will jump the gun and say it is Rumpelstiltskin.  However, I do not believe this is the case.  Rumpelstiltskin was an honest person who stuck to his deals.  He offered to help a woman in need, spinning an entire room of straw into gold and taking only a ring or necklace as payment.  By that logic, it is obvious that he had no need of money.  Why help her for such a small payment in return? 

Perhaps it was so he could manipulate her into giving up her first born child.  But no where in the story does it say Rumpelstiltskin could see the future (unless we are going by Once Upon a Time - which is completely different).  There is no way he could have known for certain that the king would offer marriage or that a first born would be an option. 

Further proving he is not a bad guy, he agrees to amend his contract and give the grieving mother three days to guess his name.  Now, his name was obscure and yes, he had no intention of her figuring it out.  But if you look at it from another perspective, it is giving a mother three more days with her child in order to prepare for the separation.  It is a kindness. 

So, assuming that Rumpelstiltskin is not the bad guy, who is?  Some may argue that it is the Queen who breaks her contract.  Yet I question - did she really break it?  She, of course, did not want to give up her child and cried over it but she did not say she would not give up her child as their verbal contract stated.  It was Rumpelstiltskin who pitied her and changed the terms.  And yes, she was happy when she guessed his name but was she really happy to see Rumpelstiltskin die?  The story does not say.

What about the King?  Well, he is certainly a negative force.  "Spin this straw to gold or die" and what not does not exactly ring the tone of a paladin.  He is the driving force that continues to push Rumpelstiltskin and the girl together until the final deal is made.  If I were to pinpoint where the bad guy truly resides, I would have to say it is the King. 
Talk about being married to a prick. 

Was Dumbledore Really Needed? o.O

First, I want to start off by saying that I do adore Dumbledore as a character.  The wise old man with crescent spectacles did hit a soft spot with me.  There is just something about an elderly man watching over you that gives a sense of peace and I think that is what J.K. Rowling was going for, which made him an important character within the story itself. 

However, I have doubts about whether Dumbledore was truly needed for Harry's development.  We discussed that Dumbledore was a guiding figure for the Hogwarts student, much like Merlin was for King Arthur or Gandalf was for Frodo.  Yet throughout the books and movies, he does not have much interaction with him.  He is there at the beginning, occasionally in the middle, and at the end he provides a final conclusion for the events that took place under the school.  Otherwise, at least in the first book, you only ever see him during dinner time or at a quidditch match. 

From my perspective, he does not truly aid Harry.  At least, not in any way that another professor would have.  Take McGonagall for example.  She could have easily replaced Dumbledore for most of his scenes.    Like when he was explaining the mirror.  Professor McGonagall would have been able to tell the young hero the same things he needed to know. 

If you put that in comparison to Gandalf, it is easy to tell that no one could have replaced him.  The only character mentioned with equal power as a wizard was Sauron and he was needed as a bad guy!  Gandalf was needed to find the ring initially.  How would a hobbit even know of the rings of power?  He was needed again to fight the Balrog.  None of the other heroes could have done that.  And again, he was the only one who could have gone off to find the riders of Rohan in time because of his connection with the horse, Shadowfax.  Likewise, with Merlin there was no one who could have taken his place.  How many educated, politically connected prophets do you honestly think could be walking around the earth at one time?

 
Now, I know a counter argument for this will be that Dumbledore was needed for his power.  He is built up as a powerful wizard through out the story, what with his picture being a collectible card and him having the elder wand.  And yet, he rarely uses it.  We do see him use it in the Order of the Phoenix as he duels with Voldemort to save Harry; however, again I have to say that someone else could have stepped in.  It is stated that the aurors are on their way.  Had they interceded instead, the same conclusion could have been reached. 

But what about his knowledge of the horcruxes?  This might be one of the hardest points to counter.  Yet, the author could have made Hagrid know since he went to school with Tom Riddle.  That development was at the authors discretion and that is really the only way to counter that. 

So, if Dumbledore is not the guiding figure...who is?  That is answered by looking at the people Harry surrounded himself with: Ron and Hermione.  It is often said that a person's friends help morph who they are and what they can accomplish.  In this case, I think it is very true.  They are his support, his foundation.  It is evident in the last book just how fundamental they are; Dumbledore is dead and they persevere together.  If any characters are Harry's guiding light, it is those two.

To sum it up, I believe Dumbledore was not integral to the story.  He was put in for feel goods and nothing more where as Gandalf and Merlin are needed.  There is no story without those two but with the Harry Potter series, he could have been left out. 

...Again, not saying I do not love Dumbledore.  :)  

Merlin the young hippie?

I have two “Merlins” that I am familiar with.  The first is the classical Sword and the Stone Merlin: a wise, playful, and jovial wizard.  The second is from The Mists of Avalon where he is cunning and powerful.  In all of my time learning about the man, I have never seen a representation of Merlin as young, depressed, or so desperately wanting to forest nymph. 

It makes me wonder where our current views have stemmed from.  If Geoffrey of Monmouth is correct, then somewhere along the lines Merlin was seriously altered to create a new image.  Was it because the legends of King Arthur needed someone a bit more…poised?  It does seem unlikely that one of history’s greatest (possibly fictional) kings would take advice from someone quite that eccentric.  And the truth of the matter is that is where most of us know Merlin from. 

His wife is another aspect that I knew nothing about.  Merlin having kin, such as his sister, I can see coming about.  But him having a wife was something that never crossed my mind.  That may be because along with the stereotype of wise man, he also seemed old and beyond the point of marriage.  Monmouth puts him as young, and depicts a time before Arthur.  It brings to mind a whole new aspect of Merlin as a man instead of Merlin the great wizard.  But with that comes the idiocy.  No offense to the men out there, but the way he broke off his marriage rivals the douche bag level of text message break-ups. 

“Sister I do not want a cow that pours out water in a broad fountain like the urn of the Virgin in summer-time…”  

I’m just saying, it is very risky to call a woman a cow.  No matter the context.  He truly was nearly out of his mind on that one.     

 

Now, I understand why he ran into the forests.  All his buddies had just died and the Scottish forest, or Caledonia, was the best thing he could get to not being around humanity.  But I do not understand why he wanted to be away from everyone – and yet he had 70 scribes around him to write his prophecies.  It makes me wonder if he truly wanted to be alone.  This is how I could see it going.

He is cured from his PTSD by the bard and goes back to visit his wife and sister.  Upon seeing these women, he decides that while he loves them – he does not want to be anywhere near them.  Cooties or something?  So he would rather hole up in a really large shack in the woods with a bunch of dudes and party; maybe write a few prophecies so his sister doesn't stop sending dinner.  

This is likely a stretch, but the image of it makes me laugh. 

 

 

1 out of 5

Witchy Nun - Hildegard

Hildegard of Bingen is renowned within the Catholic faith for her spiritual guidance and religious works.  She is a canonized Saint and to this day is still discussed with respect and admiration.  But was she all that she is claimed to be?  Is she truly a Saint or a sinner?  A Mother Superior or a High Priestess of a coven?

A lot of the things she did were close to witchcraft.  Practice with medical herbs was frequently considered to be the workings of a witch.  Burchard of Worms wrote in his writings that if you have "collected medical herbs with evil incantations, not with the creed and the Lord's prayer (singing of credo in Deum) then you have done witchcraft.  This was written before her lifetime and she would have been familiar with it, being an educated woman within the Church.  Our exert does not say if she did sing the credo in Deum.  While she likely was not spouting out evil incantations, she may not have been singing credo in Deum either.  It is impossible to say.  But it was because she rationalized her medicine with scientific texts from Greece that she was not instantly viewed with skepticism.  Also, churches at the time were the hospitals of today, giving her more coverage still.  If she had been a common woman in the fields, picking herbs and giving them to others for healing, she likely would have been accused of witchcraft. 

The second thing she did that was highly skeptical were her visions.  Visions from God were rare to begin with.  Visions received by a woman were nearly unheard of.  But it was not just the visions themselves that left her open to questioning, but what was within the visions.  She describes in great detail demons and the devil.  To have seen such things could easily be construed as having dealings with the Devil and forming a pact of sin. 

The world did not view her visions as devil work.  But did she?  For the majority of her life she refrained from telling anyone of them except for two people, Jutta and Volmar.  She even states herself that she did not write about them because of "doubt and low opinion of herself."  It was as if she were in uncertain: were the visions truly from God?  If I were receiving such visions during that time period, I would not think I was being given sights from God.  To me, visions from God would be filled with light and happiness.  Although towards the end of her vision regarding the worms, the light of God does appear, I would interpret that as God interrupting the vision from Satan.  I would think the devil was coming for me and that perhaps God was joining in on the fight.  And although the Malleus Maleficarum was not yet written, it was common knowledge that women were weaker and more susceptible to the dealings of witches.  While our exert about Hildegard does state that she did not doubt they were from God, I think that if she did doubt it she would not have flat out said it.  

Magic vs. Murder

                                 “All sins are equal within the eyes of God.”
My friend has been telling me that for the last month now, ever since the topic of religion became a common theme between us.  That is why last week’s discussion of which is worse, murder or magic, took me by surprise.  And then I realized that while in the eyes of god there may not be any differentiation between the two – in the eyes of man there is.  Religious figures have constantly been trying to determine which sin carries more gravity than others and how to cleanse the soul of that sin.

If we look back to Burchard of Worms on page 63 of Kors and Peters it is plain to see that even he was trying to find ways for a person to repent.  Depending on their crime, the punishment would alter.   From that we can gather even in 1008, Christians were trying to level out just what sin is worse.
According to the church which is worse: magic or murder?

Martin Luther would have you believe that magic was worse.  His argument for that is based on the first commandment, which is not to worship false idols.  He states that magic is a form of worshiping the devil and therefore breaking the first commandment.  But I do not overly agree with this sentiment.  While the church did believe that all evil magic was the work of the devil, good magic was still done by the church.  With that in mind, magic can be achieved by worshiping God.  

Murder on the other hand is outlined strictly as prohibited in the ten commandments.  "Thou shalt not kill."  It is not arguable as to if a person is dead or nearly dead, unlike in the Princess Bride.  Once you have committed the sin of murder, you have broken the sixth commandment and there is no arguing the fact.  By that logic, the ten commandments state that the act of murder is more grievous a sin than murder.  In conclusion: in the eyes of the church, murder is worse than magic. 

Repent for your Sins! Eat Bread.

In life, humanity is bound to make mistakes.  Individuals are condemned to walk a narrow path of right and wrong.  Once a person falters, can they regain their footing and walk along the path once more?  According to Burchard of Worms, it is possible if the correct penance has been paid for the crime.  His written work, The Corrector, was widely accepted and used as a consult when dealing with an act of sin. 

Frequently, his punishments were fasting for a number of days on bread and water.  I find this form of punishment (or begging of forgiveness) strangely tame.  In later times, people who had committed the same acts were tortured and/or burned.  Yet in this time period, the acts can be forgiven with a simple amount of fasting.  

Did the punishment and persecution of witchcraft become more violent as the years went on?  If this document is anything to judge by, I would say so.

It is also interesting that punishment is viewed as almost starvation.  Hunger is by far one of the most unpleasant feelings a human being can experience and at the time hunger might have been common; especially in the lower classes where the “sinners” were most likely found.  Was his punishment really meant to make them feel remorse like a child standing in a corner or symbolic in a religious way?   

I also find it interesting that as we continue to read through his acts of evil and the penance that should go along with them, he starts to target women more and more.  Initially, the acts of evil seemed to be neutral.  They could be done by a man or woman.  But once we get to the later ones, he begins to focus more intently on females.  Numbers 153, 170, 175, 180, and 181 all start with roughly the same sentence. 
“Have you done what some women…” 

It is as if he is directly implying that women are more prone to fall for these sins or sin in general.  It seems that he believed so but it is hard to say based on what is provided by Kors and Peters. 

Magic vs. Magick

Magic as defined by Webster’s Dictionary: a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions.

Magic: what is it?  It has been described as many things: miracles, curses, hexes, alchemy, and knowledge.  All to some extend are true and the answer will greatly depend on whom you ask.  For the most part magic through the years has had a negative connotation with it and that is because it was closely associated with witches: a group of people who were persecuted, tormented, and murdered throughout history because of their different beliefs.  It is only through recent advancements such as Harry Potter or Kiki’s Delivery Service that the view of witches has begun to change.   

However, there is a fact about the word magic that I did not find in the books.  While discussing Wicca (a religion that is closely associated with use of magic) with a High Priestess I am acquainted with, she asked if I was aware of the different spellings of the word magic.  Upon hearing that I was not, she went on to explain. 

“Magic is what is known as parlor tricks or deceptions.  Magick – also sometimes spelled Magik – is the embodiment of energy cast within a spell.” 

By learning this, I have discovered that a new level to the word magic and it helps to better define it.  There are different spellings of the word with different meanings, though they are frequently confused for one another.  And knowing the difference may help give a better understanding when viewing the word in historical or modern settings.   

Burt, Miss. V. Personal interview. 1 Sept. 2013.