Wizard Archer!
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Final Class Thoughts - Magic
We have spent the entire class talking about different aspects of magic across a large period of time and how peoples' idea of what magic is has changed. In the medieval period magic was often seen as a form of sacrilege used by heretics, given to them by demons and devils. As time progressed though we see a changing view point that came across strikingly in the Grimm Fairy-tales. In those we see magic as a form of wonderment and joy, something to be hopeful for. That sentiment has continued even till this day with the such classics as The Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter.
What I would like to propose is an answer to the question we were asked at the beginning of this year an answer to what magic means to you, in this case me. After spending an entire semester in this class and learning what it had to teach about magic, which I am sure is only equal to a small bit of the material out there in the world, I have come up with an answer to that question.
My answer is simple magic is that thing in life that takes away all your worries, if even for a split moment in time. An example of this is when Harry got the letter in the mail to go into to Hogwarts it completely changed his life. I think that is what can be considered magic the ability to change a persons life for the better.
What I would like to propose is an answer to the question we were asked at the beginning of this year an answer to what magic means to you, in this case me. After spending an entire semester in this class and learning what it had to teach about magic, which I am sure is only equal to a small bit of the material out there in the world, I have come up with an answer to that question.
My answer is simple magic is that thing in life that takes away all your worries, if even for a split moment in time. An example of this is when Harry got the letter in the mail to go into to Hogwarts it completely changed his life. I think that is what can be considered magic the ability to change a persons life for the better.
What Makes a Successful Fairy Tale?
In my last Blog Post I mentioned The Fisherman's Wife, which is one of the lesser-known Grimm Brothers' fairy tales. I became curious about why it has not achieved the status held by Red Riding Hood and Cinderella. Certain elements such as the appeal of a strong female character separate these tales. In Red Riding Hood and Cinderella, the female character is prominently featured, but takes on a more innocent role. In Red Riding Hood, the the character of Red Riding Hood is a sweet girl who made a very human mistake while taking sweets to her grandmother. Her only flaw stems from talking to a stranger, and while the stranger was no ordinary passerby (rather a giant talking wolf), Red Riding Hood is seen as an innocent girl who didn't follow directions. In Cinderella, the character of Cinderella is as pure as one can be. She goes to her mother's grave every day and weeps under the tree she grew with her TEARS. (Because "Cry Me a River" is too mainstream.) Cinderella is a picture of innocence in her story
Monday, December 16, 2013
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.
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.
Final Class Thoughts
At the beginning of the semester my
knowledge of magic was only that of common knowledge due to the representation
of what has been shown through modern movies and books. Upon entering the class
i had the hopes of learning why and where these beliefs and displays had
originated from. Now i have the answers to my question...I think? As
we learned in the early stages of the class magic was used by those who were in
the eyes of the church, devil/demon worshipers. How can this be since the
way people view magic today is a "gift" and those who can see the
future or make things disappear are paid for their services as well as almost
worshiped by youth who read books such as Harry Potter and the Lord of The
Rings. As we learned this correlation is false as magic that was used in
the past was not at all similar to the common form presented today.
Overall I enjoyed reading many of the stories and excerpts provided
throughout the class with the exception of a few (mainly from Kors and Peters)
they presented many different views on the development of magic.
In the past magic was primarily used as a
form of gaining an advantage over others by destroying their crops or causing
illness to suddenly fall upon an enemy. The readings progressed and
showed that people who were capable of such magic were not "gifted"
as this type of magic required learning and practice, which began to cloud my
understanding. This soon passed as we read the many different stories of Merlin
and finally I had read about someone who was born with the “gift” of said
knowledge. Unfortunately as stated in
the readings Merlin was born with his powers because of the actions of a demon
and the devil which brought disappointment.
The only readings which were able to bring light to my question were
actually books in which I had previously read but through reading and
discussing them in class I was able to finally understand why Harry Potter and
the Lord of the Rings showed such need for the use of magic as a “gift”. The need for such wizards like Gandolf in
Lord of the Rings showed how those with such little power in the world like the
hobbits on their journey would be lost and alone without him guiding them
through their journey. And through Harry Potter it displayed that a boy who had
been through so much pain and suffering, some of which he did not even know,
was able to have magic enter his life and finally make him feel normal and
accepted for who he is.
A quote that my grandfather has always
said to me throughout my years of schooling is that “knowledge is power, and power
leads to success, so learn all you can while you can and never stop”. This is a quote that I can greatly relate to
our class and the transitions of magic which I think has helped me tie all of
these different concepts. As magic was
displayed in the readings of Kors and Peters there was little knowledge in the
world at this time as only those with access had power to influence those into
believing the horrors of witchcraft. As
the world progressed those who were previously without knowledge were now able
to learn and they began to understand what powers witchcraft actually contained
changing the world view to what it has become.
The worlds of Harry Potter and Lord of the
Rings may be fictional which may be why it is easy to accept them and make them
popular but now I realize that that magic actually had a place in the real
world which differed very much and at one time was a serious issue. In some ways there are similarities between these
real world issues and those presented in fictional stories but now I can sort
of piece them together and understand how these applications have relevance and
shape our view of magic’s current place in the world…I think.
Harry Potter last thoughts
The story of Harry Potter as caught on to become a large part of many lives since its creation. As I have examined the story alongside the multiple other readings we have read throughout class it has become clear that there are many things that relate to the past presented by reading Kors and Peters. The first thing i began to notice is that although it seems like magic is good as displayed in Harry Potter they must still hide in secrecy, why could this be? Could it be that they are feared and that the world will shun them to the point that incidents of witch hunts and the overall ban of magic similar to what was presented through the views and pushes of the catholic church? Or could this secrecy be a view of those in control of the people in the world of Harry that the separation of "Muggles", witches and wizards is necessary for protection as those who cannot use magic are vulnerable and weak to those who can. This could be because there is the possibility of wizards to use such great power as displayed by "You know who" that could easily over power the weak which would cause the world to drop into chaos. The second connection I have seen throughout our readings is that the common denominator of magic is that it requires learning (Except for the one special exemption: Merlin). This is displayed in many examples such as our reading in Kors and Peters which shows that magic requires precision and learning for their rituals to work properly and give the correct results as well as in The Tempest where Prospero's books were his source of power and knowledge. The setting of a school in Harry Potter clearly carries on this view as some come into the school with slight knowledge of magic and some have none whatsoever but once they attend school they are taught everything through the use of books and procedures to ensure that they achieve perfection of their rituals and verbal annunciations. So in summary why are these readings so similar in context but the disapproval of such things as magic in the past versus the acceptance of the world of Harry Potter so different?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)