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

Fishing for Power: A Flounder Can Only Do So Much

When I read The Fisherman's Wife, several thoughts crossed my mind. First: Talking animals are all the rage in Fairy Tales, whether they're malicious (Red Riding Hood) or helpful (The fish in this story). Second: A case can easily be made that this story is commenting on a flawed aspect of human nature. Essentially, it is a story of a fisherman who catches a (seemingly normal) flounder. But nooooo, it's a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, guys. This fish HAS to be able to talk/perform magic/do a flip or something.

The fish promises to give the man anything he wants in return for the fish's freedom. (What a sweet deal!) The man returns home and tells his wife of his experience. After no doubt feeling the man's forehead for a high, and thus hallucination inducing, fever, his wife tells him to wish for a nicer living arrangement. The man obliges and calls the fish. When the scaled sorcerer (I got tired of saying "fish") answers his call, he tells the man to return home immediately, for his wife already has what she wished for. The man returns home to find his wife in a nicer living arrangement than they previously inhabited. The wife, he realizes, is not completely satisfied and demands more of the fish. The man goes out and requests a castle instead of the cottage that had replaced his shack. The flounder instructs the man to return home again, and when he does he finds his wife in a castle. The wife then reveals that she is not done with her rampant pleonexia and demands more of the fish. This scene takes places several times more, and, long story short, the wife demands that the fish make her God. That's right. You're reading that right. Here it is again just in case you think I made a typo (I'll even italicize it): the wife demands that the fish make her God. Wow. In response to this, the flounder tells the man to return to his wife, for she is inhabiting the shack they originally lived in.

This story is a very interesting commentary on greed, but I am not ignoring the strong religious overtones presented. For one thing, the story revolves around the wife's greed. I, for one, am curious as to why the husband was not a major character or one of significant influence. I get that the tale is not exactly pushing the Fisherman to the forefront, but he's the one that catches the flounder! And what does he get in return? He plays Messenger for his power hungry spouse. This is most likely intentional in order to emphasize the focus on the wife. If the Fisherman had more intense interactions with his wife or the flounder, the focus on the wife (and the central theme of greed in the story) would be compromised and diminished.

The previously mentioned religious overtone is strong when one examines the decision of the authors to make God the final step. The flounder is fine about changing their shack to a cottage.

"What's that? Cottage to Castle? No Prob! What now? You want to be am empress? Done! Wait, the Pope? We already have one of those but sure! Wait... now you want to be God?" *scoff* "aaaaaaand you're back in your shack".

 This brings the focus onto both the unrelenting greed of the wife and God's unattainable status.Overall, the themes present here are as follows: "God is perfect and you cannot be no matter how many magical fish you catch" and "Please have the decency to appreciate what you're given." The wife was never going to be content with Earthly pleasures, and so they vanished as if by magic. ;)







Post 1 of 5

A Riddikulus Analysis: Why Harry Potter Means So Damn Much to Me

When I first entered English 259, I was met with a seemingly simple task: design a collage of your biggest magical influences. My mind automatically went to Harry Potter. Not Lord of The Rings, not Alice in Wonderland, and definitely not Hocus Pocus. Is it because the name became a brand and a franchise due to its unending support from millions of readers? Yeah. Is it due to the author(and creator)'s vision that prevailed and triumphed over "selling out"? Hell yeah! But it is mostly due to the fact that Harry gave us someone to connect to. And by "us", I mean any reader of any age. It was an underdog story that culminated in a glorious and heart-wrenching finale. I found myself cheering (yes, literally cheering...like, out loud) when I read about Mrs. Weasley doing away with Bellatrix Lestrange.  I was in awe at Nevil's newfound bravery. I was sobbing when I read about Dobby and how he met his end. This books series is written so well that it becomes one's definition of "magic" or "wizardry". Think about a wizard casting a spell on someone. Unless you're a diehard CCR fan (respect if you are), your first thoughts are most likely something that either has to do with Harry Potter, or something that was influenced/ can be compared to Harry Potter in a significant way. It doesn't hurt that the filmmakers have CGI on their side, which makes me associate almost any magical creature with one I saw in the Potter series (If it was the same creature/type of creature). Overall, the Harry potter series transcended not only age but genre. It was a sad, happy, angry, anxious, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic, masterpiece, and its influence is immeasurable. 

Dead Baby Jokes: Too Soon?

I have read many chapters of this book, and I can't help but notice this pervasive mentioning of children. Children are mentioned on page 161, page 157, page 191, and many others! What's more is that every time a child is mentioned, it is either being killed or harvested. (and sometimes both!) Could this possibly be a pathos-style way to spin the fight into the realm of emotion? Bear with me, here. The church wanted to get rid of this Witchcraft ordeal the moment it started, so it could say pretty much anything it wanted to about practitioners of Witchcraft. Society loves children, doesn't it? They're innocent, pure, and kind. Now think of all the horrible punishments you'd want inflicted on a man or woman who harms a sweet, innocent child. You'd either think "Wow, they really take Original Sin seriously, " or you'd think "I'd really like to see that assclown burn at the stake." The harming of children is something that (hopefully) most of society can easily get riled up and passionate about.  The church also had a great measure of credibility, even in such times of opposition, and so the public would believe and follow what they said. I happened upon an interestingly interchangeable situation while reading The Sect of Diabolical Witches chapter. The witches are said to kill the children and make it appear as though the parents crushed them in their sleep. This level of specificity tells me that this picture was either conveyed by practitioners of Witchcraft while they were admitting to their crimes, or created falsely after a father/mother legitimately crushed/steamrolled his/her son/daughter to death/nonexistence. Before you say that this is too farfetched, think: we're talking about a time where the church was in heavy turmoil and under heavy scrutiny, so they needed a heavy scapegoat. Witches were the perfect outlet for the blame because anything that could not be explained was chalked up to "Hey man, it's magic. That shit's tricky. Sometimes things don't make sense." (Less eloquent than "God works in mysterious ways", eh?) (Side note: The church has a few of these logically trailed off policies, "God works in mysterious ways" being one of them. it's a lot of "Don't question me; just follow", which is no doubt what drove many to Witchcraft. The concept of immediate gratification meshes very well with humans and their predisposed greed and gluttony.) I think the fact that it can even be disputed whether or not this scapegoat is being put into play shows how questionable the church was at the time. The effects of Witchcraft were quite clear. 

Progenies of Misogyny

In the chapter, titled "The Hammer of Witches", I noticed a strong trend of misogyny. On page 183, the author describes women as "a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours!" While I'm certain that this man's ideas weren't anything new, it surprised me to read so many negative words about the female gender as a whole. I am left to wonder if this man's view of women stems from either a life experience or by the "Eve is the Mother of All Sin" viewpoint of some Christians at the time. My guess would be the former since he goes on to say "The tears of a woman are a deception, for they may spring from true grief, or they may be a snare." Okay, I can guess where this is going. Since we describe witches as deceptive and evil, this person is trying to say that only women can be witches by equating them with similar adjectives. Ah! I love it when I'm right. He then goes on to explain that women are most likely to be witches because they are more impressionable and light-minded. Oh! And he goes on to say that the many negatives comments about women stem from "the temptress, Eve. and her imitators." So now we're back to that, eh? Assuming the worst of all women for the actions of one? Doesn't that sort of go against the teachings of one of the most important figures in Christianity- scratch that- THE most important figure in Christianity? Well, now that I'm off my religious soapbox, the author then paints a lovely misogynistic metaphor when he says that the breast rib, from which the first woman, Eve, was formed, was bent in the opposite direction almost as if it were opposing man. (Yeah, yeah, it's a simile. I get it. I just couldn't resist a little alliteration.) I'm curious as to whether this represents the beliefs of many or few. I am also curious as to how witchcraft affected the public's view of women as a result of this type of writing.  

Blurred Lines (This Time it's Satanic)

Chapter Five of Witchcraft in Europe deals with Diabolical Witches in history. This is a very interesting title to me because it gives a clear picture of how witches were thought of in the 15th century. To me, it does not indicate that the witches gained anything other than infamy. This chapter has several articles that deal with how practitioners of witchcraft were viewed at the time, and not necessarily a lot about what they did differently from their predecessors. Another aspect that adds to the subjective nature of this chapter is that every passage regarding their actions seem secondhand in terms of source. The author never describes what he/she saw. For instance, on page 157, the author describes how an inquisitor told him of a witch's actions. The two things that stand out to me in this passage are the secondhand (and therefore questionable) nature of this information and the source of the information. Inquisitors often acquired information through extreme methods of interrogation, so they often received confessions from innocent suspects that were trying to avoid torture. Another significant aspect of this Chapter deals with a possible Christian agenda. On page 160, the author assumes that every practitioner of witchcraft is being "seduced by the devil, the enemy of every rational creature". The church viewed Witchcraft as not only blasphemous but inherently Anti-Christian. But, in doing so, they blurred the line between condemning a blasphemous act and perpetuating their own ideals. The devil, or Satan, is a part of Christianity, so anything that concerns the devil also relates to Christianity. The church was under scrutiny at this point in history, with many sects forming and many people disagreeing and clamoring for reform. The church would need to take the focus off of itself while also perpetuating its ideals. The witchcraft problem was the perfect opportunity for the church to shirk the blame it had been handed. It provided a scapegoat for negative religious happenings and provided a way for the church to "explain" the problem in its own context.