There Once Was a ______ Who Was ________

Reading fairytales in this class has been such a treat. Yes, because they're much easier to swallow than Kors and Peters, sure, but also because none of them are what they seem. I've always (well, at least since I've been in school) known that they are far from innocent tales and that they typically have dark and twisted morals, but I never realized just quite how dark they truly are. The first batch of readings were mostly fairytales that I've heard of before and they only had a few bits of variation to them, but out of this group of assigned tales, I've never heard of any of them before. Contrary to the majority of people, I didn't really grow up on fairytales. My favorite books when I was younger were the watered down classics for kids, the Little House on the Prairie books and odd things like The Magic Treehouse and Secrets of Droon series. When I was even younger, I liked things like Eric Carle and love the Very Hungry Caterpillar and Papa, Please Get The Moon for Me (which is why I chose The Moon as one of my picks)

But besides the hidden innuendos, dark themes and double-meanings, the aspect of these tales that I can really appreciate are the patterns. Dr. Sandona talked about fairytales during his portion of the Approaches to Literature class when he discussed structuralism, and now that I can get past the organization and categorizing that broke the rules of Literature and drove me nuts from this school of theory, I absolutely understand what he was saying: there is only one story.

 While I hate the thought that every story can be traced back to a few different patterns, I will admit that the majority of stories and tales can be predicted to end a certain way. Once in a while, we'll get that jaw-dropping surprise ending, but after you've read enough books, you can pretty much guess the ending. With fairytales, this seems to always be the case. Maybe we didn't know that this stepmother was going to decapitate her son and let his head roll into a trunk of apples, but we knew that she didn't like him and that her jealous and disgust wasn't going to lead this boy into a happy ending.
                                   
                                      


There are distinct patterns in all of these stories, and while not all of them follow one specific pattern, there are a good two or three that we can categorize together into groups of similar stories. For example, The Three Snake Leaves, The Riddle and The Shoes That Were Danced to Pieces are three different tales that all have similar patterns. In each of these, there is one princess, or twelve princesses, who each have some sort of quirk, but the king promises that if a prince can solve this quirk or is willing to accept it, he will be able to marry the princess, and if not, he will die. It's also interesting to note that all of these princesses are beautiful. The only quality they are ever given is beauty and the only reason a prince caves to follow her's or the king's orders is because she has such great beauty. In fact, beauty seems to be their only redeeming quality. The princess in The Three Snake Leaves, grows out of love with the prince, lusts after another man and kills the prince even after he has managed to revive her life and was willing to be buried alive with her. In The Riddle, the princess doesn't know the value of all the men who have lost their lives and thinks it's laughable that they are killed if she solves their puzzle. Even when she doesn't have the answer, she will not accept defeat and take the man as her betrothed, she lies and cheats to get the answer with the hopes that this prince will die too. And the twelve princesses are so vain and self-composed that they (except the youngest) never think it would be possible for a prince to outsmart them.

In a way, this pattern can be seen as empowering because these women all believe they can outsmart men and have their own plans. However, it always takes a turn for the worst because man trumps woman each time and the princess ends up punished or married. In fact, in all of these fairytales, once a woman is beyond the age of a little girl like Gretel, she is seen as manipulative, with high orders demanded of men and selfish or she's a downright evil stepmother/mother or a witch! The only innocent females are ones who can be classified as children and anyone who is older is never as intelligent, witty or resourceful as a man. It's sad that while it appears innocent on the surface, there are certainly misogynistic undertones in fairytales. We've always known the damsel in distress pattern, but even when that is not the case on the surface, women seem to always be getting themselves into trouble, or at least, that is how it is presented. Fairytales have never quite been for children, but it's children who read them and have lessons ingrained in them from the start whether they know it or not, and it's only when we've grown out of innocence ourselves that we can see what we read as children wasn't quite as innocent as we'd thought. There is absolute comfort in a pattern and that's why we're soothed by fairytales and tell them to our children, but what are we really teaching them?

Lets Give 'em Something to Talk About

I hate to admit that I closed Kors and Peters with a satisfied smirk on my face and breathed a very deep sigh of relief. The fact that this chapter was called "Belief, Skepticism, Doubt, Disbelief" was really exciting because these were all aspects of the scare that was witchcraft, but it was also the order of the chaos throughout the years. The belief came first and spread like wildfire, with wild accusations and fingerpointing until everyone thought everyone else was a witch. The skeptics came as the knowledge grew, like people who were supposed to be trusted, like church officials, knowing a suspicious amount about witchcraft. Should we have been skeptical of witchcraft existing or should we have been skeptical about who was fighting it? Doubt came following soon after due to the sources of facts being unreliable and too convenient at times and the finally, disbelief came into play. Disbelief meaning that the belief in witchcraft was gone for the most part, but also the shock and disbelief that this had gotten so largely blown out of proportion. It went from a spark of an idea to a forest fire to nothing. But I don't understand how something like this just disappears.

I could understand if new evidence came forward that called off all inklings of witchcraft, but there never was that one end everything epiphany. It just spiraled and spiraled until a few people said, hey, that's enough. In the end, witch trials are deemed useless, and while I agree that they were and that "witches" were tried unfairly, why did nobody try to explore the issue further? Maybe they weren't witches, but something was happening or had to have happened to get these rumors started in the first place? How can a whole part of the world go from being so hellbent on murdering witches to just not caring at all? I feel like this closing should have brought about a new search or a new replacement craze. All of these leaders were on a mission to stop at nothing until they could rid the world of witches and then they just gave up? Why the loss of power and energy? There has to be something more. This chapter said that this time stood by the belief that those who deny Christ are denying God. This would make it clear that anyone who worshipped someone or something other than God was a sinner. So maybe they weren't witches, but what were they? Who or what were they following?

The craze ends with everyone quitting and shoving the issue under the rug. Let people believe what they believe and pretend to be anything they want and they'll be punished in the end. That crazy desire to end all wrongs just vanishes and I can't wrap my head around it. This isn't the conclusion that we have been waiting for. People literally burned at the stake for the craze and now it's just over. So if something could just drop and end this quickly, then why did it even last for so long? Why end now? Was this just a time waster? Now there are new issues and people disobeying God is simply a thing of the past? Was there a new craze or trend that was about to spread?

I'm glad that these trials and the craze itself came to an end, and I wasn't expecting someone to come outside and announce "all witchcraft is a lie. Go back to your lives" or anything, but I also can't fathom how something so big just disappears. Maybe everyone was just so tired of the lies stacking up and the ridiculous time it all consumed that it was deemed a waste of time, but this all seems a little suspicious to me. Like some sort of witchcraft.

Witches, witches in a glitch, how many wishes do you wish?

Chapter seven covers a lot of ground and material, but what is most intriguing has to be the amount of people involved in the world of witchcraft. We know that the main focus is the witches themselves, but it's also important to take into account the Devil, God, Heretics, Believers v. Non-Believers, Humanists, Sorcerers, Preachers, Popes and countless other people who deem themselves experts at particular types of magic or careers, etc. One of the few people who stood out to me in the portion of this reading was Johann Geiler von Kayserberg, a theologian and a preacher. When I used to hear the word preacher, I pictured some sort of head of church preaching to the congregation about what lessons or perils could be learned from a particular sermon or verse and practically yelling and using repetition to drill that moral or rule into each and every mind of the congregation.

But now after just a few weeks in this class, I can see that it isn't always necessarily a religious preacher. It's more a very opinionated person who has decided to put out their own soap box, jump up on it and rant and rave about a topic to anyone who will listen. The topic of favor? Witchcraft, of course. I'd like to think of Kayserberg as that commenter on youtube under a music video that says "So and so sucks, and here's why" before listing reason after reason for why he dislikes this artist and those reasons would probably not be related to the artist's song, style or talent at all. And just like how one nasty comment can open up into a heated screaming match between commenters, preachers like Kayserberg are the start or continuation of presenting an opinion, receiving people who both agree and disagree with them and then spiraling completely out of control.

But although the preaching might need to come to a halt, Kayserburg brings up some fine points about witches: particularly, that witches aren't quite as powerful as we thought that they were. I was imagining these people (can I use the term "apparating"?) from one place to another in the blink of an eye or suddenly making objects appear or disappear. However, it doesn't quite work like that. These witches have the tools to travel at night, sure, or to make things appear and disappear, but it's as if everything they attempt to do has to go through the devil or be done by the devil himself. It's as if the devil is the ringmaster of this circus known as witchcraft.

When I imagine these night travels, I pictured witches flying through the air on brooms or just by themselves floating through the night among the stars. But this isn't the case. Sure, witches can travel at night, but it's more a movement of the soul and the mind out of the body and into another realm or part of the world without actually moving. Like Kayserburg's story about the woman on the bench, she is showing her night traveling, but her body is only spasming until she falls. Maybe she only thinks she is traveling or maybe she has traveled without her body, but it isn't the magical flight we typically picture.

Kayserburg also takes the time to show several examples of the devil doing the witches' work. A witch has the tools to do as she pleases and summon or erase what she wants, but although she possesses the power to ask for these things to be done, she is not capable of doing so herself. The devil gets almost a sort of notification through these spells and incantations and then he carries out the deed. It fascinates me that people are so scared of witches and all the powers they have, but in the end, they aren't even the ones who are doing the magic! We know witches are conjuring the devil and serving him, but why is the focus on burning witches when it could be using this connection with the devil to get closer to him and weaken him? Why not go to the source of evil instead of his servants and minions? We talk about witches endlessly, and they might have some tricks up their sleeves, but they are nothing without the devil.

Witches...They're Magically Devil-icious

When I think of a witch, my mind immediately goes to an older woman with a foul expression and ugly features cackling over a bubbling, boiling cauldron brewing some sort of potion to wreak havoc on the innocent. While the chapter on Diabolical Witches doesn't quite break down what a witch supposedly looked like or draw one out, it does seem to do a pretty good attempt at slashing witch stereotypes and putting things right. But it's a mass collection of opinions and contradictions.

So far, I have really appreciated and been intrigued by all of our readings, but for some reason, I was immensely frustrated by it. Finally, I know why. It's all opinion. It lacks evidence. My Type-A brain wants one person with qualifications to write one book about all there is to know about witches and witchcraft and for that to be the be-all end-all source of information. But that's not the point of witchcraft, is it? After some resistance, I have come to embrace the variety of information coming to us through these different excerpts from various scholars and authors. It's a sort of organized chaos that allows us to wipe the slate clean and forget what we know. We absorb new things about witchcraft page by page, chapter by chapter, and eventually, a new vision of a witch starts to form in our heads. We begin to agree and disagree with these writers and create our own image. Without even meaning to we accredit and ignore certain writers and therefore the habits, customs and descriptions of witches.

What intrigues me most is the incorporation of the Devil. The exercise earlier in the semester about what the word "magic"makes us feel showed that we don't necessarily always get a negative connotation of the word. Many of us had fond memories of the magic of Harry Potter or fairies and wands and dreams coming true. In that sense, it made me think that there were both good and bad witches even if they looked different from modern interpretations. The "bad", darker witches I pictured were just witches who had chosen the wrong path or gone astray. I thought that they were witches who used their powers for evil instead of good and wanted to wrong people. However, these witches we read about were not necessarily doing "bad" things. Curing illnesses and injuries and changing the weather don't seem like evil. And while making someone fall in love with you might be manipulative and uncalled for, it's not something we'd put at the top of our charts as an evil act. It's simply that witchcraft is unnatural and that's what makes these witches so terrible. What gives these people the right to think of themselves as better than the rest of humanity?

This chapter reminded me of The Uberman theory that comes up in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. The main character, Raskolnikov, basically believes himself to be an Uberman, or a human being who is superior to other human beings. Because of his high intelligence and intellect, he believes that any crime he commits should be pardoned because anything he does is for the greater good and his intelligence should excuse him from the law and unethical wrongdoings. It seems that this is what witchcraft is. Anything a witch does should be seen as fine because only they have the power to do so. Do not be mad that a witch has carried out the deeds of the devil, because only she could have done that and not you. But the frustration that comes with this is that by worshipping and doing deeds for the devil, these witches thing of themselves as almighty beings who can have the powers of god. They do not respect or worship God. They are not in awe of him. They live to serve the devil. They will do anything for the devil no matter how cruel, crude or forbidden. People cannot understand how these witches will do anything to please the devil when the devil is the nemesis of god and abuses his powers.

Witches explained in this chapter are servants of the devil and work to compete against god when they do the devil's work. Though the actions they perform might be innocent alone, they add up in a plot to fight against good and work towards evil. They aid the devil and work to please him, ignoring all they had known about heavenly aspirations and religion. Is it witchcraft that is so bad or is it that fact that these witches worship the devil? I think these writings all exist because various groups of people and intellectual individuals cannot fathom how so many people could break from worshipping god and instead worship someone who had fallen from heaven's grasp into hell. The issue is not spells and potions, but serving the devil and doing everything they can to ignore religion and heaven and instead, be almighty themselves and pursue evil.

It's Not Easy Being Green

Well, I am shocked to say the least. When Dr. MB mentioned we would be reading about a green knight, the joke about the black knight on the black horse ran through my head, and I was quickly imagining a foolish riddle that circled round itself. In a way, my predictions were correct. The first thing I noticed upon reading was the abundant alliteration (ya see what I did there?) all throughout the story. Lines like "grasp that gruesome axe and show your striking style" and "folly finds the man who flirts with the fool" roll off your tongue. The writing reminds me of a limerick or a riddle, with witty alliteration that keeps the words flowing and tricky, with that hint of humor and mystery. If you read the words out loud, they're written in a very melodious and sing-song way that keeps the dark undertones hidden. If a child were to read this, I feel like they would enjoy the sounds, internal rhyme and creative speech, but would have no idea how vulgar and twisted this truly is. But perhaps that's the point. Kassy mentioned that she thought of the Jolly Green Giant upon reading. Is that the trickery this author is getting at? Disguising real world issues that are grim inside upbeat lines that bring a smile to your face as you try to tackle each tongue twister?

While I read, I was constantly trying to think of the reason why this knight was green. Why bother endlessly listing all these details about the knight and his horse and repeating over and over again, that everything about them both was green? At first, I thought of someone being considered 'green' or new or amateur at something. Perhaps this was an amateur knight who had never done a knightly task before and was looking to prove himself. But further reading removed that thought from my mind. This Green Knight seemed to know exactly what he was doing and was more manipulative and powerful than new and innocent. Green has natural themes as well, and this was my second thought. Sir Gawain, the apparent weakest of the men, offers to stand up to the Green Knight. If the Green Knight represented nature and the weakest was to battle the nature, I thought that maybe even the weakest of us humans can destroy nature even if we think we are powerless and weak. But looking back, that also seems to be a ridiculous conclusion. So I thought back to the basics. Back to expressions we've heard since kindergarten like the expression, "green with envy". Jealously is absolutely associated with the color green and who are the jealous people? The outsiders.

The Green Knight is described as a possible half-giant, like everyone's favorite Hogwarts friend, Hagrid. Characters like Hagrid simply enough, feel too big for this world and can't see to find their place in it. The Knight hands down reminds me of Frankenstein's monster. This monster had no choice but to exist, and although he tried to educate himself with literature and was only looking to help and do good, his actions were always mistaken for trying to harm someone else. He could never fit in no matter how much he tried. The same rings true for other literary monsters like Beowulf's ever-famous Grendel, who might have just been feeling left out of the party in the great hall or couldn't take all of the noise. To be green with jealously is definitely fitting. The Green Knight might have always felt like an outcast, understood by few. When you're alone, you constantly crave to fit in and be with people who can accept you for being yourself. But what if the knight had never found that crowd or sought acceptance? Over time, he would grow green with envy and could only occupy himself by striking fear in others. If people are scared or intimated of you, at least they're thinking of you. By instilling fear in others, The Green Knight created a reputation for himself and would definitely not be forgotten.

I think the symbolism of green is all about envy. The knight is envious of all these men who are accepted by others and can chat amongst themselves about whatever they please. In order to get attention, this knight had to spew riddles and strike up a fight in order to be noticed. Even his axe shows that he is blunt and to the point. He doesn't want to see people struggle or dodge their way out of things. It's quick and dirty. One swift swing. Words and rumors cut deep. All it takes is one swing to bring you down and get hurt. But although he takes the swing of the axe to his neck, he survives the blow. Maybe being attacked by others is dangerous and cruel, but no matter how deep the cut, there is an ability to survive by creating your own escape? Jealousy and the role of being the outcast has made The Green Knight so intimidating and strong that even a true weapon couldn't break his body completely, or his spirit.