|
Author
|
Comment
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(7/21/05 5:17 am)
|
Re: Asymmetry
>>DerekJ - Defining evil in terms of motivation is riddled with problems. How do you account for actions by someone intending to do harm, but which turn out to be good? Conversely, how do you account for someone sincerely believing they're doing good, but are actually doing terrible harm? - E.g. equate morality with motivation and you have a hard job not condoning the various manifestations of "moral cleansing" - the serial killer, the idealistic dictator, the suicide bomber...<<
I rip off your glasses, throw them to the floor, and step on them = Evil.
I walk up to say hi, hear a crunch under my foot, and say, "Oh, whose expensive contact lens did I just find?" = Not evil.
Making someone scrub floors and heaping abuse on them = Evil.
Saying, "Oh, you're imagining things...They're nice people, really!" = Not evil, just pretty darn dim.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/21/05 7:13 am)
|
Re: Asymmetry
Quote:
I walk up to say hi, hear a crunch under my foot, and say, "Oh, whose expensive contact lens did I just find?" = Not evil.
Making someone scrub floors and heaping abuse on them = Evil.
Saying, "Oh, you're imagining things...They're nice people, really!" = Not evil, just pretty darn dim.
Do you really think there's no difference between the two things? The first example is an accident, surely? Don't you think the second involves some level of judgement?
An adult in a household where abuse is going on ALWAYS has the power to do something about it, if only to refuse to collude.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(7/29/05 3:14 pm)
|
This convo entirely
I've noticed that a lot of convos I'm keeping track of here go off
into the "Was Cindy's daddy as much to blame?" theme,and
into your perception of evil.I never knew fairytales could be so
complicated before I found this site.
Sometimes,though,it's not that simple.Rapunzel,for instance.Say the witch kidnapped her,and her dad couldn't find her because she was hidden by magic.Then he couldn't control what happens to her,from the tower to her losing her virginity,getting pregnant,being thrown into the wildernes...etc.It's all Zel's choice.She chooses to sleep with Prince Charming(no one ever says she was raped,unlike Sleeping Beauty)and if she's adult enough when kidnapped,knows the possibilty of a child...she had to know the witch wouldn't be happy.
BTW,in case you can't tell,that's a plot I'm using.:D
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/29/05 6:53 pm)
|
Re: This convo entirely
Well, I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Rapunzel's witch. She doesn't do anything really wicked as such - she drives a bloody hard bargain, and she's damagingly over-protective, but I can't help feeling Rapunzel might've fared worse with either of her real parents, with not an ounce of sense between them.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(7/30/05 12:45 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
Oh, I've always felt that taking an infant away from her parents, walling her up in a tower, and blinding a young man were pretty evil activities as these things go. R.'s parents never seemed so bad to me--the pregnant woman had a craving and the husband tried to fill it.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/30/05 4:40 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
Well I didn't say she was nice! But to be fair, she doesn't actually take away the baby - the parents give Rapunzel away in exchange for lettuce. If the witch magicked the lettuce to make this not a free exchange, then okay, but I don't think this is stated. Rather it is simply the fact that the lettuce is "fresh and green". On the other hand, the father agrees to the bargain "in his fright".
Walling up in the tower. No, not good. But again, she has taken care of Rapunzel scrupulously up till the age of puberty. Even in the tower, there is no suggestion that she is not providing everything - except freedom and human company! - that Rapunzel needs. I read this very much as an act of weakness rather than wickedness on the witch's part. The glorious image of the witch grappling up the braid of hair is surely one of the witch's dependency. It is something many modern parents are figuratively guilty of, and with the best of intentions. "Finding Nemo" a more cosy take on the same theme. I think the witch loves Rapunzel, but her love is selfish and she fails to provide proper care. This is just one interpretation, but I do feel it is at least consistent.
The witch's nastiest act, I think, is when she banishes Rapunzel to the wilderness out of a "hard heart". Up to this, we're at least figuratively in the realm of the over-protective. Now it's just narcissistic personality disorder. But at the same time it's an act of letting go, and ultimately giving Rapunzel what she needs. On the other hand (and this is probably my weakness) I kind of feel sorry for her because she's a victim of her own personality - what has she got left now her little Rapunzel's left?
The witch doesn't blind the prince. The prince jumps from the tower in his grief and falls into thorns. This is to do with his own personality problems, not the witch's... although I don't imagine she gave him much sympathy!
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(7/30/05 10:39 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
In all the versions I read, the witch tells the husband that she'll kill him if he doesn't agree to the exchange, and also that she pushes/throws the prince off the tower, causing him to fall onto the thorns.
I agree that the witch is often portrayed as acting out of her own perverted idea of love; I don't think that's incompatible with being/acting evil.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 7/30/05 10:56 am
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(7/30/05 11:33 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
But would it be that much of a shock if she <i>did</i> magic the lettuce(or radishes,another name for which is rapunzel - at least I think it's radishes;it might be in the annointed notes)?I mean,really.
Besides,even if she didn't threaten him,his wife is starving.He'd do anything,say anything.Probably doesn't mean a word of it.Doesn't think she'll collect.And remembering here,she has a nasty rep already.The guy's knees are probably knocking.
Whatever,the witch has a hold over him and his wife,and she exploits that to get the child.In my book,that's still kidnapping,which is evil.The locking in the tower is warped,either love of hatred,whatever version or opinion you prefer.Throwing her out - and with a baby,of which she'll have no idea how to look after,how to give birth;it's a miracle she survived - is evil.To me,it seems strange that the prince would jump,especially when he's so in love with Rapunzel that he's been coming to see her for this length of time.I always imagined him as the kinda guy who wouldn't believe she was dead until he saw a body.So why would he try to kill himself?He wouldn't.Therefore,the witch had to push him.
Personally,I always liked the idea that he took her with him,and she dies - it gives a finality,so she can't come after Rapunzel in years to come.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/31/05 4:23 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
Veronica - fair enough, I don't know those versions. I'm going by the Grimms: www.surlalunefairytales.com/rapunzel/index.html
It also seems to me that this version makes more sense if you go along with the idea that the witch is the mother in a negative form. Throughout the story, the witch acts with constant specific intent, which would be broken if she had deliberately blinded the prince, so to that extent I feel it would be out of character.
Of course I don't at all want to suggest that walling girls up in towers is not an evil! Admittedly, I was talking a bit lazily, but I'm a little uncomfortable with words like evil, I think, especially in these times. I don't say the word doesn't have a use, but it carries connotations of something absolute or objective which can in itself be dangerous. Moral words have their limits too, and as such generate paradoxes when driven towards the absolute.
An understanding of the ethics of Rapunzel's witch might involve some reference to conceptual schemes, or similar. For instance, Anne Frank springs to mind as a converse example of a young girl locked in a tower by her parents, who had extremely good reasons for doing so. Presumably, the witch had reasons too, but (presumably) they were not good ones.
If the tower is read instead as a symbol for over-protectivity, then the witch's crime is not in essence different from mistakes made by many a well-meaning parent. Or going back to "Finding Nemo" - we're able to identify with Nemo's dad because he doesn't confine Nemo to the anemone and lets him go to school, but it's only a matter of degree. Like the witch, he has reasons for being over-protective, but his journey through the film is about finding out they're not good ones.
All I'm saying is that ethics is not quite the black and white issue you seem to be suggesting. Whether you take Rapunzel in a literal or symbolic sense, the walling in the tower can be understood at a variety of ethical levels. I think my real reason for liking Rapunzel's witch - as a character, not as a person! - is probably that she's complicated and interesting (unlike say the Hansel and Gretel witch) and ultimately she's a victim of her own madness.
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 7/31/05 4:26 am
|
redtriskell
Registered User
(8/1/05 12:38 am)
|
moral absolutes
DividedSelf- It seems to me that you're implying that evil cannot be defined. Is that your implication? It appears to be a common ailment in today's world to whip out a sophisticated argument to explain why something "evil" isn't really.ie- are lions evil because they eat zebras? Well, to the zebras they certainly are. I guess I get a little cranky when what is (to me) evil gets downplayed for the sake of current sensibilities...for example, do you suppose Rapunzel thought the witch was evil? Unfair? Cruel? Do you think she ever bothered to consider the witch's pesonality disorders- other than the 'she-is-totally-loony' kind of way? I don't really think so. Of course, we are talking about a story, but, to me, a good story is supposed to be used to examine the world we actually inhabit. To put it another way, Rapunzel's witch may not be as obviously malevolent as H&G's, but she is certainly evil. She manipulates a tense situation solely for her own ends; she deprives a growing girl of human contact; she creates a distorted world for said young girl; and then, when young girl rebels by falling in love, she casts her out- completely incapable of taking care of herself. In a way, one could argue that the witch in H&G is kinder... at least Hansel & Gretel wouldn't have wandered around crippled forever by someone who pretended to love them- they just would have been dead. I imagine Rapunzel would ultimately end up trying desperately to be "good" for people who claimed to love her, but didn't. And she'd probably also spend alot of time wondering what was so wrong with her instead of realizing that there was something wrong with them.
Upon re-reading this, I realize it sounds a little harsher than I intended. Perhaps I should note that I volunteer at a battered women's shelter. I'm trying to get the clinical therapist to start using fairy tales to illustrate some ideas for these Rapunzels, Cinderellas, Donkeyskins, and Snow Whites. These real women are, in my opinion, the parts of the stories that aren't spelled out too clearly. Many of them have spent their whole lives locked in towers (so to speak);
they are so afraid of life... So, please, try to understand that while I stick by my point, I do not intend to be offensive. I just have very strong feelings about evil. Thanks.
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/1/05 5:50 pm)
|
Re: moral absolutes
Redtriskell - Absolutely no offence taken, and absolutely none was meant either by the controversial assertion that Rapunzel's witch "doesn't do anything really wicked". (It was just supposed to be a light aside, really!)
Everyone knows what evil means, and yet it's the subject of such widespread disagreement. At first, I'd like to say that to cook and eat one's recently deceased mother-in-law is a bad thing to do, but apparently there are tribes (Inuit? someone here must know) where cannibalism of an extended family member is believed to help a soul on its journey. (Unless I dreamed that, but even so the point holds...)
So no, I don't think "evil" as an English word can be given a watertight definition. On the other hand, I do happen to believe that something closely related to it might be definable in a limited sense, in the way for example that ethical concepts find analogues in the law. There things in ethics that we just KNOW are the case because it is manifestly absurd to deny them, and that such things might be proven within certain defined limits. That genocide is evil, for instance, or the random killing of commuters, or the sort of long term physical and psychological violence you mention.
My personal bias on this is first, that evil is an adjective not a noun; and second, it applies to actions and not to people. I don't have a problem in saying "suicide bombing is evil". I'm not so sure about "suicide bombers are evil". Don't forget that some of them have been children.
To some extent, it's conflation of these two uses of the word "evil" that I think leads to a sort of moral absolutism ("it's evil, therefore THEY're evil") and in retaliation, and just as incorrectly, to moral relativism ("they're not evil, therefore IT isn't").
(I realise this sort of argument might not be of much use to those victims recovering from such crimes - or at least not at first. Nevertheless...)
Rapunzel's witch is not like the witch in H&G. The latter is an abstraction. The danger is when fairytale-like evil is placed in modern real world context stories, and what were once abstractions of evil are identified with "the psycho" or "our enemy" or whatever is to be conveniently scapegoated.
Sorry, I know this is all pretty disjointed as usual (it's late), but I hope some sort of point is getting through... The context of the Rapunzel story is not about hiding from Nazis, but that Rapunzel is being isolated from adulthood and/or sexuality and/or independence. So the witch's actions are clearly selfish, damaging and evil. But there's also a real sense of her as ultimate victim in this story - and the strong implication (for me anyway) of similar, unresolved Rapunzel-like issues in her own history - and this makes the distinction between the witch's evil doing and the witch as a character quite vivid and interesting. You could imagine the story told from her point of view almost as a classical tragedy. Although personally I'd like to think she contained the possibility of her own fairy tale ending. That's probably why she lives. H&G's witch is not really human - she has no possibility of redemption and so can be roasted alive in an oven. Rapunzel's witch is left with a choice, to suffer or grow.
Edited by: DividedSelf at: 8/1/05 5:54 pm
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(8/2/05 1:41 pm)
|
Evil husbands
Two thoughts
1)The pre Feminism Western world was patriarchal in structure: The Husband's job was to care for and nurture his wife. The Mother's job was to care for and nurture her children. I think that the male counterpart of the evil stepmother is not the evil stepfather, but the evil husband: Bluebeard.
2)In Cinderella (and Sno White) the stepmother steals more that Cinderella's inheritance, dignity and beauty: she is a direct competitor for the love of Cindy's father. In fact, her theft of the father is complete: dad dies. In Freudian terms girls have to compete with their mothers for their father's love. To compete with your own mother is taboo. The evil stepmother comes in handy.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(8/2/05 4:53 pm)
|
Re: Evil husbands
That is Freud's take, but Freud didn't really know what he was talking about when it came to mothers and daughters--he said so himself with all that "dark continent" blathering. Other psychoanalytic work on the relationship tends to disagree except in specific circumstances.
|
deathcookie
Registered User
(8/2/05 7:51 pm)
|
Re: This convo entirely
Actually, I have to agree with Dark Siren's perception of the witch in Rapunzel. I understand though, that a person could see her as absolutely evil if you took her actions personally instead of in the context of a fairy tale. If her actions make you think of an abusive parent or spouse, and you relate it to today's society, then I can totally see how you would find her disgustingly wicked. For instance, if the evening news reports-"Woman locks daughter in tower for 16 years, hurls her from tower in jealous rage", we are appalled, and find nothing sympathetic about the woman.
In the story of Rapunzel, though, because the setting is so far removed from reality, a person can see from other character's points of view, even a villain's, and see something sympathetic.
For Instance, how do you feel when you watch "Phantom of the Opera?" I've had many a discussion with friends, where a handful of them say "No, the phantom is evil for trapping Christine and I don't sympathise with him at all!" but a greater majority of them say, "I feel so sorry for the Phantom, Christine should have stayed with him in the end."
The phantom and the witch in Rapunzel had similar motivations; in a nutshell: loneliness.
|
Lamplighter
Registered User
(8/3/05 1:47 am)
|
Women eating brains together, and other bad parenting ideas
(Pre. S. The brain eating women of the Fore tribe: www.scienceforpeople.com/Essays/mad_cow.htm )
This is an interesting exchange. May I add Anne Sexton’s Rapunzel into the debate www.gwu.edu/~folktale/GERM232/rapunzel/sexton.htm ? The witch here takes the form of a possessive lover rather than the mother-figure discussed in this thread (although this situation may well have its psychological roots with the mother/daughter relationship www.nancyfriday.com ).
Is one of the themes in Rapunzel that not everyone is suited to parenthood, regardless of their social stature or financial situation? Zel’s biological parents are weak, poor and resort to theft to feed their desires, even at the cost of their child. The witch is powerful, able to produce presumably limitless wealth through magic, and takes advantage of an unfortunate situation for her own personal designs. At no point is Rapunzel cared for in her own right – even her Prince Charming leaves.
That we assume a happy ending for the couple may be wishful thinking. To assume that Zel will be a good mother to her twins may be too much of a fairy tale given her own experience of family…
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/3/05 6:46 am)
|
Re: Women eating brains together, and other bad parenting id
I think one of the purposes of the fairy tale is to show how a person in something like Rapunzel's situation can become a good, whole, fully individuated person (and parent).
Bettelheim reckons the prince and Rapunzel make suitable partners because they're at similar level of immaturity. (The prince spying on Rapunzel and visiting secretly.) This is why (according to his account) the prince leaps from the tower, and why both must undergo years of separate hardship and struggle before they find each other.
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(8/3/05 7:43 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
deathcookie - I <i>love</i> the Phantom!He's so tortured,and for me,tortured is like...it's irresistible.It's partly why I love Brad Pitt in "Interview With The Vampire."(The other part is purely because it's Brad Pitt.:D ;))
I suppose I can see the point.Although having to say,having been in a position where you have two guys fighting over you,it's best just to go with your heart.It's very hard if you happen to have feelings for the other guy,like
|
Dark Siren
Unregistered User
(8/3/05 7:57 am)
|
Re: This convo entirely
(Got cut off - start again.>: )
deathcookie - I <i>love</i> the Phantom!He's so tortured,and for me,tortured is like...it's irresistible.It's partly why I love Brad Pitt in "Interview With The Vampire."(The other part is purely because it's Brad Pitt.:D ;))
I suppose I can see your point...Although having to say,having been in a position where you have two guys fighting over you,it's best just to go with your heart.It's very hard if you happen to have feelings for the other guy,like I did,and like Christine did.Though she had feelings for Raoul long befor she ever met the Phantom.
Though I have to say,I always loved that bit with the rose at the end.It's kinda like he's always watching over her.But yeah,it would've been nicer if she'd chosen him.C'est la vie.
|
Lamplighter
Registered User
(8/4/05 3:51 am)
|
Actions of immaturity, or grooming of an innocent?
Divided Self – That idea is a good starting point for looking at the story.
As for the question of maturity, can we examine this further? If we propose that the Rapunzel is immature due to her isolated upbringing, then the root cause of this might be that the witch is not “educating” her in certain things. Perhaps this is to keep Zel in a state of idealised childhood? Or maybe just submissive, or subservient to the witch, with no deliberate emphasis on childhood, it is just a convenient place for a victim to be trapped?
We might find arguments for the prince’s immaturity in his actions, or maybe not… Is it not equally convenient for him that Zel is trapped in her predicament? All he has to do is avoid the witch, and he has a captive girl toy to play with. Are these the actions of immaturity, or the calculations of a far more adult game? Zel’s immaturity perhaps curbs her desire for escape; escape into what? She has no life experience to tell her that her position is potentially undesirable. The prince apparently wastes little time in taking advantage of her naivety, nor falls over himself to educate her about the outside world further than it suits his purposes. Again, to me this indicates a stronger motivation than plain immaturity.
This raises other questions about the “boy”. How prince-like are his actions, or indeed his circumstances? Where is his castle, his kingdom, his men-at-arms? In fact, who tells Zel he is a prince? His actions throughout the tale do not tally with a prince in my opinion, especially his apparent penury toward the conclusion. Again, I’d say that he fed his plaything a lie to impress her, or perhaps to calm her fears. Is this the behaviour of an inexperienced boy, or a key tactic in grooming an innocent?
I think Rapunzel is perhaps the most awful of fairy tales – everybody appears to suffer, and seemingly little is learnt throughout. It is as if the storyteller wants their audience to experience misery without redemption.
Perhaps somebody would care to counter-argue?
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(8/4/05 5:17 am)
|
Re: Actions of immaturity, or grooming of an innocent?
Never really thought of the prince as predatory in this sense - but it does work, especially from the witch's point of view. You lock someone in a tower - you're either stopping them from getting out, or stopping something else from getting in. I think in the witch's case it's both, and the something else is nothing more or less than the prince (and his kind).
Immaturity isn't a motivation though, is it? If the prince really is sneaking about and up to no good, what further evidence of immaturity do you need? One of the oldest lines of thought in ethics is that evil is a mistake - it's not something that is done by people with wisdom - it's incompatible with maturity.
The idea of the prince pretending to be a prince - just can't go along with that, sorry... The thought that after everything, Rapunzel ends up in a clautrophobic disaster of a relationship with some seedy little conman is not thinkable! (Although you might make a funny version out of it...)
In the Grimms' version, he doesn't explicitly lay claim to anything. We are told he's a prince, so you'd have to implicate the narrator in his crime. I think fairy tale royalty is part of a wish-fulfilment fantasy, but what's incredibly clever about it (and has something to do with why fairy tales are so powerful, I think) it uses the lure of escapism to pull you into something dark and complex and ultimately not escapist, in that it engages with some of the most torturing of real issues. So in Rapunzel, a prince (a desirable figure) happens to be either a geek (Rapunzel's view) or a sneak (the witch's). So for me, his being a prince represents a power which, because of his own immaturity, he's unable to draw on - until Rapunzel restores his sight.
So my guess is the reason you find the story depressing is that by making the prince not a prince you rob the protagonists of their inner power (in this version).
|
|
