Day One of Individual Presentations

Wonderful job to all who presented today. There were some really interesting papers and I think that we should post them on our sites. I'll do it if other people do. :O) I've decided that although I want to finish this tonight, my exam tomorrow is more pressing. However, I will do my best to continue updating it until all the information and my responses are up.

I think that Lindsey's presentation intrigued me the most because there was math involved and math is always mystifying. It reminded me of when I used to read those TeenBop magazines or whatever they were. In the back near the Horoscopes was always a "Numerology" page where you'd figure out using your birthday numbers what number you are. I was always a 9 I think. I've always wondered though, what about nicknames. I feel much more comfortable being called "Jennie", in fact, "Jennifer" is something I rarely even think to respond to. So does it make sense to factor my name using "Jennifer" when I feel like "Jennie" is more my self? "How am I not myself?" (Anyone seen I (Heart) Huckabees???? Great show....Existentialism rocks and so do Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman) I will NEVER finish this at this rate....

Tristan was the first to present to us and his paper explores the differences between two versions of "Iron Hans", one by the Grimm Bros and the other by a guy named Friedmund von Arnim. He concluded that the Brothers added the sex, contrary to their normal action of deleting sex. They also added the key, the golden hair and the ownership of the golden ball to the effect really changing the story entirely.

Sam made an interesting comparison between our good friends Hamlet and Holden. Sam thought that these characters understood that there was something wrong in human nature and each had to confront that. I think that if any of us truly thought about what evil goes on in the world, we might end up in a mental institution, too. It was bad enough to hear about Emily's serial killer example, there are hundreds of others.

Jamie's paper sounds really interesting. She examined the role of the imagination in "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Little Mermaid" (I think she used the books and movies of each) I hadn't thought of the fact that, at least in the movies, the girls end up wanting to be out of the imaginative world and back to "reality". And why does Ariel desire the human world? After all, "It's a mess...life under the sea is better than anything they got up there..." :O) I would never leave a world of talking fish and colorful coral, but, I suppose, it's all relative. If that was my reality, I might want to see something else.

Jillian decided to critique the feminist alterations of fairy tales. I agree with her that changing the stories often ends up "oppressing" or devaluing the male gender and that's not fair. Or is it? Should men get their turn to be silenced and written out of history? :O) Probably not. Just putting it out there.

Charlie: He wrote that the Bible is similar to the evolution of oral stories. I really would like to read this paper. I just wrote a paper in me Ancient Greek History class refuting the commonly held notion that Herodotus was the first historian in the Greek world. I said that it was actually the bards and Homer (and/or his transcribers) who were the first historians because oral stories are history. My professor liked it and I found it to be a really interesting topic overall. I'd like to do more with it, but yeah, this paper was interesting.

Heather talked about the violence in "Snow White: A Tale of Terror" actually being closer to the Grimm brothers version of the story. I thought that that was interesting because it seems like when Heather was describing some of the scenes that we were all pretty grossed out. However, in reading the story I wasn't grossed out at all. I think that there is something very powerful about the visual images of events described in stories. If I were to read about Cinderella's stepsisters and their decision to hack toes off or whatever, I wouldn't really cringe, but to see that on film...I doubt I could look at it. It kind of ties into something that Northrop Frye talks about in his "Educated Imagination". He says that being exposed to a human truth like evil through a story is easier on a child than actually witnessing evil in people first hand. I think that this applies to the differences between film and stories, too.

Tyler's paper was a great topic! Sibling roles in fairy tales. Interesting...I kept thinking of my self and my sisters as he described the characteristics associated with youngest, middle, and eldest children. I think that Tyler's overall conclusion was that the youngest is always superior in some way than the older siblings. Often more beautiful or handsome, more kind, more intelligent, more hard working. I think though, that it would be interesting to expand this topic and look at sibling studies. I think that the results might be quite different. Often, the oldest are the most dedicated and responsible, where as the younger are more carefree. I did a project on it a year ago. I'll see if I can find it....probably won't but I'll look.

Libby took an approach similar to Jillian's in refuting the feminist rewrites of classic fairy tales. She argues that Cinderella is a more realistic female role model than the Paper Bag Princess because women will never simply reject men...if they do, they might end up lonely and that's no good. Cinderella show girls that if you want a Prince, don't give in too easily but show him that you're good enough for him.

Kristen's paper is about gender roles in fairy tales. One of the things she talked about that I thought was really interesting was the Beautiful=good and Evil=ugly rule and the huge focus that fairy tales put on apperance in general. She said that in one Grimm story physical apperance was mentioned over a hundred times! That's incredible. I wonder if women back in the Grimm Bros days were self-concious about things like hair and body image. Probably not, but then, why the preoccupation with it?

Kelly had to preface her talk today with a little speech about her "devil's advocate" position. I think she was nervous about the wrath of a class full of people that have really embraced fairy tales. She argues that the violence in fairy tales is gratuitous and that it makes the fairy tales have very little value for kids. Now, on the surface I think most of us disagree because of all the wonderful things about fairy tales, but, in thinking more deeply, what is the point of all that violence? Does it add anything to the story besides a descriptive sentence? Is the point that the physical wound is a punishment and kids will abstaine from the negative behavior if they're afraid of having thier eyes pecked out? and if that's the case, is it ethical to make kids afraid?

Michelle O's presentation was really great. I love it when people combine disciplines to make a full argument. I, too, had to read The Moral Animal for BIOL104 and I think that Michelle's application of it to marriage anf amily in literature, especially, fairy tales is well done.

Hali's presentation was about "Calvin and Hobbes" being the modern signature on "Puss in Boots". She argues that both the comic strip and the cartoon have similarities in the characters' witty rearks and their shrewdness in helping themselves and their partners in crime.

Rebecca did a really great job breaking "Cinderella" down into the crucial and complex part that are in every version. The three major components she found were the presence of union and fraction, the faith of a character in a material object, and the transformation. I really thought that her discussion of union and fraction was interesting. She argues that Fraction in the story is the death of the mother. The new mother is an attempt at re-union but because she treats Cinderella horribly, it really desn't work. So, then, is Cinderella's quest for a husband (and the family that will come with it) a search for her own union of family? Also, as far as tranformation, Cinderella goes through a lot in the story. I think she goes from innocence to experience in what seems to be a four day period. Talk about a tumultous adolescence!

And finally for Day One's presentations, Clint discussed Horatio Alger's book "Ragged Dick" which contains the archtypal "good" boy. He argues that Ragged Dick is a forgettable character compared to Holden even though they are both considered literary icons. I've never read Ragged Dick so I'm not really sure where to go with this, but, I can definitely see how Ragged Dick would be a character you'd forget because there's so little chance that you will ever be like him. Holden has faults and questions like we all do so we remember and embrace him. Good argument. I concur.

So that's it for the first day. I think that most of these people have posted their papers on their sites..Check 'em out.