December 21, 2009

The Dark Side: Modern Sin in Fairy Tales

Note: Yet another terrific effort from a student who is a pleasure to have in class! Daniel C. is writing about sin -- both new and old. I had been meaning to do this myself for awhile, but Daniel has done the job well, so I'm off the hook!
We as a society have lost our way. A number of stories come out every day about the dark side in life. In finding parallels between reality and fairy tales like “Molly Whuppie,” Jack and the Beanstalk,” and “Puss in Boots,” the reader does not hesitate to perceive the protagonists as sinners. Their actions of thievery and deceit fall into the original seven deadly sins of greed and envy. In modern times, however, their accumulation of excessive wealth without any intent of distribution and contribution to the divide between the rich and poor is cause for concern in regards to the new “seven deadly sins,” as decreed by Pope Benedict XVI of the Roman Catholic Church in early 2008. To address conflicts that arise due to the globalization of economies and international travel, the new seven deadly sins outline current behaviors that can be viewed by different parties as (1) mortal sins and (2) dubious actions. For example, the new sins of abusing drugs, polluting the environment, contributing to the widening divide between rich and poor and creating poverty are all issues that affect citizens and economies of all countries. Most recently, we have seen the G20 protests in London as an example of people fighting back against the unequal distribution of wealth and political power in the world.
Molly, Jack and Puss in Boots had the luxury to live in a time period that transcends the new sins; however, it does not mean that they are to be left out of the equation. That is to say, as members of a global community, we must live vicariously through past experiences to make sure we do not commit the same mistakes. In looking at Molly, Jack and Puss in Boots as subjects, we can critique their wrong doings and learn from their mistakes. Molly, Jack and Puss in Boots are thieves who steal riches, royalty, and kingdoms that not only sustain their wealth, but allow it to continuously grow. Thus, their actions contribute to accumulating excessive wealth, creating poverty and widening the divide between the rich and poor.
Molly Whuppie stole her way into a life of wealth and luxury. After robbing the giant’s sword, gold purse and ring, she was allowed to marry the king’s son, and as a result, solidified not only her future life, but her sisters’ as well. In this sense, she has created poverty by stealing the giant’s valuables and widened the divide between rich and poor.
Jack has a similar story. By climbing the beanstalk, Jack discovered and stole a source of wealth that not only sustained his and his mother’s life, but continuously adds to the family’s riches. The goose that lays the golden egg is a very profitable source of income. By killing the Giant and chopping down the beanstalk, Jack and his mother are let off the hook because their crime has no witness. Thus, their actions lead to the widening of the divide between rich and poor. In addition, the death of the Giant left his wife in a state of poverty.
Puss in Boots commits modern sin in a roundabout way. That is to say that by stealing wealth for his master, he provides for his own well being. By killing the Ogre and taking over his kingdom, the “Marques de Carabas” has maintained the social order that puts him above the workers in the field, as seen with the farmers, and accumulated excessive wealth in a matter of moments. By marrying the king’s daughter, he solidifies his status in society and widens the divide between the rich and poor.
In conclusion, we are able to see that these three characters have not only committed sin from the original list of deadly sins, but in correlation with today, they have violated the new list of deadly sins. The murder of the Ogre in “Puss in Boots,” the murder of the Giant in “Jack and the Beanstalk,” left the spouse in a state of penury and advanced the economical status of the protagonist. In “Molly Whuppie,” she steals the Giant’s valuables and leaves him in a state of penury. From these stories, we should empathize with the victims in the story to learn how to not further disenfranchise any one group or person in the world.
The New Seven Deadly Sins
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

2 comments:

Sam said...

An excellent essay! I would add a slight caveat, however. If the giants and ogre are victims, then the essay would be exactly right. And, in the age of Harry Potter and Shrek, giants and ogres are currently seen as misunderstood creatures. However, in the original context, they are, in fact, monsters, inimical to humanity. The giant in Molly Whuppie is at best a murderer, while the other giant and the ogre are specifically cannibals. In a way, they are themselves representative of the sins that should be rejected, not victims.

Puss in Boots, for example, doesn't dethrone the King, although he does con him until he can vanquish some monster for the Marquis. Additionally, it's the King in Molly that sends her after these things, so he rather than Molly should be seen as the one trying to concentrate more wealth to his own person.

In that light, if the monsters are not just different people but are in fact monsters, then the heros of the story aren't actually sinning. They're more like the protesters at the G20 conference, going after the big sinners to help the little guy.

Blackbird's Daughter said...

A well thought and well-written essay!

re: Sam's comment, "In that light, if the monsters are not just different people but are in fact monsters, then the heros of the story aren't actually sinning. They're more like the protesters at the G20 conference, going after the big sinners to help the little guy."
...but would people who protest Coke and Monsanto (as another modern example) want to then take over the same company? In the case of the fairy tale "heros" we're left with the impression that while they may make some changes by virtue of their human nature, they're pretty much taking over and running business-as-usual, not actively seeking to change any paradigms.

This makes me think of the Hero's Quest vs. the Heroine's Journey models... in the masculine story-cycle, confronting villains or monsters often means "kill first; ask questions later"; in the feminine version, the heroine is frequently forced to integrate with or build relationship with the villain before defeating the situation. In this essay (and much of literature), all of the examples cited (despite the main characters' genders) follow the Hero's path; in this paradigm there's no room to look for the humanity or goodness within the enemy, so of course there are no qualms about stealing resources.

Great points, and thought provoking!