Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Criticism of the Fairy Tale
This is a dubious assignment at best...it is a trap--and a perfectly splendid one at that. Can a person write a fairy tale without becoming one within their story? Why did I chose X fairy tale? Can you read "The Lion King" or re-write this archetype without mysteriously becoming Simba? Mythic forms--when we approach them, call to us like the ocean--a deep resonation--a mimicry--a rebirth of purpose and design. This psychic recognition might teach us that life is a true myth. The otherworld is pulled from to such an extent that our feats and tragedies become reenactment. Is this a bad thing? The independent, haughty self thinks it is a real original Picasso, but when a child dreams of neverland for the first time--he or she does not have the notion or even the care to know that a thousand other children saw this dream first. It takes nothing from the experience of wonder--it is the same with a first love. Originality is often not our human privaledge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Luke, funny enough, as I post this it is Groundhog Day, which reminds me of the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray who plays a man who must escape repition by "getting it right," if just once.
Why are 1st edition books more valuable than later printings? What is the inherent value of "the original" or is it all just a construct?
I think the value of an original is directly proportionate to how many reproductions there are. The more the original has been copied - the more the original is worth.
I have often found Sexson's classes to be sad because I can only determine one thing: nothing is original or innovative, everything is just a recreation of something else, something past. This forgoes the ability to determine ultimate meaning. If everything means nothing, why do we think about everything?
Post a Comment