But there is plenty of time... OR IS THERE?!
Monday, January 15, 2018
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Fairy Tale Spotlight: Anthropomorphization
I apologize for the 7-syllable, 20-letter word that I used for this spotlight's title. It may be a lengthy word, but it is a very common and even important practice, not only in fairy tales, but in actual reality. The word anthropomorphization refers to when human characteristics are ascribed to something that is definitively not human at all. It can be an animal, plant, inanimate object, or really anything as long as the object in question is not already human to begin with.
I first want to ask a question which I plan to answer right away. To what degree are you allowed to anthropomorphize something? The answer: The sky is the limit. You can do it by a little, a lot, or entirely. Whatever suites your fancy. Now, let's look at a few examples.
One of my most favorite works of fiction was "Bambi, a Life in the Woods" by Felix Salten. To only a small degree, he anthropomorphized a number of animals so that you could understand them better. Felix gave these animals a couple things that animals normally do not have. Namely, the ability to communicate in a human language as well as an emotional and social structure that was slightly more organized than animals usually possess in reality. This was done purely to help us relate and understand them.
In my opinion, Disney improved on Mister Salten's book with their film "Bambi" released in 1942 and the brilliant sequel "Bambi II" released 64 years later in 2006. Disney sustained the anthropomorphization level from the novel. However, he added more of his own. Although the cervidae (deer) characters still walk like normal cloven hooved animals, the smaller critter types, such as Thumper the rabbit and Flower the skunk, seemed to have more human style characteristics such as fingers and thumbs. Although they would often stand up to communicate, they would still be compelled to dropped down to all fours to travel.
The facial expressions of all the characters in the Disney movies were far more advanced than explained in Salten's books. Bambi showed true emotion that we could understand. He suffered through problems that we would empathize with far more than an actual deer would. The death of his own mother very likely affected the audience more than it would a real deer. It was all intended to tell a story to us, and it did so quite well.
If Disney were to tell the same story from the actual perspective of the deer without any anthropomorphization at all, it would be an incredibly boring experience. In fact, we would likely need a documentary narrator to give us the play-by-play just so it would all make sense, and even then, we would see our own lives as much more interesting than the survive-or-be-killed lives of deer. Disney's surprising addition of Thumper and Flower added more story to the movies than the book had. We enjoyed their little friendship just as much as the drama happening between Bambi and his parents. Anthropomorphization made all of this possible.
Now let's look at a higher degree of anthropomorphization and even another famous Disney film. I am speaking of the 1973 film "Robin Hood." The contrast with the "Bambi" example here is that, instead of making animals anthropomorphized, we are making human characters into animals. Sort of. In fact, we are taking animals, anthropomorphizing them, and then substituting human characters with our anthropomorphized animals. It totally worked, by the way. The movie is popular to this very day and has formed the groundwork for the study of anthropomorphization in modern animation.
The animals of "Robin Hood" are brought as close as they can to humans without giving up the genuine animal look. They still have fur, a snout, a tail, and ears, but they have the body and physique of a human being. Their personalities are way more like ours. Nothing is left of their animal brains. They are essentially humans that look like animals. And in many ways, the choice of animal often fits the character being introduced. Robin Hood is a clever fox. The sheriff is a big, fat wolf. Little John is a not-so-little bear. It all makes sense and helps us understand who they are and why they do things. I dare say this movie told the story better than any other version of "Robin Hood" ever made for this reason.
Without going on too much into it, there are also many examples of anthropomorphization happening to inanimate objects. Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" did this with all kinds of household furniture. They were merely given eyes and mouths in this case. It was closer to how it was done in "Bambi," I suppose. You might also look into many of the platformer video games made by developer Rare. They love taking just about any kind of inanimate object, plopping a set of eyes on top, and filling it with life. It is a mainstay in most of their games, I have noticed.
I'm not done yet. Let's talk about the anthropomorphization that we do every day. Look at our cars. For one, we made them look a whole lot like they have a face. And sometimes we talk to them. We talk to a lot of things that don't have a bloody idea what we are saying. I am even guilty of this. I talk to my cat Cupcake all the time. I pretend she knows what I am saying, but in truth, she is probably wondering when I am gonna shut up.
The anthropomorphization of something is an aspect of humanity that is built in. We do it to anything we want to understand better. It sometimes works, and in other cases, we are merely diluting ourselves with fantasy. In and of itself, there is no real harm in it. But sometimes I do not think people really understand what anthropomorphization is really for. In the children's show "Dexter's Laboratory," child scientist Dexter gave a dog the gift of speech so he could understand how a dog thinks and comprehends things. All he got for it was a dog who blathered on about the fact that he was a dog and how he thought everything might be food. Dexter's problem was that he half-assed the experiment.
What Dexter should have done was to give the dog an understanding of what it meant to be a human being. It would work a lot better. However, it might also shock the dog into an early grave. Human characteristics are one thing, but to understand the human condition enough to empathize with them can be fairly traumatic all at once. Dexter's method, although incomplete, may have been ultimately humane. The canine was left to live in ignorance and simply be... a dog.
But what if we did turn something inhuman entirely into a human for the sole purpose of understanding them? 100% anthropomorphization. This means we are taking everything inhuman out and putting everything human in. The creature or entity now understands humanity but he is still what he is on the inside. My final question to you is this: Was that a cruel thing to do?
Thank you for reading my blog? Did you love it? Did you hate it? Whatever the case, you can comment below, or you can email me at tkwadeauthor@gmail.com. See you next time!
I first want to ask a question which I plan to answer right away. To what degree are you allowed to anthropomorphize something? The answer: The sky is the limit. You can do it by a little, a lot, or entirely. Whatever suites your fancy. Now, let's look at a few examples.
One of my most favorite works of fiction was "Bambi, a Life in the Woods" by Felix Salten. To only a small degree, he anthropomorphized a number of animals so that you could understand them better. Felix gave these animals a couple things that animals normally do not have. Namely, the ability to communicate in a human language as well as an emotional and social structure that was slightly more organized than animals usually possess in reality. This was done purely to help us relate and understand them.
In my opinion, Disney improved on Mister Salten's book with their film "Bambi" released in 1942 and the brilliant sequel "Bambi II" released 64 years later in 2006. Disney sustained the anthropomorphization level from the novel. However, he added more of his own. Although the cervidae (deer) characters still walk like normal cloven hooved animals, the smaller critter types, such as Thumper the rabbit and Flower the skunk, seemed to have more human style characteristics such as fingers and thumbs. Although they would often stand up to communicate, they would still be compelled to dropped down to all fours to travel.
The facial expressions of all the characters in the Disney movies were far more advanced than explained in Salten's books. Bambi showed true emotion that we could understand. He suffered through problems that we would empathize with far more than an actual deer would. The death of his own mother very likely affected the audience more than it would a real deer. It was all intended to tell a story to us, and it did so quite well.
If Disney were to tell the same story from the actual perspective of the deer without any anthropomorphization at all, it would be an incredibly boring experience. In fact, we would likely need a documentary narrator to give us the play-by-play just so it would all make sense, and even then, we would see our own lives as much more interesting than the survive-or-be-killed lives of deer. Disney's surprising addition of Thumper and Flower added more story to the movies than the book had. We enjoyed their little friendship just as much as the drama happening between Bambi and his parents. Anthropomorphization made all of this possible.
Now let's look at a higher degree of anthropomorphization and even another famous Disney film. I am speaking of the 1973 film "Robin Hood." The contrast with the "Bambi" example here is that, instead of making animals anthropomorphized, we are making human characters into animals. Sort of. In fact, we are taking animals, anthropomorphizing them, and then substituting human characters with our anthropomorphized animals. It totally worked, by the way. The movie is popular to this very day and has formed the groundwork for the study of anthropomorphization in modern animation.
The animals of "Robin Hood" are brought as close as they can to humans without giving up the genuine animal look. They still have fur, a snout, a tail, and ears, but they have the body and physique of a human being. Their personalities are way more like ours. Nothing is left of their animal brains. They are essentially humans that look like animals. And in many ways, the choice of animal often fits the character being introduced. Robin Hood is a clever fox. The sheriff is a big, fat wolf. Little John is a not-so-little bear. It all makes sense and helps us understand who they are and why they do things. I dare say this movie told the story better than any other version of "Robin Hood" ever made for this reason.
Without going on too much into it, there are also many examples of anthropomorphization happening to inanimate objects. Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" did this with all kinds of household furniture. They were merely given eyes and mouths in this case. It was closer to how it was done in "Bambi," I suppose. You might also look into many of the platformer video games made by developer Rare. They love taking just about any kind of inanimate object, plopping a set of eyes on top, and filling it with life. It is a mainstay in most of their games, I have noticed.
I'm not done yet. Let's talk about the anthropomorphization that we do every day. Look at our cars. For one, we made them look a whole lot like they have a face. And sometimes we talk to them. We talk to a lot of things that don't have a bloody idea what we are saying. I am even guilty of this. I talk to my cat Cupcake all the time. I pretend she knows what I am saying, but in truth, she is probably wondering when I am gonna shut up.
The anthropomorphization of something is an aspect of humanity that is built in. We do it to anything we want to understand better. It sometimes works, and in other cases, we are merely diluting ourselves with fantasy. In and of itself, there is no real harm in it. But sometimes I do not think people really understand what anthropomorphization is really for. In the children's show "Dexter's Laboratory," child scientist Dexter gave a dog the gift of speech so he could understand how a dog thinks and comprehends things. All he got for it was a dog who blathered on about the fact that he was a dog and how he thought everything might be food. Dexter's problem was that he half-assed the experiment.
What Dexter should have done was to give the dog an understanding of what it meant to be a human being. It would work a lot better. However, it might also shock the dog into an early grave. Human characteristics are one thing, but to understand the human condition enough to empathize with them can be fairly traumatic all at once. Dexter's method, although incomplete, may have been ultimately humane. The canine was left to live in ignorance and simply be... a dog.
But what if we did turn something inhuman entirely into a human for the sole purpose of understanding them? 100% anthropomorphization. This means we are taking everything inhuman out and putting everything human in. The creature or entity now understands humanity but he is still what he is on the inside. My final question to you is this: Was that a cruel thing to do?
Thank you for reading my blog? Did you love it? Did you hate it? Whatever the case, you can comment below, or you can email me at tkwadeauthor@gmail.com. See you next time!
Monday, January 8, 2018
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
Fairy Tale Spotlight: The Ogre and the Ogress
Ogres have been shown in many different ways in popular fiction. I suppose the one that is fresh on everybody's mind was from the movie series "Shrek." That movie showed an ogre to be a fat slob who preferred living on his own. He had no problems being nasty and was only moved to heroism by the plot of the movie. I liked those movies, but I am here to give you a different perspective on this classic creature.
By and large, I believe that the term ogre does refer to a large and ugly creature, possibly with protruding teeth or fangs. Although, the latter is optional. The one aspect that you may not consider when you hear the term ogre is that they may actually have been civilized. They might have lived in houses with all the nice luxuries included. They may have also had their own class system separating the wealthy from the poor among them. All this, and they are still monsters of a sort.
Ogres have been presented in this manner in many of the old tales. The most famous of these is arguably "The Sleeping Beauty in the Wood" by Charles Perrault. Most versions of "Sleeping Beauty" end it shortly after she is revived by a kiss. However, the most profound versions include what happens after Sleeping Beauty is married. Her mother-in-law is an ogress. The prince's father fell in love with her and married her despite the fact that she was a monster.
So this brings up two very important items. Number 1: The ogress is considered of high enough class to marry into royalty. Remember that, in those olden days, a king did not just go out and date a monster. Monsters were often slain at the mere sight of them. Here a king seems to have no problem in marrying a monster, and the story does not suggest that anyone else considered it to be at all strange. It is entirely conceivable that she came from the upper class of her own society.
Item number 2: The king finds the ogress attractive. Perhaps she was. Who is to say that an ogress cannot have their own form of attractiveness, even to a human. I can imagine that, as big boned as these creatures seem to be, the ogress may have been profoundly busty. She may have even had a pretty smile to go with it.
Now that we have settled those two points, let us look further into the more familiar territory. Namely, the fact that she is still a monster.
When we hear the word monster, we think about an ugly creature who is willing to do horrible things. If the ogre is civilized, does that mean they are above being monstrous? Quick answer: No. Whether the ogre is presented as civilized or not, one thing seems to tie them all together. They love to devour little children. Human children are much preferred.
It's about to get worse. Pay attention.
When ogres are portrayed as civilized, they still like to eat human children. But you see... they prefer the children specially cooked and seasoned. They want them prepared by a classy chef and laid out on a large dining table with an apple in the mouth. A classy affair from beginning to end. Presentation is everything. I hope I am not turning your stomach too much, but the connotations of this are extreme for a reason.
In "The Sleeping Beauty of the Wood," the princess's ogress mother-in-law hated her. She asks her steward to prepare Sleeping Beauty's son and daughter for her meal as a matter of revenge. She even explains how she wants them prepared with great detail. The steward was bound by duty and under the threat of execution if he denied her this request. He takes out a knife and goes into the children's bedrooms. They were only 4 years old. However, his heart would not let him do it, and he fakes the meal by killing an animal in their stead.
Take a moment to think about what I have told you so far. I know it's hard. I do sometimes come across as odd the way I often link fairy tales with reality. Do I personally believe that ogres were once real? The answer is yes. And it is such a terrible thing that it ever happened. I personally believe that these ogres were a particular type of demon that started the trend of child sacrifice that has lasted up unto this day. At the time, the children were killed and eaten after being born. Today, we kill in the womb. Same reasons, I assure you. The ogres got it started, and we became the ogres. We took up a craft started by monsters and became the monsters ourselves.
We aren't eating them, but look at it from the perspective of the ogres. They were living it up in high class society. They treated little children like fine delicacies. They were only thinking about themselves. Today, we kill our babies for different reasons, but the selfishness is still there. A simple shunning of personal responsibility. To live life as if there were no problems at all. It was always about us. It was never about the children.
The ogres are monsters and, as far as I can tell, they are evil. Their legacy of child sacrifice have lasted to this very day. In a sense, they are still among us. They masqueraded as our comely humans and continue to perform their gruesome ritualistic murders. They feast as if life was simply one big party, and the lowly can die and never be known to them. We would be better without them.
Did you like my blog? Did you hate it? Either way, you can comment below or you can email me at tkwadeauthor@gmail.com. Happy New Year!
By and large, I believe that the term ogre does refer to a large and ugly creature, possibly with protruding teeth or fangs. Although, the latter is optional. The one aspect that you may not consider when you hear the term ogre is that they may actually have been civilized. They might have lived in houses with all the nice luxuries included. They may have also had their own class system separating the wealthy from the poor among them. All this, and they are still monsters of a sort.
Ogres have been presented in this manner in many of the old tales. The most famous of these is arguably "The Sleeping Beauty in the Wood" by Charles Perrault. Most versions of "Sleeping Beauty" end it shortly after she is revived by a kiss. However, the most profound versions include what happens after Sleeping Beauty is married. Her mother-in-law is an ogress. The prince's father fell in love with her and married her despite the fact that she was a monster.
So this brings up two very important items. Number 1: The ogress is considered of high enough class to marry into royalty. Remember that, in those olden days, a king did not just go out and date a monster. Monsters were often slain at the mere sight of them. Here a king seems to have no problem in marrying a monster, and the story does not suggest that anyone else considered it to be at all strange. It is entirely conceivable that she came from the upper class of her own society.
Item number 2: The king finds the ogress attractive. Perhaps she was. Who is to say that an ogress cannot have their own form of attractiveness, even to a human. I can imagine that, as big boned as these creatures seem to be, the ogress may have been profoundly busty. She may have even had a pretty smile to go with it.
Now that we have settled those two points, let us look further into the more familiar territory. Namely, the fact that she is still a monster.
When we hear the word monster, we think about an ugly creature who is willing to do horrible things. If the ogre is civilized, does that mean they are above being monstrous? Quick answer: No. Whether the ogre is presented as civilized or not, one thing seems to tie them all together. They love to devour little children. Human children are much preferred.
It's about to get worse. Pay attention.
When ogres are portrayed as civilized, they still like to eat human children. But you see... they prefer the children specially cooked and seasoned. They want them prepared by a classy chef and laid out on a large dining table with an apple in the mouth. A classy affair from beginning to end. Presentation is everything. I hope I am not turning your stomach too much, but the connotations of this are extreme for a reason.
In "The Sleeping Beauty of the Wood," the princess's ogress mother-in-law hated her. She asks her steward to prepare Sleeping Beauty's son and daughter for her meal as a matter of revenge. She even explains how she wants them prepared with great detail. The steward was bound by duty and under the threat of execution if he denied her this request. He takes out a knife and goes into the children's bedrooms. They were only 4 years old. However, his heart would not let him do it, and he fakes the meal by killing an animal in their stead.
Take a moment to think about what I have told you so far. I know it's hard. I do sometimes come across as odd the way I often link fairy tales with reality. Do I personally believe that ogres were once real? The answer is yes. And it is such a terrible thing that it ever happened. I personally believe that these ogres were a particular type of demon that started the trend of child sacrifice that has lasted up unto this day. At the time, the children were killed and eaten after being born. Today, we kill in the womb. Same reasons, I assure you. The ogres got it started, and we became the ogres. We took up a craft started by monsters and became the monsters ourselves.
We aren't eating them, but look at it from the perspective of the ogres. They were living it up in high class society. They treated little children like fine delicacies. They were only thinking about themselves. Today, we kill our babies for different reasons, but the selfishness is still there. A simple shunning of personal responsibility. To live life as if there were no problems at all. It was always about us. It was never about the children.
The ogres are monsters and, as far as I can tell, they are evil. Their legacy of child sacrifice have lasted to this very day. In a sense, they are still among us. They masqueraded as our comely humans and continue to perform their gruesome ritualistic murders. They feast as if life was simply one big party, and the lowly can die and never be known to them. We would be better without them.
Did you like my blog? Did you hate it? Either way, you can comment below or you can email me at tkwadeauthor@gmail.com. Happy New Year!
Monday, January 1, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)