Names in Stardust

From the first few chapters of Stardust, It's clear to see that the names of many of the characters are significant and intentional. Take the sons of Stormhold, for instance. They are named according to their birth order (Primus being the first, Septimus being the second, and so on). Some names in the novel, however, are not as obvious in meaning. Here are a few that are worth exploring:

Victoria Forester: Victoria's first name comes from the same root as "victory." Her first name is fitting for a few reasons. For one, it is the name of the Queen of England at the time the story takes place. This corresponds to Tristan's idea of her as near-royalty in the village of Wall, as he often exclaims that she is the prettiest girl to be seen. Also, her name is associated with victory, and many men try to win her heart. This is especially true of Tristan, who yearns for the victory of having her hand, and goes to great lengths to try to win it. Her last name can be seen as symbolic too; she is like a forest in that men get lost in her beauty.

Yvaine: This one is rather obvious, but still worth mentioning for those who are unaware. "Yvaine" means "evening star" or "first star of the night."

Tristan: This name means "tumult," or "outcry." This is an interesting choice for the character. In some ways, Tristan can be seen as the embodiment of his father's outcry for adventure and his "heart's desire." Tristan is the product of this. "Tumult" is fitting because it is suggested that his soul would be restless as long as he remained on the primary side of the Wall.

Those are just a few of the names in Stardust that bear looking at closely.

We Need More Bromance in Fantasy

According to Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet,” homophobia is essential for our current patriarchal structure. This has more do with human relationships than who you date. She argues that this fear puts tight reins on homosocial, or non-sexual relationships. Where women may have the permission of society to show affection for each other in public (e.g. they’re invited to lady society tea parties, go to baby showers), men are generally not given these choices. Men’s events seem to run on a continuum, from gay to let’s watch the Super Bowl while slamming beers and chest-bumping. The evidence may be anecdotal, but ask your typical guy what high school was like and if his friends thought the best activities for guys included poetry, drama club and ballet.

That would be a no.

These biases play out in fantasy  movies. Homosocial  relationships between women seem to be sympathetic, while relationships between men are built upon hierarchical power structures. Consider the relationship Tristan has with males in Stardust, they are typically father figures or competition..  Harry Potter might be the closest fantasy writers have gotten to creating more egalitarian male power relationships. However, might this be seen as the inscription of female homosocial relationships for boys?

"A warmth was spreading through him that had nothing to do with the sunlight; a tight obstruction in his chest seemed to be dissolving. He knew that Ron and Hermione were more shocked than they were letting on, but the mere fact that they were still there on either side of him, speaking bracing words of comfort, not shrinking from him as though he were contaminated or dangerous, was worth more than he could ever tell them." –J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Not a person, a desire for others

I was surprisingly disappointed by this book, though written in a time closer to ours it still has much of the same sexist beliefs as some of the others we have read in class. I know that with fantasy we should expect the women to be portrayed as only side characters and sexual beings but I had high hopes for a book written only a little more than 15 years ago.

I also was bothered by Lady Una’s role altogether in the book, she is treated like nothing but an object until and even so in the very end. She is to be traded to a woman Tristan prefers and used as a backup plan when that woman “gives her heart” to another. She wasn’t “the one” she was just good enough and that’s why I think Tristan ended up with her. I mean ended up as well, and the fact that Lady Una, though being of royal birth just went along with it was ridiculous in my opinion. She could have anyone she wanted at that time but chose to be with a man who aged and died while she did not. This book was entertaining but disappointing considering the time in which it was written. Though again this may just be my jaded opinion because of my difficulty in actually getting into the story in the first place. I may read it again in the future but with the lack of a strong female character I probably won’t. The star was nothing more than an object to give others what they desire not an actual person and that tares me up.

Stardust: A Few Pro's and Con's

     Stardust was a good book in general, but I feel like there are some positive and negative things that can be pointed out about it seldom to how we did in class. I enjoyed how it reminded me of old fairy tales like that of Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty. The witches felt very old world especially since they were trying to find the star to eat her heart for her youth. The heart part really reminded me of Snow White and how the Evil Queen ordered the huntsman to kill Snow White.   

     On the other hand, the main character, while not being a stereotypical woman, was whiny and not a person I would ever wish to be. She complained a lot and felt slightly obnoxious to me, but she was at least better than the stereotypical witches who were some of the only other women in the book. Tristran’s mother is better than the witches but the way we are introduced to her is less than ideal in my opinion. The only impression the reader gets about her is that she was very sexual and later that she was royalty.

     While there were a few things about the book I found less than ideal all in all I enjoyed the book a lot.

After all this, what is fantasy?

          As this semester comes to a close and we have begun the process of ending our discussion of British fantasy literature, I find the difficulty of exactly pinning down a definition for fantasy most intriguing. Common sense says that in order to have a class on a particular subject you must be able to define what that subject is, however this sort of logic does not seem to apply to our situation. Granted we can give a foggy list of guidelines, but what we can not do is give a distinct set of perimeters. However, this lack of certainty has enabled me to from my own opinion on the matter and it is here that I will share it.
          I believe that the single most important thing for a fantasy story to posses, that is the one factor that fantasy cannot exist without is that the story must take place in the past. this may not seem like a significant factor to some, but if a fairy tale or fantasy takes pace in any other location in time it is no longer fantasy. If The Hobbit, Phantastes, or Wood Beyond The World took place in the future they would have become science fiction and if they had taken place in the present they would be nothing more than stores of adventure. Fantasies can occur in many places and encompass many things but they must stay in the past to remain what they are. Besides this, the only other ingredient needed for fantasy in my opinion is magic or the supernatural. Once again, if The Hobbit, Phantastes, or Wood Beyond The World excluded magic they would be merely adventure stories and would lack anything that made them enter into the realm of the fantastic.
           That is what I think at least. Does anyone disagree or have more insight into the matter?

A Road to Nowhere or Everywhere?

    "Faerie, after all, is not one land, one principality or dominion.  Maps of Faerie are unreliable, and may not be depended upon.  We talk of the kings and queens of Faerie as we would speak of the kings and queens of England.  But Faerie is bigger than England, as it is bigger than the world (for, since the dawn of time, each land that has been forced off the map by explorers and the brave going out and proving it wasn't there has taken refuge in Faerie; so it is now, by the time that we come to write of it, a most huge place indeed, containing every manner of landscape and terrain).  Here, truly, there be Dragons.  Also gryphons, wyverns, hippogriffs, basilisks, and hydras.  There are all manner of more familiar animals as well, cats affectionate and aloof, dogs noble and cowardly, wolves and foxes, eagles and bears." pg 84, Stardust.

   This description of Faerie was what struck me most as we read Stardust by Neil Gaiman.  It fascinates me, this idea that it is ever changing, that what we lose here can suddenly spring into existence in this magical realm.  I would like to believe (though, alas, I know it to be false) that when we explore new lands and find unseen before countrysides, that somehow the magic of the unknown still exists somewhere else, promising a future adventure even if our maps tell us we have seen all there is to see. 
   The continuation to describe how there are both similar creatures to our everyday life but also the fantastical beasts of lore within the realm of Faerie, makes it all the more magical.  It excites that longing we have not just to find a new place or a lost place (how many novels are dedicated to rediscovering some lost society or a new land previously hidden away?) but it also encourages us to believe in what the world has proven impossible.  If dragons, gryphons, etc, exist, why not the rest of Faerie with its magic and unending adventure.
  I think that the purpose of telling us the maps of Faerie are unreliable is meant to invite us not just into Faerie with Tristran but also into believing, however momentarily, that there is still a place where fairy tales and myth can come true, where we may be a victim of an evil witch or be granted wishes by a genie.  It begs us to leave behind our skepticism for a time and relive our youth, when everything was possible, and all the world was new.

An "Adult" Novel

(Forgive me! Apparently, I typed this out on a Word document and forgot to paste it on the blog!)

I'm conflicted about the way I like this book. I like it... and I don't. There is something more appealing to me about the writing style of this one compared to those of The Hobbit or The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe. I think it is because Neil Gaiman displays a sort of wit and intelligence in his writing, even though he is still simple with words and straightforward with concepts. This might have to do with the intended audience? I know Dr. Smith asked us if a ten year old would read this if we got rid of the sex scenes… But I wonder if this novel was not intended for children at all. One of the reviews on the first page of my book claims that Stardust is “an adult fairy tale.” Why put that kind of label on it? Of course, the reviewer could be thinking of the sex. After all, sex scenes, no matter explicit or vague, automatically sort novels/movies/shows/poetry into adult (or at least teen) categories. This, his wit, and his choice of multiple story lines might complicate the novel enough to label it "adult."

Tristran's Love and the Narrator's Sarcasm

Near the beginning of the story, after Tristran has been born but while characters are still being introduced, we see some of the nature of Tristran’s true love, Victoria.  The narrator explains that she “was used to having her own way, and, if all else failed, or even if it did not, she would appeal to her father, and he would accede to her demands.”  We see right off the bat that Victoria is spoiled, and, generally, spoiled is not a very nice characteristic in a person.  It seems as if Tristran is fooled by her pretty looks and merely thinks he loves her.  (In the movie, I think this is portrayed very well.) 

What I notice is, every time Tristran’s love for Victoria is mentioned, the narrator has a subtle sarcastic tone that I find humorous.  Or, as often as he speaks of her, he sounds foolish and lovesick and wistful.  It seems to me that the narrator finds this funny as well. 

Compare this tone with the tone taken when Tristran and Y’vaine realize their love and get married.  It is all rather matter-of-fact.  There is no foolishness or wistfulness in Tristran’s words; he realizes his feelings, accepts them, and acts upon them.  Y’vaine, in the same way, acts on her feelings, but is willing to put her heart to the side.  Neither does Y’vaine ask Tristran to do something stupid to earn her love.  Later, after a few years of marriage and travel, they are able to laugh and be “tart,” as the narrator says Y’vaine is (but not rudely so).

It seems that the narrator has opinions on Tristran’s relationships.  While he is being a fool running to unknown territory to pick up a piece of rock that probably would have been burnt up to earn the affection of a spoiled girl, the narrator is sarcastic.  Much of what Tristran does is funny.  But when Tristran gets his priorities right, and marries Y’vaine, the narrator takes him seriously and treats him so.     

Neil Gaiman Has a Blog Like This One

It just so happens that Neil Gaiman has his own Blogspot! It is the second tab opened on my computer, right next to this one, and it makes me feel special that the same logo that his tab bears is the same logo under which we have been posting all this semester.

That being said, I think there is something different about reading Stardust than any of the other texts we've enjoyed thus far in the class. And that is due to the fact that the author lives and writes as we live and write. He blogs on the same Internet, and records similar thoughts about his relationship with Lewis and Tolkien over the years, as we have done here.

There are a great many things that connect us to Gaiman; much more than any other author we've studied. One of these ways is that we can follow his thought-processes through his work - most predominantly pertaining to what/who inspired him. It is known that Gaiman purposely tried to resist the form of fantasy writing that Lewis and Tolkien embraced, yet his own words on his journal read:

"C.S. Lewis was the first person to make me want to be a writer."

and

"I came to the conclusion that Lord of the Rings was, most probably, the best book that ever could be written, which put me in something of a quandary. I wanted to be a writer when I grew up. (That’s not true: I wanted to be a writer then.) And I wanted to write The Lord of the Rings. The problem was that it had already been written."

(http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/01/speech-i-once-gave-on-lewis-tolkien-and.html) 

Reading through the thoughts recorded on his blog, it's easy to make a connection between his journey through fantasy lit growing up, and our own. The act of being introduced to these great texts, the voracity with which one reads them for the first time, and the acquisition of every volume until the set is complete are all relatable circumstances for this group.

When it came time for him to start writing, Gaiman had to confront his love for these authors. He had to decide what it looked like to still love these classic texts that had changed his life while forging his own path and voice at the same time. 

Also, he had to deal with re-reading them again at different intervals in life, what he realized about them as he got older, and how that effected his view on these stories and their authors.

These are the same struggle we go through as well. How do we develop our own characters and distinctive voice among the forest of great fantasy writers from whom we learned it all? How do we deal with the ideas and ideals that can be found in the texts we did not read into as children?

That is something this generation does very well: explore and cultivate curiosity. It reminds me of Tristan in Stardust. We come from a literary pedigree that seems, to much of society, like it comes from the other side of The Wall. One day, we will be able to satisfy our longing and curiosity to step over the boundary to fully explore our potential in the new land, and see what adventures we find there. 

Stardust,The Scarlet Letter, and pointless objects

Even though my classmates have spoken about what a good book Stardust is and all the subtle meanings behind it, (as with any book) I find myself having trouble getting into the book, as in I still haven’t read past the first chapter. It is eerily similar to a classic novel, though not fantasy, opening from The Scarlet Letter. For those of you who haven’t read the book the whole first chapter is about one thousand words describing a door, how red it is, the vines coming off of it and things of the like. Keep in mind I haven’t picked up the book in seven years and I still remember the grueling detail in which this door was described. I see this similarity with describing the grey wall with the opening to the other side. Some may not think this is bad but when I first started to read The Scarlet Letter it was not of my own choice and I was 13. So basically tortured through that chapter and gave up. My question is why do some writers go through that much detail on some inanimate object that probably won’t make it past chapter three?

What is the point of making a reader envision something with such detail only to forget about it later? As an avid reader I am frustrated with an author’s willingness to drag out a story like that. Why can’t the door be old and red? Why can’t the wall just be grey and have a hole in it? I would just like to understand how relevant the life story of a wall is or anything similar.

This is not to say that the scarlet letter is a bad book, nor do I mean that about Stardust, but why push such significance on something that doesn't matter?

Significance of the Wall

Why do people build walls? I pondered this question this week. There are so many famous walls in history: Hadrian's wall, the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, the Wailing Wall, and the Veteran's Wall. With the exception of the last two, the other walls fit the stereotype. Typically, walls do three things: separate people, provide (an illusion) of protection, and distinct what is home from the foreign. As the exception to the rule, the Wailing Wall was transformed into an area to connect with God and the Vietnam Veteran's Wall has connected the nation with the brave soldiers who preserve our freedom. In the town of Wall, there are no walls that are meant to commemorate or connect people. The typical wall motif is pervasive in the novel.

The physical rock wall separates Una from Dunstan and later, Tristan from Yvaine. There are also the walls of society that pervade the book. These walls separate Tristan from the rest of the town and especially from Victoria. No matter how hard Tristan climbs, he never reaches the other side of the wall where Victoria and Humphrey are. Even Yvaine is separated from the other stars, as she shines the brightest. There are even the political walls that Septimus and Ditchwater Sal try to climb, but only end up falling to their peril.

The old guardian of the wall provides this illusion of protection. Dunstan fights him on the necessity of having a wall. If a wall just separates a field, then is it really necessary? If a person believes that a wall is protecting them, then is its function to provide the comfort of protection? Yet, this wall impedes the magical world from crossing over, as Yvaine finds out. The gaurdian complains later he had been mostly concerned with the humans going to the other side of the wall, but he should have really been worrying about the witches and what-not that was seeking to come over. However, if that hole in the wall had been properly protected, then Tristan would not have existed.

This wall theme also makes the distinction of what is home and what is foreign. Tristan is at home in the other world and is foreign to the town of Wall. Many of the events that occur in this book are on the edge of being safe/conservative (home) and being dangerous/careless (foreign) . For example, the sexual scenes in the novel are on the edge of most people's standards. There is also the landing scene where Yvaine falls, breaking her leg and screams "FUCK!" If this were truly a Victorian setting, both occurrences would not be on the edge, but far beyond redemption.

Narration and Plot in Stardust

          As I continue to read through Neil Gaiman's Stardust I have become aware of the unique narration style of the novel. Of course, the narrator in Stardust is not quite as intrusive or varying as say the one in The Hobbit, but it is interesting nonetheless. What I find most intriguing is that there are a minimum of three distinct story lines simultaneously unfolding throughout most of the novel and at times even four. While the majority of novels start from a central point and branch out from that point or follow a singular character as he or she journeys, slowly accumulating companions and enemies such as Golden Walter in Wood Beyond the Wood, Neil Gaiman's Stardust has a much different pattern. Instead of the usual method of story telling Gaiman chooses to jump from one group of characters - whether it be the princes, the witch queen, or Tristan and the Star - to the other and often tells only small portions of each subplot at a time. Perhaps it is my preference of more complicated plots that lead me to feel this way, but I quite enjoy the mild mystery that Gaiman creates by revealing the story piece by piece. I wonder if this more complicated style of writing has anything to do with Stardust being an "adult novel."

Fairy Stories: Antithesis of The Opening Line

Something interesting has crossed my mind while reading Stardust this past week. My thought concerns the opening lines of many of the fantasy books I have read so far. While reflecting on these stories it come to my attention that a lot of these books tend to be the antithesis to their opening lines. What do I mean by that? well take a look through three of the books that I've read so far.

The first is of course the Hobbit.

"In the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a dirty, wet hole, filled with the end of worms and an oozy smell."

Looking at this we can see that the rest of the story is the exact opposite of this statement. We see Bilbo leaving his beloved home and getting into all sorts of dirty messy trouble; basically the antithesis of the starting line of the book. He is not in his home and his adventures are far from clean and civilized.

Secondly, look at the first line of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
"Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

The events that follow in literally every book in the series is completely and utterly the exact opposite of this statement. Harry is anything but "normal". In fact, he seems to defy normality with his very existence.

Lasty let's look at stardust.

"There once was a young man who wished to gain his heart's desire."

Now while this one is a little tricky, I still believe that in some ways this can be seen as an antithesis to the rest of the book. How so, you may ask? I think the fact that Thorn's desire ends up being very different to what he perceives it as, or at least it ends up very different in the end, shows us that the person he is stated to be in the opening line is very different than who he ends up being. That my line of thinking, maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

I guess this whole thing has really got me thinking that perhaps these authors are starting these books out with an intended basic thesis. Then possibly the rest of their writing is to defy that in some way or another. I of course do not see this as an intentional happening, but rather something that is in some way subconscious.

Sexuality in Stardust

    In class we talked a bit about how violence is more widely accepted than sex in movies and books. I had never really thought about this until recently. I think why sex is less accepted in movies is that when you show nudity it's actually a naked woman or person who is being exposed. With violence the weapons, wounds, and blood are fake no matter how real they look. Seeing sex stays in your mind that's why people can get addicted to pornography. Violence isn't something that you can get addicted to seeing. 

     Descriptions of sex aren’t necessarily needed in movies or books. There are ways of describing events without being explicit. In the Stardust movie, the first sex scene isn’t even shown but the audience is well aware of what happened. Violence is sometimes needed in a story to show plot progression or importance of the situations. For example, the Battle of Five Armies in the Hobbit isn’t necessarily needed but it shows how important the quest for the treasure was important to a great of the inhabitants of Middle Earth.

      I guess opinions very per person on this subject but I find explicit sex in books and movies very unnecessary.

The Bathroom Break that Made Me Rethink Fantasy

One day nearly a decade ago on an Autumn afternoon in Princeton’s Briar Hall, Albert Raboteau, the Henry W. Putnam Professor of Religion taught a seminar titled “Holy Ordinary: Religious Dimensions in Contemporary Fiction.” Students, as you might have imagined, learned to identify the hidden person of Christ in several different texts such as Walker Percy’s “Love in the Ruins” and Georges Bernanos’ “The Diary of a Country Priest.”

But what struck me most was the following passage in the news story:

“Explaining that the appearance of the divine ‘often is described as a spectacular and miraculous in break into this world from another,’ Raboteau is offering another perspective by using contemporary texts that present the holy in everyday life.

‘I’ve been struck in reading contemporary fiction at how the emergence of the holy is described as occurring within the ordinary events of daily life,’ he said. ‘So it occurred to me that a course in which students could read and discuss some of this literature would be an interesting window on the contemporary vision of experiencing the sacred.’”

This brings me to the following passage in Stardust:

“The carriage clattered and shook.

Once, it stopped, for each of the three lords to relieve himself. Then it clattered down the hilly road(88).”

What purpose could such an excerpt serve? Might I suggest the interjection of the sacred, or the wholly potent other.

Most recently during the British Fantasy Literature course, our discussion turned from the Stardust story at large in order to tackle the question of Gaiman’s use of human carnality in the text. Sex, it was suggested, was a powerful human drive. The reality of hunger made an early appearance in the text as did violence and human-made power structures.

Why include such banal aspects of experience in these narratives? They are the sacred, the queer, in these texts.

If you were to reduce Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet” into some basic concepts, you might argue queerness as the potentially destructive would be one of them. In the secondary world of such as Gaiman’s Fairie where trees try to kill you, the oddest thing you could experience is a tree considered typical in the primary world.

 Imagine, for a moment, Hogwarts School from the Harry Potter narratives. Could there be anything more frightening than reading of a police squad knocking on its doors, demanding to speak to the people in charge? In our (primary) world such a seen might be unwanted but not outside the realm of possibility, however in the strange (secondary) world beyond the woods they are queer. And the wherever the other is located, worship, fear, reverence and danger are always tempted.

Endings

            As I said in my last post, I am very interested in Stardust’s epilogue, “In Which Several Endings May Be Discerned.” With every fantasy text we have read, we have, at some point or another, discussed endings and closure. Personally, I like Stardust’s ending the most. Gaiman gives us closure in some areas, but not in the ways we might expect, and, like most of our other authors, he gives us the illusion of closure in other areas. The ending is bittersweet, “happy” without “happily ever after.” The monarchy is restored, but in a very roundabout way. Tristran, though fully able to take his “rightful place” at once, delays his ascendance for several years of adventure with Yvaine. When they do arrive at Stormhold for good, they “were happy together. Not forever-after, for Time, the thief, eventually takes all things into his dusty storehouse, but they were happy, as these things go, for a long while” (Gaiman 247). This is the most realistic, un-faerie, ending we have encountered. The narrator resists “ever after” and, therefore, frustrates our faerie-story expectations. (This is kind of off-topic, but it's interesting how the narrator uses the word "thief" to describe time, as if it was unnatural or evil. There's probably an essay in there somewhere...) But remember that we have “several endings” to our story. While the book could have ended at “a long while,” it goes on to describe Tristran’s death (his ending) and Yvaine’s rule over Stormhold. Again, just like in our other texts, the narrative continues beyond the last word on the page. However, since the last few paragraphs say Yvaine never aged and she remained Lady of Stormhold, they do indeed set up an “ever after” ending. Clearly, Yvaine and her kingdom aren’t part of those “several endings.” In fact, the narrator says, “She walks with a limp to this day...” (italics mine). Instead of tying up the ends with “happily ever after,” the narrator leaves us with myth, a great big gap ready for us to fill using our own “[discernment].”

Names

Names are interesting things in Stardust.  I noticed two primary things about them.  First, the names of people in the village are quite ordinary.  We see names that are still commonplace, such as Victoria, Thomas, Louisa, and others.  However, on the other side of the wall, names are very different.  The seven princes might have just as well been named One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven.  Their sister's name was Una.  Una is not a traditional name.  It even alarms the spell check as I type this page.  For this reason, as soon as the story begins, we know there is something peculiar about Dunstan.  His name is different.  Even though he is not the star of the show, he is the beginning.  And when his son appears, we know right away just where the child came from - we would have suspected even if the back story had not been told. 
Second, great detail is given to names, and yet not, too.  The little hairy man remained nameless, even after he became Tristran's traveling companion.  He had somewhat of a significant role in the story.  Yet, seemingly insignificant people, such as Tilly the pot-girl and Lacey the ostler, are given names and their names are made clear to the reader.
Often in fantasy, names are given power.  For example, in Harry Potter, mentioning the name of Voldemort would cause others to jump in fear, and later would draw him right to you.  While Stardust does not follow directly in this fashion, I think it may be a similar idea.  While I am not entirely sure what they may signify in this book, names are significant.       

Desiring the Dangerous

"It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live" - Albus Dumbledore

I made the above statement my Facebook status not too long ago. Much of what Dumbledore says is "pin-worthy" or "tweetable." However, this very quote seems to have quite an effect on me. When I first read it,  the quote seemed to be self-critical of the fantasy genre. After all, is that not the criticism of this genre? Only dreaming children, 40 year old college dropouts, and absentminded professors like this kind of stuff? It is almost as if good old Albus is projecting his fatherly patronus to what society calls "losers" and asking them to mature. If you put this quote in a modern tone it would be, "stop playing your video games and get a job!"

But it is outrageous to think that the fatherly (I'm gonna say it) God-like Dumbledore would ever be so condescending. No, that is not what Dumbledore meant when he said it (or at least I hope). No I think Dumbledore is deeper than that. I think he was asking Harry to really dig deep into his identity. He wants Harry to take his desires captive, not the other way around. 

What does that even mean? I'm not really sure. It's got some theological impact though. 

In the story, Mirror of Erised reflects desire and it reveals that learning what to want is pivotal in character formation. Throughout the novel excessive desire is condemned from Dudley’s spoiled whining for more presents to the power-hungry desires of Lord Voldemort. Excessive desire can strip you of your humanity so that all your left with is to hunt more of that desire, which is how the Dark Lord gains his power. 

Desire is not innately bad or wrong.  In fact, Harry’s desire to see his parents alive is both moving and noble.What Dumbledore warns against is overblown desire, which is dangerous because it causes a person to lose perspective on life. He further emphasizes the point when he informs us that all he desires is a pair of warm socks. This virtue of temperance is cardinal in Harry’s character development. 

Harry is not the only one who needs the Dumbledore speech. Tristran desires Victoria Forester so much that he suppresses himself to "win her love." He denies who he is, shackles a star to himself, and goes on this ridiculous quest to bring this bratty girl a shinier rock than Humphrey. I could also go into the desires of the witches and of Septimus, but I'll stay up all night. Besides, it is only Tristran who can see this flaw and is able to pivot away from it. As my Organic Chemistry professor would say, Tristran "can't see the forest for the trees." If I didn't know any better, I'm sure the author made a play on that old saying with Victoria's last name. Afterall, it takes the Evening star, (that shines the brightest) for Tristran to see what true love really is. 

Using "once" as a reminder of real life fantasy

I am truly amazed at the use of “once” in all fairy tales, and though we have talked about it in class this piece of fairy tale requirement seems almost routine in a way. Though fantasy requires certain things, such as a passage between primary and secondary world, a troubled main character and a change within said character at the end of the story these are all subject to a certain form of variety. The phrase “Once upon a time” is used almost as much. The phrase can change however as we go back and read other stories in this past semester, it seems however that the word “Once” is in every single story. “once upon a time” in the hobbit, or “once there were four children” and now in stardust “once there was a man”. It introduces the story and brings us back to the time this happened, as fantasy rarely takes place in the present.

But as I go back and think on when I have heard this word in everyday life it seems dreamy, for example my grandfather uses this term whenever he is about to start a story about when he was my age. Always saying “once, when I was a young man” even to him his past is a fantasy because it is a part of him that changed his life, it takes place in the past and changes to his secondary world of when everything was wonderful and he was young. He was in his twenties or younger so he always had a world wide open for discovery, but now as he ages he feels his opportunities are closing, no more is the time for meeting “magical” (read new) people who would take him on a new course of life. To me it seems as if even in reality the past is seen as a fantasy to those who would give us words of wisdom. And reminds me that even now when we are in college and careers, we have so many routes we may take in life that to our grandparents our lives truly do seem fantasy.

Random Thoughts and Questions

Forgive me if these thoughts are completely scattered!

Reading this book again simply left me with more questions. Sometimes, it gets annoying only following Harry Potter's story when there are so many other characters and aspects of the story that I would love to explore. One of these: What was Hermione's motivation? She was so dedicated to her studies and even to the education of both Ron and Harry. Forgive me if I'm forgetting important information in later books, but I wonder if she only found out about magic due to the arrival of her Hogwarts letter at age eleven? Was growing up in a Muggle house her motivation to excel in her classes? Or is this Hermione's natural state of being? Has she always excelled? Before she arrived at the castle, Hermione could have been trying to catch up on the Hogwart's history and wizard spells so that she would fit in with her fellow classmates. Doing so, however, seemed to have had the opposite effect. She seems to be separated as "the smart one," which we don't necessarily see in later characters such as Cho or Gilderoy Lockhart (who were both Ravenclaw). No one else read the required material; most of them just grew up with it. It seems that so much pressure is put on this female character throughout every book. Though it seems Hermione is really smart, it also seems that she simply READS the required material for school... whereas, no one else seems to do this. If she really was "The brightest witch of her age" (as Sirius refers to her in the third books), why was she not put into Ravenclaw? But, then again, why was Lockhart put into Ravenclaw? 

The whole subject of the Hogwarts houses will always bother me. The fans seem to understand the sorting into houses as: you are sorted with the traits that you value, instead of the traits that you possess. But, where are they getting this? That isn't what the book is conveying. It seems like the sorting hat sees inside of you, and sees your traits. But, how much can the hat see? How does that work? Is the hat always right? Does the fact that Harry CHOSE Gryffindor make him a true Gryffindor? Do all Gryffindors do this? Is that what sets you apart? Why are these houses such a part of these students' identities? Can a person not possess all of these traits at once?