well yes, that was kind of my point really. otherwise he's really saying 'weird things are weird', rather than 'there are weird things. let's try to understand them a bit eh? we are people after, and few of us still on our first acid trip.'
See if chad’s right he’s just making the story smaller*, a classic move I’d say in reaching a point of analysis, noting a few similarities between related concepts and assuming they all mean the same thing, when, well, maybe they aren’t, even if the darkness they live in makes it seem like that.:
so princesses in fairy tales are really one character from one fairy tale – they basically mean the same thing, say pulchritudinous matter in a fine form, actual and potential entwined and reinforcing one another, your nice little h at the end of jhvh. And that’s it. That’s as far as it goes. No real insight into the fact that teenage girls might be understood to behave in a variety of ways - she’s a princess and she’s fit and that’s all there is to it. the princess from princess and the pea is the same as the princess/young woman from any version of bluebeard - it’s just the same old wives telling the same old bits of story to describe the same old single aspect of adolescent female psychology? I reckon that’s doing fairytale narrative’s skill at describing a variety of sophisticated situations a bit of a disservice, if we must do the jung with them at all.
in an neo-platonic interpretation i am familiar with, snow white in swnt7d is the monad and the dwarves her necessary and necessarily imperfect ‘offspring’ that bring us to the number of harmony. this already isn’t the same as the princess in a pack of tarot cards described above. Nor is that snow white the same, I don’t think, as the one whose sister is rose red and marries Arthur at the end after messing up the homunculus’ beard.
* I don’t think he’s wrong to do that, he’s usually spot-on spotting the refs and flavours, Misty probably is the stitch in time that will save the nine etc. - it just feels a bit wrong to me, disappointing. I think that seven sojers is going to have this problem: a superhero reappraisal of yr folklore/ bedtime-story baddies and goodies is going to cut corners and finally fail to explain why there’s a richness to those stories that comics should want to muck about with them in the first place. Like the spoils of annwn, I have a suspicion there’s only one real meaning here in 7soj, and it’s the writer (‘taliesin’/george) going ‘look at this, i done it and isn’t it resonant without meaning anything specific, ain’t I clever?’ It feels really, really good while you’re reading it, but to assume the existence of a underlying cosmology more coherent than ‘writers well fancy themselves and can make you feel right mysterious’ is i think flawed. is my feeling on this like the feeling of having been ‘overpromised’ to elsewhere? ‘taliesin’s early audiences would have better known his allusions better than I do, but were even they going any deeper than ‘oh, erdel gate, yeah manhunter yeah I get it’?
Question time, unrelato: is Frankenstein set in the future on mars, or just on mars? If the former it’s not looking too good for the heroes is it, perhaps they won’t do any better than their JLA/ pepper gulch/ newsboy army predecessors. Maybe they aren’t supposed to – they’re just there to stand in the way and fight until they stop, keeping the cider-menace happy and away til another spin is spun. |
