The Intertwining of Humans and the “Wilderness”

Posted on by
2

While humans often think of the wilderness as an entity separate from humans, “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” by William Cronon highlights the notion that we can find nature in our own backyards and in remote areas, intertwining humans and nature. This changes the way humans think about nature since it erases the boundary between humans and the environment around them, because the “wilderness” can exist in “civilized” environments.

Humans often depict the wilderness as this grand fantasy where “[t]he torrents of mist shoot out from the base of a great waterfall in the depths of a Sierra canyon, the tiny droplets cooling your face as you listen to the roar of the water and gaze up toward the sky through a rainbow that hovers just out of reach” (Cronon 8). The wilderness becomes this awe-inspiring entity that dazzles and wows us with its grandness. It is on a massive scale where humans feel insignificant to the “roar of the water” and the “rainbow that hovers just out of reach.” In turn, humans feel detached from this form of nature because it is outside our scope of what we deem as civilized because people view it as being formulated by “nature” itself. There was seemingly no human involvement in creating the “mist [shooting] out from the base of a great waterfall,” forcing nature into the category of “other” since it evolved without any help from humans.

However, Cronon dispels this idea when explaining that “[t]he tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, than the tree in an ancient forest that has never known an ax or a saw” (24). Wilderness becomes something that is part of everyday life as we breathe in the scent of pine trees wafting through the air or sit on the grass in the backyard on a hot summer day. Every tree and blade of grass brings us into the realm of wilderness without having to venture to far off places to experience it since they both arose from the same Earth and conditions. As a result, “the tree in the garden” becomes a symbol for the untamed environments around the world and brings the wild right to our backyard. We essentially live in the wild if we view the tree in our backyard as having a connection with a tree found in a remote area. Here, the separation between nature and humans is blurred when we realize that the wilderness is all around us. Simply because it sprouted in a civilized environment doesn’t mean that it makes the tree, plant, animal, etc. any less part of nature.

By intertwining humans and nature, it shifts the way we think about the environment since it becomes something that is part of our daily lives and all around us. Rather than thinking of wilderness as a foreign place, we can appreciate the wilderness outside our windows. It is then that we can truly create a change by noticing that the “other” (aka nature) is actually part of our lives. This allows us to see the responsibility we have to take care of the environment because it is essentially on our doorstep. The fate of the “other” then becomes the fate of humans, for whatever happens to the environment will then impact the way humans live on the Earth.

Honouring Boundaries: Marital Alliances Reflecting in the Political Environment

Posted on by
Reply

In The Romance of the Faery Melusine the violation of Melusine’s boundaries when her husband Raymondin disregards their agreement of her seclusion on Saturdays, reflects the patriarchal fear of autonomy in women and the unknown. When boundaries are violated domestically or politically it creates distrust in partners, severing a relationship which brought prosperity and safety to them and their society. 

On the first meeting of Melusine and Raymondin he comes to her in a position of weakness. “too broken to have any pressing need for the unknown” (Lebey, 23). He has killed a family member and fears the retribution of his family, leaving him isolated and ready to flee his homelands. Melusine offers him an alternative to this fate by joining in a marital alliance with him, promising “without me, without my counsel, you cannot escape being accused of murder…if you listen to me, and take account of what I say, I promise to make you the greatest lord of your line and the wealthiest” (25). She is offering a partnership that will not only save him from the consequences of his actions but also improving on the position he held before the crime he committed. In return she asks for a marriage between the two and his acceptance of her maintaining a boundary of her body and time.

He agrees to this martial alliance, in part for its favorable promised outcome but also because he is enamored with her beauty. It is a beneficial relationship, marriages of his position were often made for the alliance of two families and territories, desire for the spouse was not necessary. Though in his reasoning he is pulled by the thoughts about her of “whom he wanted to know more and more, and above all to possess” (27). This attitude towards Melusine as being a possession was and is a mindset of some who dehumanize women or wives, as they do not find them to be equal to men. A woman can be to some another territory to conquer and rule over.

When Raymondin does agree to her terms, unlike when he first meets her “he began to feel a man again, full of vigour” (26). This alliance has strengthened him, not only in his mind but in his position in the world. He is not alone, but now part of team. 

In political alliances, while each partner maintains their own territory it does present a united front that is larger than they are on their own. Like in the marriage of Raymondin and Melusine, political alliances give access to shared monetary and defense resources. If a foreign or domestic threat strikes at the alliance, they are attacking a united front. When kingdoms and countries form alliances it is to benefit both and within this political relationship there is an emphasis of mutual respect for each other’s autonomy.

Melusine does keep her promise of the alliance. Raymondin and the heirs she births into the world accomplish and conquer many things, pursuing their own journey of the unknown. Her upholding of their alliance benefits both as well as their family. The marriage is not without problems as the children have various forms of deformities, but Raymondin is still made happy by the marriage and the success it has given him. 

Raymondin has kept his vow as well, respecting Melusine’s boundary of not seeing her on Saturdays. Though as time has passed Raymondin has grown comfortable in this position of power and forgets the position he once occupied which his wife secured for him with her power and resources. Relationships both personal and political evolve with time but also can stagnate when not nourished. It is only when a cousin of Raymondin, a part of his family he once feared for retribution, calls into question Melusine’s fidelity in claiming this time for herself does Raymondin think to violate his marital vow. 

This is an interesting departure of commitment for Raymondin to Melusine. Raymondin has had the privilege to age, he is no longer fueled by a need for the unknown in the world outside of the castle Melusine built for him. He has conquered parts of the world as has his sons, which he is reminded of while reading a letter from them before he breaks the boundaries of his wife’s territory. This coupled with the suggestion of his cousin about Melusine reignites this desire for the unknown, because Melusine with her boundary was not entirely his possession like he hoped for when they first met. She still maintained the autonomy of her own body, her territory. She had not been conquered and enveloped into his territory. His cousin reminds him of this inadequacy, setting off the events that will lead to the destruction of the marital alliance.

Raymondin often refers to honour, in his first meeting of his wife and then while he prepares for the violation of their agreement. Later Raymondin declares, “women do not know, know nothing of what we call Honour!” (138). While he has thought of Melusine and himself as one, he conveniently separates her from himself in this statement. Implying woman do not have the capability of honour like men, it categorizes Melusine’s position as his partner as not being equal. After she sees this disrespect towards her and all she has provided him in their long relationship the alliance is broken and the power they both held together. 

There are consequences of this broken alliance with violating her boundary, Melusine’s fate is now to be separated from Raymondin and her soul unable to reach a Christian afterlife. She then explains after Raymondin is out of power, “no man will be able to hold the country in such peace as we have seen” (142). Outside of him not having the same strength as their united front, betraying her reflects on his character and will change the perception of any alliance he hopes to make after. Raymondin is now isolated and not trustworthy in the political and personal realm. He is a now target for those who were not strong enough to conquer his empire when it was strengthen by his marital alliance. Making Melusine’s prophecy true, because once a great territory loses its footing it is nearly impossible to recover. There will be stain of his betrayal in his life and heirs with the fallout of the turbulent political environment he created by not honouring the sovereignty of another.

Work Cited:

Lebey, André, and Gareth Knight. The Romance of the Faery Melusine. Skylight, 2011. 

Close reading essay #1: Taught to fear the unknown

Posted on by
Reply

In his children’s book The Little Mermaid, Hans Christian Andersen explores the human relationship with nature through the nature’s point of view, telling of fictional mermaids who live under the sea. These “other” beings long to be with humans, and desire things we have. However, humans and mermaids have a limited understanding of each others’ worlds, and their actions end up scaring each other away. Through this relationship, Andersen reminds us that we only have surface-level knowledge of the ocean, and the deeper parts remain inscrutable to us. As a result, The Little Mermaid teaches us to fear things we cannot understand.

Mermaids are commonly thought of as an embodiment of not just the feminine body, but of hybridity. They are a result of humans trying to integrate themselves with nature, allowing them to exist in and with the environment. However, the thought of mermaids existing with the human world is something we cannot fully grasp, since the blending of human and non-human traits is considered a violation of the laws of nature. Andersen demonstrates this through the mermaids’ attempted interaction with the humans during a storm. In his story, the mermaids “sang most sweetly of delights to be found beneath the water, begging the seafarers not to be afraid of coming down below. But the sailors could not understand what they said, and mistook their words for the howling of the tempest, and they never saw all the fine things below, for if the ship sank the men were drowned, and their bodies alone reached the sea-king’s palace.” (Penguin 112-113)

The sailors’ misinterpretation of the mermaids’ calls for “the howling of the tempest” illustrates how an irrational mind alters our perception of the world, including our perception of the other. When we panic, our brains prioritize survival over rational thought which incapacitates our ability to think clearly. The mermaids’ calls are drowned out by the “howling” of the storm, as though they were a part of the storm itself. The sailors are implied to be in a state of panic in fear of their ship sinking, and they are too focused on survival to hear the words of these other beings. The “howling” adds to the sailors’ fears because very strong winds can capsize a ship and lead to them drowning.

The imagery of the men drowning and “their bodies alone reach[ing] the sea-king’s palace” captures our incompatibility with the ocean. Humans have not evolved to breathe underwater unlike sea mammals, so we rely on machinery to know what happens in the deep ocean. However, the crushing pressure in deeper parts makes this infeasible, as if it is a boundary we cannot cross. The line, “their bodies alone reached the sea-king’s palace” also emphasizes how most human bodies, like shipwrecks, are never recovered in ocean-related deaths. The bodies of those who have died there are found on the ocean floor, which can be miles below the surface. As such, we are never able to see “all the fine things below” because we would not be alive to see it.

Moreover, the line “the sailors could not understand what they said” highlights the inscrutable nature of these mermaids and the world they live in. To understand something is to comprehend it. If we cannot comprehend it, our mind defaults back to fearing it. Andersen tells the readers that the ocean is home to many “delights” that are only found under the sea, but since we do not have the means to reliably explore the deep ocean, it is unknown if there are any “delights” to be found if at all. This makes us doubt the mermaids’ words, since we do not know if these so-called “delights” are good or bad. And since we cannot comprehend the unknown, we fear what we cannot understand.

Despite being a story for children, Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid features much darker elements compared to the stories we tell today, yet it sends powerful messages. For one, it teaches us that most decisions do not come without a cost. For two, it tells us that a soul is what makes us human. And lastly, it reminds us that the deep ocean remains unknown and uncharted, and that’s why humans fear it so much.

Discovery 1

Posted on by
Reply

Hans Christen Anderson portrays the ocean, and thus the unknown, in a very dark and alien light through the use of menacing imagery of the depths compared to the bright and jubilant descriptions of the land. By taking into account an older work’s portrayal of the classic mermaid fairy tale, we can compare the dual perceptions that society has crafted about the unknown, especially regarding the deep ocean.

When reading Hans Christen Anderson’s version of the popular Little Mermaid story, it made me realize different ways people have reacted to and decided to depict the unknown. Obviously, Anderson’s older version is much different than the modern version that Disney produced, being much darker and less fantastical, as the mermaid literally dies at the end of the story. 

Anderson’s introduction to the ocean in his version was, “But it is very deep—so deep, indeed, that no rope can fathom it; and many church steeples need be piled one upon the other to reach from the bottom to the surface. It is there that the sea-folk dwell” (Penguins, 108). The way he used the description of fallen churches and being unreachable even by rope creates a foreboding, mysterious tone about the depths. I find it interesting how in older versions like this, the unknown, (the ocean and sea) was depicted as menacing and dark, something that the main character wanted to desperately escape from in favor of the bright and vibrant land. In contrast, in describing how the mermaid viewed the land, Anderson writes, “She saw beautiful green hills covered with vines; castles and citadels peeped out from stately woods; she heard the birds singing” (Penguins, 111). Instead of fallen, crumbling churches, the land is described to have towering buildings and beautiful landscape, which goes to show how Anderson deliberately is perpetuating the ocean in a much more negative and dangerous light than the beautiful land, simply because the ocean is more unknown to humans. In this case, the unknown reminds people of danger and fear. 

While this fascination with the land and sun and desire to escape from the depths of the ocean remains consistent across both versions. It is described as sort of alien, strange, and not something to be admired in Anderson’s version. The unknown is seen as a dark and bad thing because since so much of the ocean is and was unexplored, it was completely up to human’s minds and preexisting notions of what the depths would look like. However, in modern versions, like Disney, they portray the unknown ocean in a much different light. In this case, the unknown does not automatically mean dangerous, but it provides room for imaginative creativity, which we can see through the upbeat musical numbers of Disney’s version. Instead of the ocean being dark and menacing, it is fantastical and magical, both depictions being based off of something unknown. 

This juxtaposition reminds me of the previous reading on Barnum and freak shows. Both depictions of “freak shows” lure in specific audiences but for different reasons. Back then, audiences wanted to gawk at “freaks” even if they knew deep down that it was simply a show and not real. Nowadays, children want to see their favorite Disney characters in admiration at places like Disneyland, even if some might know that they are only costumes. 

William Cronon on the Commodification of Nature

Posted on by
1

In the essay “The Trouble with the Wilderness” William Cronon depicts the ways in which the wilderness, despite it being “othered,” is often “civilized” by humans’ ways of interacting and discussing the environment. Because of this people need to think more critically about how we treat nature as a commodity and pastime rather than something bigger and separate from humankind. One excerpt that notably stuck out to me was Cronons depiction of different ways humans are spectators of the environment, describing “The moment beside the trail as you sit on a sandstone ledge, your boots damp with the morning dew while you take in the rich smell of the pines […] Remember the feelings of such moments, […] that you were in the presence of something irreducibly nonhuman, something profoundly Other than yourself. Wilderness is made of that too” (8). Cronon immerses the reader in all these different settings with “rich smells of the pines” and “boots damp with the morning dew” romanticizing it in the same way that humans romanticize the environment. Wilderness, here, is personified and contrastingly “something profoundly Other”—giving nature its own identity and simultaneously showing the limits of human understanding of it. This contrast depicts the human-self and the “incredibly nonhuman” aspects of nature as separate yet connected. Cronon interconnects aspects of humankind and nature, to show that “wilderness is made of that too.” Wilderness is not simply made up of the spectacles that people see such as rocks, trees, and animals. Instead, the trees and animals are a manifestation of “otherness,” it is something that is beyond human creation, understanding, or control. 

Though, Cronon later explains that this “otherness” has become commodified by humans as something of entertainment. He clarifies that “As more and more tourists sought out the wilderness as a spectacle to be looked at and enjoyed for its great beauty, the sublime in effect became domesticated” (12). There is a sense of irony to his explanation—that the wilderness, which is thought to be untameable, can be domesticated through human tourism and spectacle. Even the use of the word “tourist” implicates human kind as guests on foreign land. People who have come to romanticize a place and “culture” that they may not fully understand. In this case, Nature becomes commercialized, making something “sublime” controlled. 

Cronon’s essay is a critique on societies tendency to consume nature as a form of entertainment rather than something greater than themselves. That in order to appreciate nature for more than simply being a means of profit, people must think critically on their past views of nature. Past views, due to a history of colonization and capitalism, deem nature and wilderness as a form of property. Instead, there has to be a reframing of wilderness as autonomous with honor. 

The Beginning of the loving Undine Marriage

Posted on by
1

From reading the passage of “The day after the wedding from Undine” one the book ” The Penguin Book of Mermaids”.In this passage where both perspectives of a married couple are told and the emotions that come with it. “I think, however, nevertheless, that you will keep me with you; I love so heartily” (104). The romance in this marriage is unpredictable journey when it starts. As the passage continues into the depths of Huldbrand and Undine. It seems how their marriage was mostly filled with Huldbrand thoughts of his partner. It is a something that lots of this passage mainly talks about how does the feelings of a relationship is wild and the path is long and winding. “Huldbrand. full as he was of strange fear and emotions, knew not what to reply” (104). It implies that Huldbrand is an overly affectionate man to his spouse and it is affecting her with lots tension throughout the passage and the example that shows this more from undine is that “No, there, opposite to me! I will read my sentence in your eyes, before your lips speak; now, listen attentively to what I will relate to you” (104). It seems like Undine is saying that she is not feeling as enthusiastic as her husband Huldbrand who is a persuasive and light hearted man.

For my thoughts on the passage is that their is something about this couple is that there is a thing about how people in real life can be out of touch of their behavior and to prove that in one example “Thus my father, who is a powerful water-prince in the Mediterranean Sea, desired that his only daughter should become possessed of a soul, even though she must then endure man sufferings of those thus endowed” (105). By this interpretation it means that there is two different meanings of what a marriage means for the recently married newlyweds on their honeymoon. Another undine interpretation of her perspective of marriage is “I am now passed of a soul, and my soul thanks you, my inexpressibly beloved one, and it will ever thank you, if you do not make my whole life miserable” (105) and (106).

The Little Mermaid, or Aerial

Posted on by
4

By becoming an aerial, a daughter of the air, is the little mermaid saved or sentenced to 300 years of suffering? Either way, she has attained a soul at the end of her sentence, a soul that is not tied to a man who treated her like an animal. 

Like most, I grew up watching and loving Disney’s The Little Mermaid, and Prince Eric was the sweetest and most handsome to me. I’m sure you can imagine my surprise when I read how he treated her like a pet, and gave her “leave to sleep on a velvet cushion before his door (124).” It was heart-wrenching to read of her dehumanization by the prince and the way he expected her to be happy at his marriage. 

I can see how Han’s Christian Anderson wrote this story as insight into life as a queer man in a society that punished it through moral and religious doctrine encoded into rule and law. Living a queer existence meant living a life in hiding, and even if love found a way to flourish, it would not be socially accepted. The little mermaid must make constant sacrifices to appeal to the prince and the people of his kingdom, and she is often warned: “Your fish’s tail, which is a beauty amongst us sea-folk, is thought a deformity on earth, because they know no better.” However, I appreciated this clarification and assurance by her grandmother; that humans’ lack of knowledge was not the fault of the little mermaid, and how this was Anderson’s way of commenting on queerness as something beautiful and misunderstood due to the fault of society, not the individual. 

Nonetheless, I can not excuse the actions of the prince in this tale, because he was completely in power, and never under the spell of the sea witch (although I’m not 100% sure what happened with the bride being mistaken as his savior). He had complete autonomy and flaunted it in the face of The Little Mermaid, whom he took advantage of because she could not speak for herself. He paraded her around, essentially kept her as his pet, and likely intended to keep her as his mistress if she had not become a daughter of the air. He was despicable, and I’m glad she got the soul that she wanted without any help from him, but despite him.

Week 8: The Actual Little Mermaid

Posted on by
4

When reading Hans Christen Anderson’s version of the popular Little Mermaid story, it made me realize different ways people can react and decide to depict the unknown. Obviously, Anderson’s older version is much different than the modern version that Disney produced, being much darker and less fantastical. I find it interesting how before, the unknown, (the ocean and sea) was depicted as alien-like and dark, something that the main character wanted to escape from, in contrast to the land as something to be desired. According to the text, the youngest daughter has a fascination with the land, especially the sun (as said on page 109).

While this fascination with the land and sun and desire to escape from the depths of the ocean remains consistent across both versions, I find it interesting how differently both creators depict the ocean, representing the unknown. Previously, it is described as sort of alien, strange, and not something to be admired. The unknown is seen as a dark and bad thing because since so much of the ocean is and was unexplored, it was completely up to human’s minds and preexisting notions of what the depths would look like. However, in modern versions, they portray the ocean, still as unknown, however not in a negative way. Instead of it being dark and scary, it is fantastical and magical, both depictions being based off of something unknown. The unknown can either be scary and dark, or bright and whimsical. This reminded me of the previous reading on Barnum and freak shows. Both depictions lure in specific audiences but for different reasons. Back then, audiences wanted to gawk at “freaks”, nowadays children want to see their favorite Disney mermaid in admiration at places like Disneyland.

Gossip– Mutual Aid Among Women

Posted on by
5

The 1989 Little Mermaid exhibits a trait shared by many of the classic Disney Princess movies. Ariel must be exceptional to be the main character; she must outshine the other female characters– her sisters, and certainly the female villain. Belle must be contrasted against Gaston’s three admirers. Cinderella must be contrasted against her stepsisters and stepmother, even Tiana, in 2009 The Princess and the Frog must stand out against her silly blond best friend.
I’m not sure what this trope means– the systematic elimination of competition from stories centering on young women– and Hans Christen Anderson’s The Little Mermaid, though removed by time and genre, is no exception. His little mermaid is “the prettiest of them all” (108) and separated by her quiet and thoughtful nature, and her disinterest in collecting shipwreck treasures.
However, I was struck by a key role given to her sisters, and associated young women.
When the little mermaid loses track of her prince after rescuing him from the shipwreck, her sisters come to her aid;

“At length she could resist no longer, and opened her heart to one of her sisters, from whom all the others immediately learned her secret, though they told it to no one else, except to a couple of other mermaids, who divulged it to nobody, except to their most intimate friends. One of these happened to know who the prince was.” (116)

Besides being comedy gold, complete with subversions of expectations, tone shifts, and a rule of three– this passage struck me as surprisingly respectful to the institution of gossip as a critical information network among women. Although it could have been treated as inconsequential, or used as a parable warning against the dangers of secrets or gossip– it is a key vector in the plot, connecting the little mermaid to her lost love.

The Little Mermaid: Full Commitment. No Payoff.

Posted on by
5

At first glance, it would be a lie to claim that one began read the story without thinking (at least subconsciously) about the Disney iteration. However what is truly surreal is the fact that the Hans Christian Anderson story of “The Little Mermaid” was truly nothing as expected in terms of tone and over all motives displayed throughout the tale. Apart from the huge disparities between the film adaptation and the tale by Anderson, there seems to be a reoccurring sense of longing for something that we as the readers, already know that it is only highlighting the positive aspects of being human without truly understanding the hardships and flaws humanity has to offer.

The claim that Anderson’s “The Little Mermaid” is a cautionary tale that showcases the attractive qualities of being a human is not only supported by moments where the characters glorify certain superficial and materialistic things, “The little mermaid swam close to the cabin window, and as often as the water lifted up, she peeped in through the transparent panes, and saw a number of well-dressed persons” (Penguins, 113). Now this is just an observation on the mermaids part and can entirely be done just out of sheer admiration for the clean and presentable appearance of the gentlemen, but it is also a telling piece of information which implies that this sort of fondness towards all things “classy” and “fancy” is natural and tailored only to humans (which is why the mermaid is so intrigued by the prince). Not only does this correlate with humans as a whole, but it also demonstrates the sacrifices women make in society as a result of marriage and motherhood which can be interpreted from the witch’s warnings, “if once you obtain a human form, you can never be a mermaid again!” (Penguins, 120). While not blatantly stated, this may very well be an allegory for dedicating ones entire life and leaving everything behind in order to seek for marriage and a relationship that is built on materialism and physical qualities. The ending (which is quite depressing) serves as an example of said sacred bonds that do not have a legitimate foundation comprised of love and understanding, rather one that is constructed by unrealistic expectations and hope which in the very end, leads the little mermaid to end up risking everything for someone that did not share the same passion.