22goldlkmetoedps

22goldlkmetoedps - 22. GOLDILOCKS MEETS OEDIPUS (4/28)...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
22. GOLDILOCKS MEETS OEDIPUS (4/28) Goldilocks Useful to work thru analysis of one myth. In this case not really myth in strict sense but published tale, “Goldilocks.” Amusing and provocative analysis by Eugene Hammel, meant to show what L-S’s structural myth analysis like, its utility. Really just one variant, one take on L-S, but useful place to begin. H offers 2 kinds of analysis, one sequential thru story, other relations between elements in story regardless of sequence. The first really more like Propp, the latter like L-S. H says that story highly patterned, more like a fugue than a messy narrative. If one reads out loud, this is evident. H says this is much of the appeal of story, appeals to our aesthetic sense. In fact, one of the innovations in analysis is H’s insistence that at some level we appreciate structure. It is not myths thinking themselves in us but we thinking myths, structuring them even if we are not consciously aware of it. In very interesting way, H examines changes in the story to show that it becomes more structured over time., So in the “syntagmatic structure,” we get three major episodes, with bears only, Goldie only, and the two together. The second and third episodes are broken down into sub- episodes with porridge, chairs, and beds respectively. And all three episodes have divisions between Papa, Mama, and Baby Bear. Q. How persuasive do you find this? For most people, seems intuitively good, but not really L-S’s kind of analysis, more Proppian. The paradigmatic structure, more like L-S. Says elements in story divide into objects and beings, natural and cultural. For cultural beings and natural objects, there is only one, Goldie and Honey. For natural beings and cultural objects, they are divided into threes. Natural beings are differentiated according to size, cultural objects according to levels of activity. These entities are then arranged into diagrams of relationships between them. Q. This is ingenious, but do we buy it? You all are “natives”, who know the story from your own experience, most of you from your own childhoods---does it fit with your ideas as natives? Q. Do you agree with how he reads the elements? Specifically, is the honey as important as H suggests? Most students say it is not that crucial, not even in a lot of versions we have heard as children. H sees honey as completing structure, but even when it is there, it may not necessarily be an important part of structure. Q. How about the objects being differentiated by activity? not very persuasive. seems forced.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Kind of disappointing that the supposed point of the story is “people are not animals, that Culture is not Nature” (p.25-14). Not very exciting. If story is supposed to appeal to listener, why so boring? What would Bettelheim say? He would at least make it about something gripping.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/05/2011 for the course ANTHRO 101 taught by Professor Crandall during the Fall '09 term at BYU.

Page1 / 5

22goldlkmetoedps - 22. GOLDILOCKS MEETS OEDIPUS (4/28)...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online