I had the most fascinating dream of my life, so far. Often my dreams are not so beautiful, and I know that I will not be able to explain it so well as it was, and it will sound rather stupid, but just know that I thought it was cool while I was dreaming it. Anyway I was at a restaurant, I believe it was Dairy queen. Not the Dairy queen here in Bozeman but the one in the town I am from. And there were these guys and they wanted to fight. I stopped them by standing in between them. The weaker of the two fighters was thankful and became my friend. The fiercer fighter took my move as a mortal affront, and vowed to kill me for it. Then, and this is the cool part, and I believe it was partly due to the books we just read, he turned into a polar bear and chased me. I was, it now seems really fast, because I was able to just get away, but I was getting tired. I was thinking if the clouds in the amazingly blue sky would turn into butterflies then they could hide me. Then they did. It was a wave a brilliant blue and gold and it washed over me, but the bear wasn't fooled and I had to jump into a river. I floated calmly along only vaguely worried about the bear, when there came a wall. The water rushed under it, but I could not pass, and I knew the bear would be there soon. And then he was there, stuck with me on this side of the wall, but I was no longer worried about him, and he was not worried about me, we just wondered about the wall. Then I woke up.

What about the Boys?

What significance is there in reading simple fairytales? Fairytales have, of course, an element of entertainment. They add vibrant complexion to our gray lives; enchanting the imagination with whimsical wonderlands. These parodies of life also give resolutions. Through heroic characters we can fight dragons or out murderous husbands. But there is graver aspect to these tales. They also contain elements of didacticism. Hidden morals and undercurrents filled with lessons. This, didacticism, is an element of these stories that confuses me. The pragmatic aspect is not really the issue. There is no question that we should not stray from the path when strolling through the deep dark forest, or that you should always build your house out of something sturdier than straw, but what do they teach about relationships. The greatest and most important story in human history is that of the two lovers. There is no greater purpose and no scarier situation, than being in love. These fairy tales strive to teach young women how to land a man and not to fear marriage to a beast, but what are they teaching young men? Prince charming, the beast husband and the trickster, are the categories that boys are face with. These stories leave princes with as shallow an answer to the questions of love as they do for the princesses.

Prince charming, or "The Prince," as seen in Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Rapunzel, Little Mermaid, and Princess and the Pea, or the stories of the damsel in distress is without a doubt the most romantic of the three motifs. And, I mean romantic in the gross sense of gushy over the top mush. "The Prince" who has no other name, is handsome, rich, and incredibly shallow. He falls in love easily, with only one criteria, and that is beauty. "The Prince" does no work, but often aimlessly wanders around the forest. He falls head over heals for a pretty voice or face. (Which is unfortunate, especially for young mermaids who can't talk.) This motif lends it's self to ridicule, because it has almost no basis in reality. What does a young boy learn from this? Be handsome and rich.

The trickster is more interesting, but no less immoral in his flaws. This lad is usually poor, not necessarily unattractive, just poor. But, what he lacks in finances he makes up in cleverness. He is highly inventive, and often gets a name, like Jack or Marquis de Carabas. The trickster also abounds with luck. However, this character has a rather egregious flaw. He is a trickster. He is a thief, and a liar. We seem to over look this flaw do to the fact that he steals from the "bad guys." Unlike Robin, though, he keeps this loot to raise in status to prince charming. We admire this motif, like Peter Pan, he is forgiven because he is a boy. But , does this teach him to be a man, or answer any questions of love? No, he simply gets the girl and lives happily ever after in his stolen castle.

The beast husband as illustrated in, Beauty and the Beast, The Frog King, and East of the Sun and West of the Moon, has the most redeeming characteristics. Hi is intelligent and kind, sensitive and romantic, and he usually has great wealth. Also he's mysterious. The "Beast Husband," I have been told, is meant to assuage young girls' fears of arranged marriage, but how does it address the other side of the coin? What do boys learn? While, these men are intelligent and often kind, this motif requires the man to also be a "bondsman." The beast steals the innocent girl from her father in exchange for cash. The beast husband teaches young men that ou only need persistence, a little luck, and a ton of cash.

There are, however, exceptions to these atrocious motifs. Kate Crackernuts and Molly Whuppie both offer female heroines that have a bit of character. In both stories the heroin is clever and beautiful and finds a way to survive in perilous times. These characters give young men another image of woman that is slightly healthier. However, Molly Whuppie would fall into the category of trickster as easily as any male counterpart. Also you could say that the Prince in Princes and the Pea was looking for something more than just looks. These stories give us characters that stand slightly against the main stream. But they still portray the propagandistic generic love of man and wife, without any of the messy details.

The mainstream classics, Cinderella, Snow-White, and Sleeping Beauty, confirm the need for men and women to fit into the perfect mould of happy, pretty, man and wife. Even Beauty and the Beast ends with rich, handsome, man and, sweet demure, woman. They represent a cultural need for men and women to fit into specific gender roles. They do not however address many of the aspects and fears that people have about love. These roles or motifs, Prince Charming, The Beast Husband , and the Trickster, were created a long time ago when these roles were clearly defined due to physical ability and environment. But, it is time for a new generation of fairytales that display all the mess and confusion of real relationships. Give us a happy ending, but don't pussy foot around the details.

Daemons, how fascinating. What is with the chef who has a daemon that is the same sex? What is Pullman trying to say here?Understanding a daemon is very complex, because a daemon is not only part of a person, but also somewhat of an individual. I was thinking I would love to have a daemon, because then I would know who I am. Or at least I would have some solid, factual sense of who I am. I would still love to have a daemon, a constant companion. You know the saying you come into this world alone and you leave it alone. Well this wouldn't be true if you had a daemon. But I don't know that a daemons shape would tell you something you didn't already know about yourself. For instance, if you had a dog daemon, you would know that you are loyal, but I feel like you would already know that. Also if you knew something bad about yourself would you see that in your daemon, or would others see that. For instance if your daemon was a snake. In the book Sir Charles' daemon was a snake, and we knew that he was a bad guy, this confirms our notion of snakes, but does it work for others? Many people have different symbols for animals so this would not be the clearest way to asses a person. This reminds me of names. You know some people have names that just fit their personalities. Like an nerdy guy named Lawrence, it just seems to fit simply unexplainable or on the verge of explanation. Another issue is the fact that their called daemons, which is demons. Pullman is hinting at the idea that this is our "bad" side or more so that it is the natural side. The instinctual? Very cleaver that Pullman, and very interesting those daemons.
I'm sorry to say but I think the site has been changed. So I hope you all found out what your daemons were.

My favorite chapter is Advice from a Caterpillar. I'm not entirely sure why. It's the question who are you. She ponders change and explains that she doesn't know her self. The lovely words meld together and create a sense of not knowing. I enjoy it because the question, who are you, is as unanswerable as the question, what is a child. There is no clear and determined answer for these questions, because at all times people are changing and learning, or reverting back to innocence. Maybe this will change with age, but I feel I am an adult, and yet I don't know so little, that I must surely be a child. This chapter suggest that who are you is the most important question while at the same time declaring that it doesn't matter because the answer at the moment is arbitrary. It's very deep for a childrens book. No that's dumb. It's very deep because it's (at least ment for) a childrens book.

Notes

11/5

"Nothing in his life became him as much as his leaving it"

*To read this book is to read all other books*

Everything is possible in Dream: dreams are a mythologizing of yourself

My Book and Heart Shall Never Part

This film left me with questions. I suppose that is what all good works of art suppose to do. It blurs the nature or my understanding of the nature of children, books, and nature. We sometimes see children as animals, or conversing with animals as if they were people. And is a book read or are we the books. Life inspires Art, Art inspires Life. We create the things we know and teach them to our children. So we are all vaguely and at the same time book, child, and nature.

NOTES

11/3

Alice and Wonderland prevaids our culture
Trainer of Imagination

*google The Idiot, Dostoevsky*

http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/idiot/