https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx en-us 2022-10-19 22:40:32 UTC 2025-12-11 15:49:35 UTC hello@padlet.com blakehanrahan https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347926569 I love starting my introductions in a confusing way. I want to list opposites when I start. I think this will lure the reader in:
Good, bad. Black, white. Smart, dumb. Happy, sad. Nice, mean. This is how we are taught to view the world. The reality is, though, no aspects fall into one category and one category only. Something then acknowledging that life is gray and confusing. People cannot be good or bad. That is what makes them people. Life is nuanced and complex. RUN THIS POINT HOME!

Also, might be a fun time to bring up some commonly recognized protagonists vs. heroes in order to paint clearer image in reader's mind. Cinderella v. stepmother is a good one, Ariel v. Ursula, Sleeping Beauty v. Maleficent. I just want to bring some perspective to readers' minds.

Context/Background: I have noticed throughout the class discussions and readings of fairy tales/sources that fairy tales love to simplify characters into either goodness or badness. For example, Cinderella is never viewed as evil, but rather the epitome of beauty and perfection. The evil stepmother literally has a negative term built into her name. She is representative of evil and nothing desirable. This lack of nuance is unrealistic. I do not appreciate how protagonists are completely discounted from flaw. I want to explore this. Not to mention, these protagonists are often white and depicted as youthful. As children, we are taught about these social structures subconsciously and this is ultimately damaging for people who are oppressed and society in general. I want to communicate the reality that people are complex and when we pretend they are, others get hurt in the process.

Question at hand: Is morality depicted as less important and dismissed when a protagonist, typically a white and attractive protagonist, makes a questionable decision versus when a villain does? Does one’s answer to the question contribute to detrimental privileges?

Rough Response/Claim: By closely examining protagonist behavior in fairy tales, specifically the ungrateful decision the Little Mermaid makes in Andersen’s version when she decides to leave her family in pursuit of human love, as well as Beauty’s lack of self-respect when taking her father’s place as the Beast’s prisoner in Beaumont’s “Beauty and the Beast,” I will show that protagonists can be just as faulted as other characters like villains, which is important because protagonists are often discounted from assumed malice and flaws in a way that villains are not, as proven by Maitland’s “The Wicked Stepmother’s Lament,” depicting reason behind the stepmother’s actions, and commented on in Tosi’s “Did They Live Happily Ever After?,” illustrating the lack of morality in protagonists. It is especially true that protagonists are discounted from flaws when they are white and young, leading to detrimental societal norms.

I do not foresee this introduction having to be very long. Essay 1 made me split my introduction into two parts, but I do not think this will be the case. I think this introduction is pretty solid.]]> 2022-10-19 22:53:20 UTC https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347926569 blakehanrahan https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347963865 The first key concept I want to talk about is protagonists' sense of entitlement and lack of appreciation for what they already have. There is a very evident sense of being the protagonist in many of these stories, in my opinion.

My claim/topic sentence is that by examining protagonist behavior in fairy tales, specifically through the lack of appreciation and feeling of privilege seen in a protagonist, I will illustrate that protagonists can be read just as destructively as villains can be read.

Evidence: The Little Mermaid leaving/betraying her family in order to attain the human prince. They are broken by this and end up sacrificing their hair in hopes of getting her back. There is a drain on the family: "'We have given our hair to the sea witch, so that she would help you and you would not have to die this night. Here is a knife that the witch has given us. Look how sharp it is" (Andersen 160). 

^ This would also be a good place to incorporate nuance and acknowledge that my claim can be argued. At the end of the day, people do make terrible decisions and should be allowed to alter the bad decisions they make. However, the Little Mermaid's family is suggesting she KILL someone in order to fix things. This is not completely realistic knowing all the love she already has inside of her. Maybe she should be granted some forgiveness here? Interesting, possible rebuttal.

Analysis: The Little Mermaid's actions are having negative affects on her entire family. Her lack of appreciation has led the family that loves her so much to a point where they now need to sacrifice parts of themselves (their hair). The Little Mermaid sacrificed her voice and now her family has to suffer the consequences. No true protagonist would put her family through this pain. Villains put people through pain as well. Are they that different?

Evidence 2: Not to mention, she is physically harming herself in this process. It may be interesting to tie this into a lack of appreciation for her body, too: "She cut her chest and let her blood drip into the vessel" (Andersen 156). 

Analysis: A person who harms their temple physically is not appreciative of what she has. There is not a value in the life the Little Mermaid already has. She is willing to stab herself, cause herself physical pain, in hopes of creating a relationship with a boy. Some would say that this is what young love does to a person but I make the argument that people who appreciate what they have would not do this. Not to mention, the Little Mermaid is not being abused or mistreated by anyone. This is simply ungratefulness. She does not live in circumstances where this is her only means of safety. She is choosing this out of her heart not being in the right place. Villains harm in ways that are usually not self-destructive, but nonetheless, harm is present.


]]> 2022-10-19 23:37:00 UTC https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347963865 blakehanrahan https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347985606 I could incorporate this in Topic Area 1: Lack of Appreciation, but it will help me to see my source acknowledged separately. 

This is simply a source I want to use to acknowledge villain perspective. My claim references villains so I want to at least bring Maitland up once. This will still be commentary on the Lack of Appreciation section.

I am going to acknowledge that throughout most fairy tales, villains are never painted as pretty or agreeable. I want to reference Maitland, however, to show that villains are not discounted from evilness because they assume their roles better. The Little Mermaid never assumes the role of someone who could do something wrong because she is a princess. How could a princess ever be faulted. At least the evil stepmother acknowledges that she knows she is in the wrong. This embodying of the evil role makes people think the stepmother is more evil than a protagonist, but that is not the case.

Evidence that stepmother assumes role and owns it, making her SEEM worse: "But I'm not willing to be a victim. I was not innocent, and I have grown out of innocence now and even out of wanting to be thought innocent. Living is a harsh business, as no one warned us when we were young and carefree under the apple bough, and I feel the weight of that ancient harshness and I want to embrace it, and not opt for some washed-out aseptic, hand-wringing, Disneyland garbage" (Maitland 279).

Analysis: This shows that the stepmother just owns her role better. My explanation above is quite the analysis and I feel I can pull from that heavily. 

Not to mention, the stepmother also claims to have more of a reason for abusing Cinderella. The stepmother cannot believe that someone can be so passive and agreeable. It irritates her and she wants to in a way, teach Cinderella a lesson

Evidence: "So when I first married my husband I only meant to tease her a little, to rile her, to make her fight back. I couldn't bear it, that she was so like her mother and would go the same way. My girls were more like me, less agreeable to have about the house, but tough as old boots and capable of getting what they needed" (Maitland 281). 

Analysis: Here, the stepmother may be trying to teach Cinderella a lesson. There is a desire for her to be less conforming and more outspoken. The stepmother may not have approached this the right way, but she still is looking for Cinderella to show signs of strength. Here, there is intention to help, whereas the Little Mermaid's decision to leave is rooted in her being self-absorbed. 

HAVE THIS LACK OF SELF-RESPECT THAT THE STEPMOTHER SEES IN CINDERELLA HELP INTRODUCE THE NEXT SECTION OF BODY PARAGRAPHS/TOPIC AREA 2.]]> 2022-10-19 23:59:33 UTC https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347985606 blakehanrahan https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347987636 The first key concept I want to talk about is protagonists' lack of self respect for themselves contributing to their imperfect image. 

My claim/topic sentence is that by taking note of protagonist behavior in fairy tales, specifically protagonists' unhealthy, common lack of self-respect, I will illustrate that protagonists can be read as just as flawed as a character like a villain. 

Evidence: Beauty assuming her father's position as the Beast's prisoner for doing absolutely nothing. This does not portray a confident person who is looking forward to life: "'...you will not go to this palace without me. You cannot prevent me from following you. Although I am young I am not so very deeply in love with life, and I would rather be devoured by this monster than die of the grief which your loss would cause me" (Beaumont 132) 

Analysis: Beauty is unhealthily showing a lack of self respect in the fact that she is going to serve for a "crime" that she did not commit. This is also enhanced and becomes more of a problem when noting the power structure in place. Specifically, Beauty is a young girl who is serving her father. What is this saying about the relationship young women should have with their fathers? Are they required to SACRIFICE themselves for their dads? Beauty should not take his place because it is not her responsibility. This is so harmful. She may not be harming someone in a way a villain does but she is harming herself. This is sending a horrific message to young people.

Another fun thing to play around with is the incorporation of the stepsisters feelings here. They do not really feel upset when Beauty leaves.

Evidence: "When Beauty set off with her father the two heartless girls rubbed their eyes with an onion, so as to seem tearful; but her brothers wept in reality, as did also the merchant" (Beaumont 132).

Analysis: Here, Beauty is again depicted as riding off, but I want to focus on the stepsisters' behavior. Maybe they are not crying because they feel as though Beauty is so far down the drain that she can never fully embody empowerment. Maybe that is the truth, however, we always assume the stepsisters are just rude and evil. I do not think this is fair. The lack of self respected maybe is less faulted or wrong than the sisters' fake crying. ]]> 2022-10-20 00:01:47 UTC https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2347987636 blakehanrahan https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2348009746 The most controversial claim in this argument is that the stepmother's abuse toward Cinderella was aimed at teaching her a lesson and trying to get her to open her eyes to the horrors of the real world. Although the stepmother's behavior was not morally okay, there still seems to be intention. I stand by this claim, though.

This would be a fabulous time to further my argument by bringing in Tosi, specifically her commentary on morality and the unfair advantage and benefit of the doubt that protagonists are given. Tosi references Alvin Granowsky who has written about faults in characters other than villains. There is a very interesting reworking of Jack and the Beanstalk stories where the giants are "good-natured and middle class, with grown-up children, with savings which are a necessity for their old age" (Tosi 438).

Evidence: "'Oh, dear,' Herbert said. 'We can only hope that the boy's mother will find out what he has done. Surely, she will make him return our things. Maybe she will even return them herself.'" (Tosi 439).

Analysis: Here, perspective is necessarily flipped in order to show that the giants rightfully want what was theirs. They do not have intentions on hurting anyone or punishing anyone, but rather receiving back what was theirs in the first place. Throughout childhood, the giants are painted as terrifying, larger than life, and scary. This may not be the reality. We tend not to think but rather conform.

I feel that my least substantiated claim revolves around my thesis, specifically my mention of protagonists often being young and white while not being considered flawed. I was going to pose this question somewhere in my writing but I am not sure if it should be in my thesis. Is it necessary for it to be in my thesis in order to make my question interpretive? I do not think so, but I want to confirm. I feel like a conclusion is a place to reference the truth that protagonists are often depicted as unflawed and white, but I am not sure. Is this an okay claim to make if I argue without evidence from critics?

I also feel like a reader may try to argue that protagonists' decisions are not rooted in the same hatred and evilness that a villains decisions seem to be made in. I do find that this question is rooted in assumed stereotypes and roles that we have read in these fairy tales our entire lives, though. I do think I explain myself well.]]> 2022-10-20 00:19:53 UTC https://padlet.com/blakehanrahan/uzag2blpg6mn78fx/wish/2348009746