Heckler from the back row here. Thing is, I share your moral principles and I most heartily agree with your revulsion at the atrocities of the British empire. But I really have to disagree with the idea that the South African horrors are specifically relevant to the redactions of the Jack story. I'm standing with your child self here. She was all right with it, and it's her insight I want to defend.
I think (as you have pointed out) that all fairy tale protagonists are opportunists/ And being foolish and thoughtless (young) is where most of them start out. Jack isn't an aberration.
After all, in every version you cite, the story begins with the cow. And nobody questions that the cow belongs to Jack and his mother. In that sense, the cow is indeed all that remains of what has been left them by his late father (his treasure). It's easy to be exasperated that Jack sells it for a handful of beans. But he's not the Biblical Esau, selling his birthright for a bowl of lentils. The whole point of the fairy tale is that these are magic beans.
If he'd sold the cow for money, that money would soon be gone. But instead, full of unspecific youthful dreams, and reckless confidence, he sells it for magic opportunity, which his mother flings away as worthless.
The beanstalk, then , is explicitly not someone else's territory that he invades and exploits. It's his rightful legacy. It sprang from the beans that he sold his family's last possession for, and only exists because of his foolish act of faith. And, appropriately, it sprouts, along with a tutelary fairy, both treasure and a monster adversary. At first Jack just grabs the good stuff. But he can't keep doing that forever. Eventually he has to, as it were, slay the dragon, destroy the magic beanstalk, save himself and his mother, and take on life with what his youthful daring has been able to gather up.
I'm afraid the Jack that I like is the one little Patty saw when she, like him, was young and--as we all once were--full of youthful foolishness.
Fascinating, Patty. I didn't know about the different versions, although various TV series have reflected the different 'Jacks'. I wondered where you would lead us. I like the way you don't direct our judgment and, as you say, leave it up to us to form our own opinion based on the context you've provided. ON this trial of Jack - The jury is out for me. I wonder what other mitigating circumstances may be in evidence! ;-)
Victoria, what a delightful and thoughtful comment. I posted Jack and then spent the next few weeks in two different family reunions, so I'm only now seeing your comment. It is really encouraging to me when you talk about not "directing judgement." Being a writer and a teacher can make me fall into a bit of bullying about how I see things. It's something that I need to fight against all the time. Thank you for you thoughts.
Heckler from the back row here. Thing is, I share your moral principles and I most heartily agree with your revulsion at the atrocities of the British empire. But I really have to disagree with the idea that the South African horrors are specifically relevant to the redactions of the Jack story. I'm standing with your child self here. She was all right with it, and it's her insight I want to defend.
I think (as you have pointed out) that all fairy tale protagonists are opportunists/ And being foolish and thoughtless (young) is where most of them start out. Jack isn't an aberration.
After all, in every version you cite, the story begins with the cow. And nobody questions that the cow belongs to Jack and his mother. In that sense, the cow is indeed all that remains of what has been left them by his late father (his treasure). It's easy to be exasperated that Jack sells it for a handful of beans. But he's not the Biblical Esau, selling his birthright for a bowl of lentils. The whole point of the fairy tale is that these are magic beans.
If he'd sold the cow for money, that money would soon be gone. But instead, full of unspecific youthful dreams, and reckless confidence, he sells it for magic opportunity, which his mother flings away as worthless.
The beanstalk, then , is explicitly not someone else's territory that he invades and exploits. It's his rightful legacy. It sprang from the beans that he sold his family's last possession for, and only exists because of his foolish act of faith. And, appropriately, it sprouts, along with a tutelary fairy, both treasure and a monster adversary. At first Jack just grabs the good stuff. But he can't keep doing that forever. Eventually he has to, as it were, slay the dragon, destroy the magic beanstalk, save himself and his mother, and take on life with what his youthful daring has been able to gather up.
I'm afraid the Jack that I like is the one little Patty saw when she, like him, was young and--as we all once were--full of youthful foolishness.
Fascinating, Patty. I didn't know about the different versions, although various TV series have reflected the different 'Jacks'. I wondered where you would lead us. I like the way you don't direct our judgment and, as you say, leave it up to us to form our own opinion based on the context you've provided. ON this trial of Jack - The jury is out for me. I wonder what other mitigating circumstances may be in evidence! ;-)
Victoria, what a delightful and thoughtful comment. I posted Jack and then spent the next few weeks in two different family reunions, so I'm only now seeing your comment. It is really encouraging to me when you talk about not "directing judgement." Being a writer and a teacher can make me fall into a bit of bullying about how I see things. It's something that I need to fight against all the time. Thank you for you thoughts.