Fantasy Literature The Dragon and the Monkey God - Essay Example

? Fantasy literature: The dragon and the monkey god 25 August Introduction Fantasy literature is commonly filled with images of fantasy monsters and epic struggles. Culture, however, can impact fantasy literature's form, content, and style. How similar and different can two fantasy literature works from two different cultural traditions be? The two works analyzed for this paper are Carroll's “Jabberwocky” and Ch'eng-en's “Monkey” or “Journey to the West.” These works are located in different cultures and times. “Jabberwocky” is an American poem published in 1871, while “Monkey” is a Chinese novel published sometime during the 1590s. “Jabberwocky” is about a mythical dragon, while “Monkey” concerns the fantastic journeys of a Monkey God. This paper compares and contrasts the literary elements and structural devices of these fantasy works. It shows that “Monkey” has a more collectivist Chinese culture, while “Jabberwocky” depicts an individualistic Western culture, through images of gender, age, class, and elements of form, plot, and characterization. Literary Elements and Structural Devices Plot “Monkey” and “Jabberwocky” are similar in plot, because they both deal with the “unreal,” but cultural elements also pervade their content. “Jabberwocky” is a poem about the widely-feared dragon, the Jabberwock, which has a gibberish name. Individualism is apparent in how the boy finishes his quest alone. “Monkey” has its first few chapters dedicated to the Monkey God and his rise and downfall. Like “Jabberwocky,” “Monkey” cannot happen in real life. Sanzang, the Buddhist monk assigned to get the sacred scriptures, encounters numerous demons and evil creatures. Their experiences are possible only in the realm of human imagination, but they do entail the collectivist goals of the Chinese society. Characters The characters of “Monkey” and “Jabberwocky” are similar, because they are unreal ones with different individualistic levels. “Monkey” talks about the Monkey King, who turns into a God and then was cursed by higher powers, but who later becomes immortal, because of his good deeds. He works collaboratively with others to protect Sanzang. “Jabberwocky” is about an imaginary dragon. The boy who kills it seems to do such an easy task of killing this supposedly powerful monster, which is also quite improbable in real life, where a suitable comparison is a young boy killing a dangerous dinosaur through a sword. His solo flight character manifests individualism in Western tales. Themes “Monkey” has a more moralistic and collectivist theme than “Jabberwocky”. “Monkey” analyzes the difference between the false from truthful scriptures. The Bodhisattva says to Sanzang that his knowledge of the vehicles is limited to the “Little Vehicle” and he needs to search for the true scriptures in the West (Ch'eng-en, p. 186). “Jabberwocky” focuses on the themes of courage and undermining the warnings of the older generation. The father already warns his son of the Jabberwock with “...jaws that bite, the claws that catch” (Carroll, 2). The son remains unafraid, however, and hunts the dreaded monster with his vorpal sword. The son is very dissimilar to Sanzang, who fears monsters and demons. It is the Monkey who shares the same traits of bravery and to some extent, arrogance, with the boy, but he does not do everything alone. Instead, there are numerous beings who helped him save Sanzang from danger. Conflicts The conflicts are similar for both stories, because they deal with man versus himself and man versus society.“Jabberwocky” is about a boy who conquers his fear and proves to his society that a youngster can kill a monster. This boy vanquishes the fear of his society against this monster. “Monkey” deals with the struggles of a vain monkey in being a good individual. The monkey also has conflicts with different demons and evil spirits that are hindrances to his mission of protecting Sanzang. Images of Culture and Stereotyping Collective-versus-individualistic culture impacts stereotyping images in these stories, especially age, gender, and class. There is no stereotyping in terms of race, because the stories are either “white” like “Jabberwocky” or Chinese like “Monkey.” In “Monkey,” age is glorified, where older people are respected and believed to have great knowledge and experience in the world. For instance, the Monkey King meets a woodcutter, who cannot pursue the path of spirituality, because he would rather take care of his aging mother. His story captures the Chinese ideal for a man who takes care of his elderly parents, which is aligned with Chinese collective goals of taking care of each other. “Jabberwocky” respects age, but also questions the fears of the elderly. If the boy cowered in fear like his father, he would not have killed the Jabberwock. This poem then challenges the knowledge of the elderly through underscoring the aggressiveness and courage of the youth. Gender images are more apparent in “Monkey” than the “Jabberwocky,” especially since the former has a longer content. In “Monkey,” women are projected as supporters of their husbands and sons, which is typical for the patriarchal and collectivist system of the Chinese. Lewd women are also portrayed to suffer in hell, which remarks on the pure virtues that women should hold. “Jabberwocky” does not mention any woman, which indicates the absence of the “woman” in action tales (Ch'eng-en, p.159). Social class is also represented in both stories, where the working and poor class in “Jabberwocky” are seen in conflicting lights of superstitiousness and bravery, while the upper and lower class in “Monkey” are either pure or evil, and where collectivism is higher for “Monkey” than “Jabberwocky.” “Jabberwocky” seems to uphold the virtues of the working class, who have the virtues of bravery that cannot be undermined. “Monkey” shows lords who are perfect in their virtues, though there are people in upper class who are focused too much on their material needs. It also shows some of the lower class that may be poor in money, but rich in the after life, because of their good deeds on earth. Still, there are also scoundrels in the lower class. The religious values are also more pronounced for “Monkey,” especially, since it describes a journey of spiritual significance for Buddhism. The social class of the people do not matter, if their religious values are strong. The story also highlights the virtue of collectivism across all social classes, since they share similar spiritual goals. Images and Familial and Cultural values “Monkey” shows Asian cultural values of collectivity and family ties. Sanzang gets help from several families, where women and men work together to provide him vegetarian meals and are hospitable in their treatment of their guests. Sanzang also obtains assistance from the Monkey King and Pig. They are his bodyguards and this shows a sense of collectivity in reaching personal goals. “Jabberwocky” renders a typical western cultural image of individuality, where one boy solely conquers the dragon. He does not have anyone to help him; instead, he becomes a hero all on his own. Still, there are close family ties between he and his father, where his father greets him after his son kills the dragon. Poetic Techniques and Elements of Fantasy Carroll uses lyric poem structure and an imaginative play of words to assert the “Old English” effect of his story. The main impacts of the combination of traditional lyric poem and nonsensical words are twofold. On the one hand, this satirizes Old English poetry language that cannot be understood in modern times. It also makes fun of fantastic tales that are rendered as gibberish, because of the nonsensical words used. On the other hand, Lewis glorifies the themes of bravery, curiosity, and the youth's conquest of ancient fears. Lewis uses imaginative words to emphasize that it does not matter to the youth how scary the Jabberwock is. His father can weave the scariest tales using the most dramatic words, but a courageous youth would not be discouraged enough, probably because of a mixture of curiosity and foolishness. Ch'eng-en uses different beings and fantastic events to demonstrate the powers of the gods and the weaknesses of human beings. He employs the elements of imaginative events to constantly keep the tempo of the story pleasing to the readers. For instance, when he describes how the Monkey King deals with several demons that capture Sanzang, he combines unreal events and beings to capture the out-of-this-world adventures of Sanzang and his bodyguards. Deviations and Impact on Messages Carroll deviates from linguistic norms by creating new words or somewhat changing Old English terms to enhance the power of fantasy and how the youth can challenge prevailing social attitudes. The impact of this deviation is to increase the appearance of fantasy and to enhance the onomatopoeic flavor of his poem. For instance, an example of an Old English word he uses is “wabe” (Carroll, 2) which refers to a hill side. The word “slithy” (Carroll, 1) is an invented one, which combines the words slimy and slithering. “Slithy” also sends a strong image of a slithering and slimy dragon with scales. Ch'eng-en does not deviate from linguistic norms, because he stresses on the importance of traditional values of hard work and goodness to earn immortality. He does not invent gibberish words and he relies on imaginative sequences and characters to help his readers understand the role of bravery and faith in attaining greater human ideals. Choice of Form and Impact on Messages Ch'eng-en uses the novel narrative, which is an effective way of depicting the individual and collective struggles of his characters, and emphasizing the message of spiritual enlightenment, no matter how hard obstacles may be. This novel has numerous poems and anecdotes included in it, which further shows the oral traditions of Chinese storytelling and the continuity of traditional Chinese values of teamwork. Carroll uses a short poem with seven stanzas and he repeats the first and last stanza to stress the traditional lyric structure, which effectively drives his point that traditions may remain, but something changes can still come from within. In his poem, the boy brings about social changes by killing the dragon and undermining the fears of his society. It shows how individuals have power to create significant and lasting changes, which is different from the collective role of people in “Monkey.” Conclusion “Monkey” and “Jabberwocky” have both woven fantastic tales to drive their different messages to their audiences. “Jabberwocky” asserts the values of bravery and challenging social beliefs, while “Monkey” underlines the importance of spiritual enlightenment as the highest mortal endeavor. Furthermore, “Jabberwocky” depicts an individualistic culture, while “Monkey” cherishes collective and family-based ideals and practices. Carroll also uses deviations in linguistic norms to enhance fantasy and question older norms, while Ch'eng-en follows the traditional fantasy literature to preach about morality's potential ascent to immortality, through spiritual enlightenment and collectivism. These stories effectively entail the richness of the cultures they represent and how different fantasy literatures can be across continents. References Carroll, L. (1871). Jabberwocky. Retrieved from http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html Ch'eng-en, W. (n.d.). Monkey (Journey to the west). Retrieved from http://www.chine-informations.com/fichiers/jourwest.pdf Read More