Author Archives: Giselle Lee Hosler

Midterm (The Reel Deal, as they say)

Posted on by
Reply

Giselle Lee Hosler

March 3rd, 2024

ECL 305

Prof Pressman

Many different cultures have different mermaid mythology, representing their relationships with themselves and nature. Oannes the fish man in particular represents the developing relationship between humanity and nature, through his contributions of developing the civilized society of Babylonia. Throughout the text, Oannes continuously shows society concepts such as science, architecture, the arts, etc., manmade concepts that aren’t found in nature. Therefore, there is a positive connection between humanity and nature, given how much Oannes seems to want it to succeed, because humans are a part of nature, even if some of their concepts are not. 

To begin, Oannes is presented as a being that isn’t quite human. “(According to the account of Apollodorus) the whole body of the animal was like that of a fish; and had under a fish’s head another head, and also feet below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish’s tail. His voice, too, and language was articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.” (Penguin Book, 4) While he has human characteristics, he isn’t quite human. Yet, he isn’t quite all a monster in the sense of being completely divorced from humanity. His physical appearance blends in the natural world, and humanity, by allowing both of them to coexist within him. Not to mention, both the human parts of him and the fish parts of him meld together in harmony, a subtle nod to humanity’s place alongside nature.

Perhaps it is this sort of ethereal and uncanny balance that allows for the people of Babylonia to trust him with the information he gives them regarding humans. The text says that “This Being, in the day-time, used to converse with men, but took no food at that season…” (4) The time of day being mentioned is important, because it shows that there is a pattern. Day-time, being that when the sun is out. The sun has the archetype of knowledge, and enlightenment, which is very relevant to Oannes’s character and his actions. It frames this creature as intelligent, easy to trust (as he presents himself in broad daylight for everyone to see), and above all, not hostile. 

His actions are then described as benevolent in nature- his teaching of civilization to the humans. “…and he gave them an insight into letters, and sciences, and every kind of art. He taught them to construct houses, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge…” (4) Oannes has all of this knowledge at his disposal, which he seems to readily give to the human population of Babylonia. Knowledge that is relevant to many developed civilizations, societies that have to coexist with each other. This knowledge would elevate these people out of nature, and yet he gives it to them. Houses, laws, temples, geometry, these are not natural concepts- they are manmade. 

It doesn’t just stop at human concepts- Oannes also teaches them lessons from nature itself. “He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect fruits.” (4) These lessons are the humans learning directly from nature, to be able to survive within it. Oannes having this knowledge despite being a creature of water shows his connection towards nature. He is all-encompassing, representing not just the realm of water, but also the realm of land. And through his knowledge and human characteristics, Oannes represents humanity, as well. Therefore, his connection to humanity seems more positive and well meaning. 

Oannes’s role for humanity is to act as a sort of guide, leading them into higher development and evolution. “In short, he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize mankind.” (4) What does a fish monster man need to humanize mankind before, if it would go against nature? Oannes seems very aware of the balance needed to maintain nature, as well as the information necessary to elevate humans into society. He must believe that these things are not mutually exclusive, therefore it justifies why he teaches humanity about the things necessary for more societal living. 

This is the final part of the text, which reestablishes Oannes’s connection to nature, and affirms his other-ness. “When the sun set it was the custom of this Being to plunge again into the sea, and abide all night in the deep; for he was amphibious.” (4) This is a reminder of what sets Oannes apart, as well as provides the mysterious vibe of nature. Oannes leaves humanity to go and reunite with nature, which is also where he presumably lives, eats, sleeps, and gathers his own information. Not to mention, it is the opposite of day-time, which has elements of knowledge. When the sun goes down, the knowledge ends, and plunges the world into darkness. Things become unknown to people. This can be interpreted as Oannes plunging into the unknown to discover more, or returning to whence he came. 

Throughout the whole text, Oannes is seen as nothing but benevolent, never seeming to punish, lie, or betray mankind as he leads them from simple life into the complex. While one could argue that Oannes is leading humanity away from nature through the introduction of manmade concepts of law, government and religion, it would be as simple as ignoring the thought placed in his actions. Why would he teach the humans all of these concepts which would have to borrow from nature if he intended for them to be detached from it?

Oannes taught humanity how to balance both themselves and nature while also elevating humanity above nature. It feels like a positive relationship, given how he interacts with humans. He could have taught them that nature was something to be feared, left alone, something terrifying and dangerous and not to be mingled with. Yet he has taught them that they can exist alongside it. They’re already doing so with him- Oannes is a representation of nature, and especially of nature and humanity being a part of one another. He wanted the people to succeed in becoming more in sync with nature. 

It’s definitely important to show that the people of the past had a positive relationship with nature, given how we as a collective take from it to survive. Without it, we would be nowhere, which is what Oannes proves. Without him, the people of Babylonia wouldn’t have developed beyond whatever they had without him (which was without science, art, culture, houses, temples and laws). Part of the text implies that Oannes had tamed the people of Babylonia, yes, but it can also be seen as them evolving away from their old roles. Being able to work with nature allowed for more development amongst humanity. Working alongside nature, being guided from it, is the only way humanity can continue to flourish. 

These things matter, because humanity NOW only has this one planet, with all its natural beauty and wonder, and it’s being squandered and ruined. In the past, we could live within nature, take only what we needed to survive and be happy with the result. We learned from nature, learned what to eat, how to eat it, how to grow things from it. It may have been Oannes who taught the people of Babylonia specifically, but his presence can only mean that it was Nature guiding humanity. Without it, mankind, humanity, what have you, would be lost and underdeveloped. Not to mention, we can still learn from nature itself. What Oannes taught was merely just the building block.

Week 7: Little Mermaid

Posted on by
Reply

So I read “The Little Mermaid” for the first time, and I was blown away from all of the imagery, to be honest. The way that things get described, like the ocean kingdom, it was very breathtaking. “The soil produces the most curious trees and flowers, whose leaves and stems are so flexible that the slightest motion of the water seems to fluster them as if they were living creatures. Fishes, great and small, glide through the branches as birds fly through the trees here upon earth.”(page one hundred and eight)*

This was what intrigued me, as well, because here we see the connection between human and nature. We can establish here that, at this point, we would imagine merpeople to have a similar sort of world as our own, given how the merpeople have things such as trees and flowers. We see the comparison between them and us, drawing similarities and parallels. Some things are done differently, of course, but when we imagined the merpeople, we imagined them similar to us. Granted, you can say that maybe the trees are different, but we don’t GET any of that. What this is giving is that its giving “they’re more like us”.

Ok then I want to talk about the last bit, where the little mermaid goes to Heaven(?)/ascends after her death. First of all, she’s way better than me. Second of all, the ending felt really weird to me. So she’s told, “You have suffered and endured, and have raised yourself into an aerial spirit, and now your own good works may obtain you an immortal soul after the lapse of three hundred years.” (page one hundred thirty). and THEN she’s also told that her 300 years is contingent on children???? Is this supposed to be like religious propaganda or something? Does this mean that nothing matters???

*my number one key on my laptop is sticky so I had to use the actual word for the numbers.

Week 6: Undine

Posted on by
1

Right off the bat I can see the similarities between Undine and Melusina: two water spirits/mermaidesque creatures who get married to mortal, human men and then eventually reveal their true selves. But it deviates because Undine willingly revealed it to her husband, whatever his name was (Huldbrand?) after they had gotten married. There’s still that strong element of The Other infiltrating (through the dreams): “Wonderful and horrible dreams had disturbed Huldbrand’s rest; he had been haunted by spectres, who, grinning at him by stealth, had tried to disguise themselves as beautiful women, and from beautiful women they all at once assumed the faces of dragons….” (102)

This could be some sort of premonition, but also to me it reflects the fear the patriarchy has with women who are also pretty. Thats a very surface level interpretation, I know. At the same time, I think it’s also a reflection of how people are afraid of their true selves, or the true selves of other people. That there is a nasty side, a dangerous side. There’s a huge contrast between these really scary nightmares Huldbrand is having, and then how pretty and dainty and lovely Undine is. It could be a testament to how the true nature of things is something people fear? Coming back to comparing Undine and Melusina, the thing they have in common is this fear of the Other, even when a couple are married. Discovering your wife (because we have only seen stories where the wife is a Creature and not the husband) is not what she seems is a reoccurring thing.

Also side note: very interesting seeing this story and having played Undertale becuase there is an NPC called Undyne who is a fish monster (could you call her a merperson?) who is the literal opposite of how Undine is described in her folklore. Interesting to see how meanings deviate or how people take inspiration from old things and make them into new things.

week 5 Melusine

Posted on by
1

I read over the story of Melusine, as per our reading today, and I noticed some things that felt very similar to the Sirens we were talking about last week.

For one, we see the sort of not-quite fish but close to fish hybridity (Melusina is a snake lady but only one day a week?). But then we see more similarities. There’s sky elements in this folklore too: “He hid himself; and then saw how the lovely form of Melusina ended below in a snake, gray and sky-blue, mixed with white.” (Page 88, penguin) So this supposedly demonic and unnatural woman creature with ties to water has ties to the skies? Not only that, but then further down when she’s giving her epic speech, she says “…shall know that whenever I am seen to hover over the fair castle of Lusignan, then it will be certain in that very year the castle will get a new lord; and though people may not perceive me in the aid, yet they will see me by the Fountain of Thirst…” (88)

So she’s able to hover/fly as a snake woman creature. She also has a connection to nature but why exactly do we keep seeing the creature that’s tied to water being also tied to the air? This is giving binary oppositions but in a much more confusing way. I hope we can figure this out more later because my head is starting to turn into scrambled eggs. My guess is that she represents a sort of human tie to nature, because she didn’t quite start out as the creature, but rather she went from civilization into nature. And since nature doesn’t stop at the ocean, or water, or the skies above, she embodies them all?

Week 4 (Penguin Book)

Posted on by
1

The first few myths of the book are so far, pretty interesting. It was really neat to see how some elements of the mermaid have stayed the same (the fish features and the connection to water, for example). But I think the one that really spoke to me this time was the sharing of information, particularly with Oannes, the first myth we had to read. He seemed very fun, but his description boggled and intrigued me. (here is my mspaint interpretation of Oannes, bless his heart. I drew this with my fingers) “…the whole body of the animal was like that of a fish;and had under a fish’s head another head, and also feet below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish’s tail.” (pages 3-4)

You’re telling me THIS CREATURE MAN was giving people advice and sage wisdom?

Real talk, I think this connection of water and knowledge is interesting. “…and he gave them an insight into letters, and sciences, and every kind of art”. (page 4) So were all of their cultural advancements solely centered around the ocean? Around Oannes? Or did Oannes know of things beyond the ocean? From his section in the book, he doesn’t come off as malevolent. Perhaps the people of Babylon had a very beneficial relationship with their ocean. Or maybe Oannes had Good Vibes ™.

Week 2? 3? Reading Post (59 – 99)

Posted on by
1

I had read that first two chunks of reading last week so I decided to do the third chunk of reading. It opens up with the Renaissance and how discovering the New World had influenced how the Old World saw and interacted with mermaids. Somewhere in the beginning there was a tidbit about how Old Worlders were interacting with the New World environments and how they found opossums. “Though hindsight relegates these creatures
to fantasy, other animals proved very real and just as terrifying to early modern Europeans. The female opossum, for instance, was a strange New World ‘composite creature’, combining parts from Old World animals and humans to create ‘an inorganic multiplicity’.” (page 61, ch 2) I think it really feels like grappling with the strange creatures bolstered the otherness of the mermaid. Especially given what their modern society was, and their modern ideas.

It also, weirdly enough, makes the mermaid feel more natural. When you have creatures like the opposum and maybe even the platypus (dont know if it was named in this portion specifically but it is a mishmash creature), then mermaids by proxy are natural- a mishmash creature. Funnily enough there was also a mention that Old Worlders expected to see mermaids and tritons everywhere (its early in the chapter), I thought that was really interesting. They were going off the opposum and whatever other animals they had found, or maybe perhaps their perception of the New World.

My thoughts on part of the Reading (week 2?)

Posted on by
1

While I was reading the introductory part of the reading, all I could think was “dang, there are a LOT of different interpretations about mermaids”. And thats not really the half of it- there seemed to be a different definition, a different vision of what a mermaid was, what they looked like, and what they did. I liked that. I liked seeing how different cultures took different ideas about the mermaid, even though some of them I definitely did not agree with. It’s interesting to consider how many people used the mermaid as a symbol, even when different groups and cultures had clashing ideas.

Seems to me that growing up in certain areas or growing up with certain ideas colors the symbolism of the mermaid. While the ideas can change over decades or centuries, some things still remain- positive or negative connotations with the mythical creature. And it’s so fun to see the change. Going from monstrous, to beautiful, and from different flavors of dangerous. Like how some mermaids were almost completely monsters, like Scylla and Charbydis, but then much later in other cultures they became more and more human. I think that speaks to how more modern audiences begin to view the mermaid itself.

Introduction

Posted on by
Reply

Hi, I’m Giselle and I’m pretty stoked to take this class! I had a few expectations going into this semester but the first class we had together last Thursday really blew my mind! The reading material is very interesting and I’m excited for whatever we’ll be learning about.

I’m a junior, this is technically my third year in college even though if we were really counting, it’s my fourth. I did three years at community college before transferring over to SDSU last fall. I’m a San Diego native, and I’ll probably stay here for awhile longer. I’m an English major, and I really do enjoy reading and sometimes writing, even though I don’t really have the time to do much of either 🙁