Comments on "America Indian Myths and Legends"

I enjoyed reading the myths that were selected for this book. The introduction, however, I found a little boring. Some parts stood out to me like how Native Americans follow the pace of "Indian time" and how there is a strong association between geography and myths. Some other parts I found unnecessary.

One thing that opened by eyes was how the author explained that depending on where the Indians lived, the legends would vary. I probably would have just bunched all Indian myths into one category before reading that.

The myths themselves for the most part seem to try and explain something that is already in existence. First with "When Grizzlies Walked Upright," the myth explains why grizzly bears walk on four paws and don't speak as well as where Indians originated from. Then with "The Quillwork Girl and Her Seven Star Brothers," the myth explains how the big dipper was formed. In "How the People Got Arrowheads," the myth explains where people got their arrowheads to hunt with. I also felt like when I was reading these myths it is like I can hear someone reading them. They sound like they were originally spoken and then recorded through word of mouth.

Comments on "Porto Rican Folklore" by Peter J. Hamilton

I found this article very interesting because I am currently learning about how the Americas came to be. It's cool to learn how colonization has affected folklore traditions. The section about witches stood out to me the most. The beginning of this article states that Puerto Rico was settled by Spaniards with some "Indian and large negro admixture." The West Indies have been known to practice witchcraft derived from Africa according to Hamilton. I believe this is where talk of witches and witches would have stemmed from. 

The three folktales weren't as I thought they would be. They seemed very dry and straight forward. I feel like death or pain was something spoken of very easily. I also felt as though just the folktale "The Ant in Search of Her Leg" had a message I could take with me.

Comments on "The Sociopsychological Analysis of Folktales" by J.L. Fischer

The part of this paper that stuck out most to me was the part where Fischer discusses myths and dreams.  In my philosophy class we have been learning a lot about dreams so thats why this caught my attention the most. In a recent discussion I had with my sister, we talked about how we thought many ideas for screenplays must come from dreams. So the part where Fischer says "Much ethnographic evidence points to fact that both whole myths and modifications of existing myths often originate in special dreams or trances of the religious leaders" made a lot of sense to me. But it also makes sense when Fischer says that it could be hard to create a myth based on a dream because we easily forget most of our dreams. Also the meaning of a dream is usually for that person who had the dream and not for a general audience.

Another part I enjoyed reading was when Fischer explained the definition of "folklore" in terms of this paper. This term can be very confusing to me. I like that it is first defined very simply as "any traditional, dramatic, oral narrative." It makes sense that time and place will have an affect on how folktales will be interpreted and categorized. How Fischer explains "expressive culture"and its relationships to folktale was also interesting.

Comments on "Aesop, Aristotle, and Animals: The Role of Fables in Human Life by Edward Clayton

In the beginning of this article Clayton explains the popular view of how fables were perceived. This view is that “the strong rule and the weak must obey or suffer, and that ultimately it is strength that matters more than anything else.” I was curious to see what Clayton believes the purposes of the fables were and how he would prove it.  In my opinion he does a great job in piecing together a valid argument. Step by step he proves his point that the fables teach “the values of equality and justice.” It all makes sense but I don’t think many people saw it this way. First, I think these fables have many different lessons and it depends on each person's view of them. Second, I think Aristotle’s view of animals is interesting but I wouldn't base my whole argument off of something one person said. Clayton says Aristotle represents the kind of audience that interests him. This just narrows the audience down. Intellectual people may have viewed these fables the way Clayton believed so but that doesn’t mean they were the only people to read them. To me at first glance the fables have an obvious theme of strength and weakness. I believe many others viewed it this same way. Third, Clayton makes a very good point I just feel like a few times his arguments are based on assumptions. For me, a lot of this article is about trusting what the author says. This topic is something I don’t know much about at all so I don’t want to just believe anything I read even if he is right.