As for the human-animal continuum, I would say that the boy lands on the other side of it when he transforms. The boy is dead – only his spirit remains. That spirit is given to a bird. There is no in-between; the physical forms are perfectly clear. I read the bird and the boy as two separate entities, and the bird is a keeper of the boys spirit until the time that the boy can be restored. A physical purgatory, or a waiting form of sorts. I am reminded of Pinocchio in this way of thinking about the boy's transformation; was Pinochio on a puppet-boy continuum before he was made human? What about after? We hardly still call him "puppet boy" after he is made human. The difference in Pinocchio's states of being is in when he is an actual puppet and when he is a human boy. There is his preliminary time as a well-crafted chunk of wood, but then we have two distinct conditions: puppet with a spirt ("I got no strings!"), and boy with a spirit ("I'm a real boy!"). Completely different. The same, I feel, can be applied to the boy's change in "The Juniper Tree".
Author's Disclaimer: In re-reading this before positing, I realized that the above argument assumes that humans are the only spirited beings, and that birds (and other living things of similar natures) do not have spirits of their own. I am sure that Pocahontas would be gravely disappointed in me, and you can be assured that I am properly abashed for my inconsiderate oversight. However, I put a great deal of thought into what you just read, so it was still posted as planned.
On another hand, the boy's revival from the dead really emphasizes the "kill or be killed" concept we see in "Hansel and Gretel" as well. The inversion is interesting, though: first, the boy falls victim to the KOBK mentality, and was clearly the one who was slaughtered. But in his alternate life as a bird, it is as if he awakened to the idea, and so he goes on to murder his stepmother. His revelation is seemingly rewarded by the restoration to his life as a human.
Something completely unrelated to birds, transformations, and ressurections, but equally interesting/mind-boggling/troublesome, is the fact that the only named character in the Grimms' version of the story is Marlene. I know in class, we spoke briefly about the role of siblings, with particular emphasis on brother-sister combinations, but it seems that this focus is unwarranted. It almost makes the story about her, and that really caught my attention. Any thoughts?
I had never thought of your first idea before, that perhaps the boy and the bird are not the same person! Since this was transformation week, I figured that one transformed into the other. but your theory is a more logical explanation than the boy somehow transforming into a bird out of nothingness. The boy in this tale is extremely lame though, he is pitied as an orphan and more pitiable as a beheaded son, bird, etc. Even as a real boy, he has less spirit than pinocchio as a puppet did.
ReplyDeleteAlso I found it interesting too that only Marlene was given a name. I think that she probably was considered the most important or at least virtuous character, since she had the integrity to bury her brother's bones and cry and worry ever so much about him.