John Hopewell states that during and after the Spanish Civil War people led a life in a ‘permanent state of evasion, of absence of reality, of withdrawal into fantasy’ or as Victor Erice (director of The Spirit of The Beehive and others films directed under the dictatorship of Franco) claims they became ‘exiled within themselves’.

It is possible to read the film in two ways. Either the fantasy underground realm existed and Ofelia’s quest wasone of self-discovery for her true identity. Or, that the fantasy works as a psychological reflection of the real world and is metaphorical of the spanish necessity to withdraw from the psychological trauma of the War itself by indulging in fantastical imaginings.

I believe the that both work alongside each other and that the underground realm exists. There is quite a bit of evidence to back this up throughout the film, although Del toro clearly tries to keep it ambiguous up to a point. Your problem with the fact that she is entering another realm which is run as an authoritatrain regime is understandable. However, the fact that the undergorund realm is shrouded in warm, sepia glow should demonstrate the fact that the monarchy of the fantasy world is not a dictatorial one like the cold blue lighting of Vidal’s fascist world,(hehe!) so i wouldn’t worry bout that one. The point of the story for me is that Ofelia’s unification with her rightful family is the manifestation of her true identity being fulfilled. Her quest is complete, and furthermore she had to oversom the amibuguous advice of the Faun and the violence of Vidal. By doing this she has demonstrated that she is independent and has claime the right to independence and has come of age. Furhtermore, i don’t really see a problem with mixing the boy and the girl quest, although i think you make an interesting point. However, it is more interesting that he subverted these quests as opposed to rigidly sticking by them. Plus, Del Toro loves to subvert standars customs. Such as the Gothic tradition in ‘Thje Devil’s backbone’ or the fairy tale in ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’

Cheers for the post, was an interesting read.

But, I think the fairy tale authoritarianism = real world authoritarianism is a huge stretch. It’s a fantastical world and all rules are bent anyway. That aside, the appeal to being a princess is to be loved by all and be able to do what you want, 99% of the time in regard to your own space. Have all the pretty dresses you want, a great family, find a husband that is your true love – not to determine rations or areas of land, rights and rules. The dream of a princess is pretty basic: autonomy, and the wealth to pursue that autonomy. I’d argue that the dream of a princess/queen is very different from a prince/king in that respect. It’s sad, but I think real that the next step for a little boy is to rule over others as well as himself, whereas for a little girl it is to rule over herself.

First, the hero in a classic myth usually doesn’t come from a perfect world – the world is dying, which is why he or she must go on the quest. You forgot the step, following the fight with the Ogre-Father (also possibly a Dragon, but ‘Ogre-Father’ is a better way to describe the functional purpose of the character) and usually during the recognition by the Divine Father, of receiving the Divine Boon. The Hero takes this boon back to the world and revitalizes it.

What you seem to be thinking of is the “American Monomyth,” as identified by Shelton and Jewett in the mid-70’s. This one is marked by the perfection of the world, into which comes an evil force, ruining it. The Hero, likewise, comes from outside of the world, resolves its problems (usually in spite of the residents’ efforts, or lack thereof), and leaves again. It is by no means exclusive to (or even created in) the United States, but it is the most commonly-used construction in American media. It encourages the acceptance of violence as a purifying force and the pacivity of the populace in dealing with Heroes, for whom the rules should not apply. “Death Wish” and “Dirty Harry” are pretty much the paradigmatic “American Monomyth” films.

Second, when the Hero returns to the world and revitalizes it using the Divine Boon, the quest is not over. If the Hero ever stops returning to the other world, if he or she becomes too obsessed with the gifts gained in the other world to venture out again in order to gain further gifts (ie. a deeper understanding of himself/herself), then – as Campbell very clearly states – he or she becomes Holdfast, the new Dragon or Ogre-Father for the next hero. Further, he or she NEVER conquers the other world – it is unconquerable. It is the sum of all things that are unknowable. Psychologically (which is, after all, the main point of the Monomyth), the other world is the subconscious mind. The ego is incapable of understanding the conscious mind, let alone conquering it.

This entire article falls apart the second you realize that the “boy’s quest” doesn’t exist. It is one variation of the Hero’s Quest, which is much closer to your “girl’s quest” in that all of the steps are optional, and can occur in a variety of ways – there is NO step which occurs as definitely as this version states (also, you’ve left out several of the steps, such as the union with the Divine Mother, which occurs before or during the fight with the Ogre-Father, as she helps the Hero overcome him).

Read “The Hero With 1000 Faces.” Volume 9 of The Complete Works of Carl Jung would also help (start with the second book, “Aeon,” rather than the first, “Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious”), as would “The Morphology of the Folktale” by Vladimir Propp. “The Fantastic” by Tzetvan Todorov requires some leaps in logic to be connected, but is still valid. There are dozens of other texts on the subject, but these have the basics.

Can you tell I specialized in Myth in grad school?

http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/dial/Oz/femoztax.html

There’s a bibliography on the bottom of the page, so I guess that’s where I got these theories from?

In any event, the fantasy girl quest that I outlined above is quite similar to the girl quest that you often see in certain kinds of 19th century Gothic novels. In those stories, the otherworld is an uncanny domestic space, the villain is some sort of evil father figure (usually an uncle or something), and the hero an adolescent girl whose emotions range from scared to curious.

Don’t ask me where I got that from either. I have no works cited page, sorry.

As for the democracy/fairy tale monarchy question, I do understand that the old fantasy stories lacked democracy by default. The question is whether or not a modern fantasy like Pan’s Labyrinth should follow the same form.

Ok, here’s an ending that could make us all happy. At the beginning of the film, the Faun tells Ofelia that the Underworld has been taken over by an evil prince (a mirror-world Vidal figure), and that she can only free her people if she can earn her right to return there. Then, the ending of the film has her returning to the Underworld as a princess, where she can take her throne and use her magic powers (or magic sword or whatever) to help the Underworld peasants rise up against Evil Fantasy Vidal and take back the kingdom.

In this new ending, Ofelia still gets to be a pretty pretty princess, and the story still follows an archetypal fantasy story form (now of the Fisher King, sort of), but I’m happy because now becoming a princess is wholly an act of rebellion that ends in freedom.

With that aside, I have to say that the ending of the film didn’t bother me in the least. Then again, I read it as ambiguous: the fantasy realm isn’t strictly an escape from a nightmarish reality or a home to which Ofelia returns – it is both at once.

Furthermore, I don’t think I’d be satisfied with any reading that casts it purely as a victory for the heroine who comes back over the threshold or as a tragedy-cum-political-victory where the heroine perishes, leaving the emergence of a new state in her wake. The moral choice defies both the trickster guide of the quest and the fascist, two very different figures from very different worlds. The choice, and the ending, is a third way out – as it has to be.

Also, I have to echo the sentiment that monarchies and fascist regimes are not one and the same. Fairy-tale dominions that reside at the end of the quest, in particular, are earned by the outcast or disinherited – and not merely granted by inheritance alone, as is the case with the fascist’s blood-obsession.

It’s easy to say that fascism -> authoritarianism -> order and leave it at that (it’s politically true, after all), but in storytelling (including historical narratives) we think of fascism as a form of misrule. Fantasy and myth don’t allow for democracy, so the happy ending is the restoration of order in the form of a “proper” kingdom. Here, that kingdom is one where the imagination is free.