 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, I don't think so--his intent isn't malicious and he even does the right thing at the expense of his own gain when it comes to protecting Freia from the giants. . |
Didn't Fricka have to threaten him in order to get him to do something to save Freia from the giants?
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 17-04-2005 at 22:17
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Okay, my sources say that at the opening of "Rhinegold" Freya is fleeing the giants who want to take her. Freya places herself under the protection of Wotan and Frika. Wotan, as clan patriarch is obligated to protect her. As the giants approach Thor perpares to do battle with them, but Wotan's "runespear" won't allow this because Wotan had a bargain with them. It's Loge who mentions the gold, in response the giants decide they'd rather have the gold. So Wotan doesn't protect Freya out of the goodness of his heart, but out of obligation. His predicament is that while he made a bargain with the giants, binding, but in bad faith, Freya and the rest of his clan aren't required to go along with it. He comes off as amoral, conniving, and cowardly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Okay, my sources say that at the opening of "Rhinegold" Freya is fleeing the giants who want to take her. Freya places herself under the protection of Wotan and Frika. Wotan, as clan patriarch is obligated to protect her. As the giants approach Thor perpares to do battle with them, but Wotan's "runespear" won't allow this because Wotan had a bargain with them. It's Loge who mentions the gold, in response the giants decide they'd rather have the gold. So Wotan doesn't protect Freya out of the goodness of his heart, but out of obligation. His predicament is that while he made a bargain with the giants, binding, but in bad faith, Freya and the rest of his clan aren't required to go along with it. He comes off as amoral, conniving, and cowardly. |
That source is wrong. Here's the official synopsis from the Met page:
quote:
As the sun rises over a mountainous plateau, Fricka and Wotan slumber on a bank of flowers. A fortress, their new home, gleams in the distance. When the two gods awaken, Wotan hails the building as a fulfillment of his dreams. Fricka reproaches her husband for having promised her sister Freia to the giants Fafner and Fasolt as payment for constructing the castle. Wotan replies that he never meant to keep the bargain. As the terrified Freia runs in, pursued by Fafner and Fasolt, Wotan says Loge (fire) will help the gods out of their dilemma. The giants advance to claim their reward. When Wotan protests he made the pact in jest, that they must settle for another fee, Fasolt, smitten with Freia, balks. Fafner decides the goddess must be abducted. As the giants drag her away, Froh (spring) and Donner (thunder) bar their path, Donner brandishing his hammer. Wotan intervenes, saying all treaties are guaranteed on his spear.
Loge, who originated the contract with the giants, and who at Wotan's command has been trying to find a suitable payment in lieu of Freia, materializes in a puff of smoke. The crafty god suggests that perhaps the Rhinegold might be an acceptable substitute. He then relates how Alberich stole the hoard, forging it into a Ring through which he can gain world dominance.
|
So all along Wotan has never had the intention of giving over Freia. I'm not sure where this "obligation" notion comes from. Perusing the libretto, I see no mention of it. Wotan makes it clear several times that he has never intended to hand over Freia, even from the start. Why else would he have Loge already looking for an alternative?
Wotan is, to a degree, amoral and certainly is conniving. But I don't agree he's cowardly (indeed, much else in the Ring goes against that). And he is definitely not evil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That source is wrong. Here's the official synopsis from the Met page:
So all along Wotan has never had the intention of giving over Freia. I'm not sure where this "obligation" notion comes from. Perusing the libretto, I see no mention of it. Wotan makes it clear several times that he has never intended to hand over Freia, even from the start. Why else would he have Loge already looking for an alternative?
Wotan is, to a degree, amoral and certainly is conniving. But I don't agree he's cowardly (indeed, much else in the Ring goes against that). And he is definitely not evil. |
If amoral and conniving isn't evil, what is? I might also add that for Wotan to make a bad faith bargain was for him to have embraced his downfall. He was the keeper of the runespear. IIRC myth required that if the bearer should be dishonest the spear would break and he would lose his power. In an indirect way that is what happened. Wotan's spear was broken and his power lost. Yes, I know that his spear was broken by Siegfreid, and not obviously as a direct consequence of his treachery, but his bad faith deal was the act that triggered the entire series of tragic events. Since Wotan sort of represents governance in this story, the Ring Cycle is a morality tale unveiling the consequences of corruption.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If amoral and conniving isn't evil, what is? |
Malicious intent is required for evil. Wotan is not malicious in anything he does, and eventually attempts to set things right by not letting the giants take Freia.
Wotan is kinda like Bill Clinton. Amoral? In many ways, yep. Foolish at times? Absolutely. Self-centered? Mmm-hmmm. Conniving? Certainly. But evil? Nah.
I'm afraid I don't buy the notion that Wotan's spear being broken is a result of him breaking the bargain he makes with the giants. The giants accept his alternative, after all. They are happy to have the gold and the ring in lieu of Freia--indeed, it's a better deal for them. So Wotan doesn't break his oath, he just renegotiates the deal.
And the corruption begins with Alberich, not Wotan. It's his theft of the gold that starts all the events. Now Alberich is definitely evil. The gold wants to return to the Rhine, and Wotan is just part of the ring's design. He is an unwitting player in the story of the ring and how it is returned to its home.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 18-04-2005 at 00:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Malicious intent is required for evil. Wotan is not malicious in anything he does, and eventually attempts to set things right by not letting the giants take Freia. |
How about depriving Siegmunde of the means to defend himself from Hunding, preventing Bunhilde from defending Siegmunde, then after allowing Hunding to kill Siegmunde he kills Hunding with a sweep of his hand. Finally he imprisons Brunhilde merely for disobeying him. He sounds rather malicious to me. quote:
Wotan is kinda like Bill Clinton. Amoral? In many ways, yep. Foolish at times? Absolutely. Self-centered? Mmm-hmmm. Conniving? Certainly. But evil? Nah.
I'm afraid I don't buy the notion that Wotan's spear being broken is a result of him breaking the bargain he makes with the giants. The giants accept his alternative, after all. They are happy to have the gold and the ring in lieu of Freia--indeed, it's a better deal for them. So Wotan doesn't break his oath, he just renegotiates the deal. |
Yes, but he made the oath in bad faith to begin with, then when essentially caught red handed because Loge was a little late in showing up to complete the duping of the giants, he decides to dig his way out of the hole he got himself into by stealing something. quote:
And the corruption begins with Alberich, not Wotan. It's his theft of the gold that starts all the events. Now Alberich is definitely evil. The gold wants to return to the Rhine, and Wotan is just part of the ring's design. He is an unwitting player in the story of the ring and how it is returned to its home. |
But if Wotan had not decided to steal the gold the gods would not have become the subject of the ring's curse, and would not have come to ruin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How about depriving Siegmunde of the means to defend himself from Hunding, preventing Bunhilde from defending Siegmunde, |
Which he only does at the insistence of Fricka. Wotan initially commande Brunnhilde to defend Siegmund from Hunding. But Fricka intervenes because Seigmund is an adulterer and has committed incest with his sister. That violates their natural laws, she says, and thus he can't be defended. Wotan's hands are tied and he can't defend Siegmund, even though he wants to do so.
quote:
then after allowing Hunding to kill Siegmunde he kills Hunding with a sweep of his hand. |
Hunding was evil and just killed his own son. Wotan is avenging Siegmund's death.
quote:
Finally he imprisons Brunhilde merely for disobeying him. He sounds rather malicious to me. |
Brunnhilde rebelled against the chief god--she has to be punished. You don't seem to grasp that there are rules at work here that he can't just ignore. Wotan is clearly heartbroken at having to exile her. That's quite apparent in the scene. He's also angry and hot-headed at being defied.
But he cools off, and what's more, he softens her sentence after she pleads with him. He promises that she shall be awakened by a true hero. His farewell to her is one of the most touching moments in all of opera, and certainly is not the expressions of an evil man.
You're taking plot details way out of context and weaving them into a picture that clearly is not painted by the opera. Wotan is never depicted as an evil villain, and I can hardly call any of his actions overtly malicious.
quote:
Yes, but he made the oath in bad faith to begin with, then when essentially caught red handed because Loge was a little late in showing up to complete the duping of the giants, he decides to dig his way out of the hole he got himself into by stealing something. |
That's a bizarre way of interpreting things that isn't borne out by the actual libretto. Wotan never intended to "cheat" the giants--he was having Loge work on an acceptable alternative.
And his stealing of the gold from Alberich is hardly something to say is really bad. Alberich stole it, is clearly evil, and fashioned the ring to achieve world dominance. Him not having the ring is clearly a good thing.
quote:
But if Wotan had not decided to steal the gold the gods would not have become the subject of the ring's curse, and would not have come to ruin. |
But he had no real choice in the matter. That's the point of the opera. The first scene of Gotterdammerung shows that much, as it's clear this is all a matter of Fate. The ring has guided his destiny, as it has everyone else's. This isn't a world of Free Will, it's one of Fate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2005 19:47
ACK!
. The guy who relases the virus in 12 Monkeys. Though Darth Vader has probably killed more people (it just doesn't say exactly how many). 
|