Today's class was focused around the criticism on Bluebeard. It was my turn to present the criticism, along with my discussion partner Stephanie who took care of today's discussion questions. Our criticism was based around the article "Anti-housewives and ogres housekeepers the roles of Bluebeards female helper," in the e-reserves section, and talked about the importance of the so-called female helper in the story, and what the importance of this often vague character really was.
We mainly focused on Charles Perrault's version of the tale, In which the female helper is actually the wife's sister. referred to as "Sister Anne" in the tale, Perrault left this character out of the tale till the resolution of the story was required, at which point she helped the wife spot her brothers and signaled them to hurry. As a quote in our critical text points out, "the heroine’s brothers are “summoned” by Sister Anne to save her sister’s life, but this is not strictly true. The brothers, by a mighty coincidence, are already on their way. Sister Anne merely signals them to hurry up-- she’s helpful but not that helpful”(Tatar, 210). We came to the conclusion that sister Anne was an element to the tale that helped execute the resolution of the story, but was left so undeveloped by Perrault so that she would not interfere with the plot otherwise. This seems to be the reason Perrault made her appearance so brief, and why he chose to leave her so uninformed and vague as a character.
Our discussion then carried on to try and put the tale into perspective with relation to the time it was written, and what possible symbolism might be involved to leave a distinct moral to the reader, in particular with reference to sister Anne. We figured that while sister Anne is by no means a character Perrault spent a lot of time with, she still seems to portray a message of family importance, and being able to rely on family members in otherwise hopeless situations.
We spent a good deal of class discussing possible relations to medieval times and as Ms. Newsmen mentioned that an estimated six million women were murdered due to witch trials and other beliefs of the time, I commented that I get the feeling we really weren't humans at the time with how evil and judgmental our acts used to be. Matt then pointed out how we as humans are still so inclined to such evil today and he felt that we really can't be considered human for the things we do in the present. I have to agree with him on that, although I feel that there have been some great changes since those times, changes that thoroughly altered us as human beings and how we perceive ourselves on this planet. In medieval times, people for the most part had no idea why they were on this planet, and were forced into religious belief to offer an explanation.

Since then however, we have made great discoveries that have led us to understand that we are no different than the rest of the animals on this planet. Although many people still believe in creationism, I feel that our advancements in science have to be the single greatest achievements in human history. Without science I don’t think times would be any different than they were back then, and we would still be burning witches and punishing women for preposterous reasons. If it wasn’t for such bright minds like Galileo and da Vinci that were pushed by their curiosity to disobey the church and in turn made some of the most fundamental discoveries in the history of science and research. Although science has been abused just as much as anything else in history, it's never the scientists that created the processes or theories that are abusing these powers, but the political figures that are in my mind just as evil today as they were in medieval times, leading me to agree with what matt said in that we still have much of the same cruelty and unjustifiable evil going on today as we did back then. Time for a social revolution if you ask me…