Topic: Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
Started by: Klaus_Welten
Started on: 8/20/2011
Board: Adept Press
On 8/20/2011 at 11:48pm, Klaus_Welten wrote:
Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
Rapunzel was born with a knack for sorcery due to her mother eating a magical flower's extract while pregnant. An Immanent* demon named Mother Goetel, whose Need was the magical flower's power, found the girl, kidnapped her and tricked her into Binding it (that's the scene with baby Rapunzel singing for Goetel: she's Binding the demon, even if she cannot really understand it as she's just a little girl). As a reflection of the Binding, Rapunzel gained the ability to extend her "healing" abilities to others - basically, uh, tricking reality into believing that they were demons with a Need for the flower's power, too. Because, you know, there's no way a magical flower can make you healthy just because you're singing to hit. Sort of a placebo effect turned to eleven. Creepy.
In the end, with a little assist from her lover and lots of bonus dice - from ego assertion ("I will always fight you, mother!") to, well, pretty much every source of bonus dice you can get in Sorcerer - she managed to Banish Mother Goetel and get a life of her own.
So, I just watched a Disney movie and thought that it makes perfectly sense in Sorcerer's terms. Am I mad or what?
P.S. English is not my first language. And I am a little drunk. Sue me.
* Can Immanent demon be bound? If they can't (I'm too drunk to check right now), just pretend that I typed "Passing demon born from Rapunzel's childly nightmares" all the time.
On 8/21/2011 at 12:25am, Ron Edwards wrote:
Re: Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
Hallo Klaus, vie getz?
You are spot on.
Sleeping Beauty's the next one on the list, I think.
Best, Ron
On 8/22/2011 at 5:38pm, Roger wrote:
RE: Re: Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
Are you sure she's not a Demon?
On 8/23/2011 at 6:17pm, Roger wrote:
RE: Re: Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
It was cheap of me to not expound further. Here's what I mean:
* The story starts with Rapunzel's biological mother, while pregnant with her, seeing a plant (the 'rapunzel' in question) growing in the garden of a nearby enchantress, and having an undeniable yearning for it. Rapunzel's dad steals some, but eventually gets caught by the enchantress.
* The enchantress cuts this guy a deal: sure, have as much rapunzel as you want, but then I get the baby when she's born. Of course, the dude figures this is a great deal.
* Rapunzel is born and is given to the enchantress. At age 12, she's locked up in a high tower.
* The enchantress teaches Rapunzel to let down her hair so she can climb it.
* A prince rides by and hears Rapunzel singing. He also hears what the enchantress says to receive the hair ladder.
* He tries the incantation, gets up in the tower. They fall in love, etc etc. Rapunzel calls upon the prince to bring her silk every time he visits her, that she might weave a ladder.
* The enchantress eventually gets wise. She cuts off Rapunzel's hair and exiles her to a desert. When the prince comes visiting, she extends the hair.
* The prince faces off with the enchantress, and decides that leaping from the tower is a good idea. He lands eyeballs-first on some thorns and is blinded.
* He wanders around for years, blind, until he runs across Rapunzel. Her tears heal his eyes and they live happily ever after, etc etc.
Now, maybe this is just me, but if I were bending that relationship map to Sorcerer, I wouldn't hesitate to make Rapunzel a demon. One clue for me is her inherent lack of self-determination. Also it's not hard to see where the Contacting, Summoning, Binding, Containing, and Banishing rituals occur.
Dang now I feel the need to write a fairy tales hack for Sorcerer.
Cheers,
Roger
On 8/31/2011 at 10:07pm, The Dragon Master wrote:
RE: Re: Rapunzel is a sorceress (Disney's "Tangled" references inside)
I'll never look at Grimm's Fairy Tales the same way again. Thank you for that :-)