Nowadays people tend to get the message of H.C. Andersen's story "The Ugly Duckling" wrong (or at least not what Andersen intended. We know what his intentions were because he wrote about it and told others). It isn't "You can become what you want and put your past behind you" but actually "If it is your fate to become something great your upbringing doesn't matter" So the meaning wasn't that just anyone could do great things, but that sometimes amazing people are born under unfortunate conditions but their talent will shine though sooner or later. Or to say it in another way: You can't work your way up. It's your destiny and it can't be held back whether you work for it or not. "Not everyone can be great, but greatness can be found in strange places" Remember, in the story the duckling does absolutely nothing to become a swan. It just happens because that's what he is.
Later a man named Henrik Pontoppidan wrote a story called "Eagle's Flight" as a sort of reply to "The Ugly Duckling" about an eagle that grows up in a chicken run and grows fat and cowardly from this pleasant and easy life, and can't even fly. But one day he is caught by a wind and flies off but is so scared by the huge world and confused by his meeting with a female eagle who won't just let him have her, that he gives up and returns home to the chicken run. Unfortunately he is shot because the people don't recognize him and thought he was going to kill the chickens (they didn't know he could fly). So the moral of Pontoppidan's story was the opposite of Andersen's. "It doesn't matter what line of family you come from. Nothing is in the blood and there is no such things as destiny. It's your upbringing that will shape you and who you become"
Always wanted to put those two characters in a picture together.
Jeg ved du sikkert har travlt, men jeg ville bare sige, jeg bruger dit billede som forside til min synopse om Ørneflugt. Jeg skal nok, give you proper credit, for the lack of danish term. PS. viste det til min dansklærer, hun syntes det er meget flot.
I've never heard that before, that's interesting. I've always had a different view of what the story meant- something along the lines of "beauty is subjective" meets "late bloomers" meets "what is considered success/good can change over time" or something like that. I'm going to look for Eagle's Flight at some point though, sounds neat.
Huh... when I was a kid, the moral most adults conveyed with this story was that everyone has a place in this world, and that there is always someone out there who will accept you...
I have to say I agree with Pontoppidan more than Anderson. You can achieve anything if you work for it, and those that get it without work aren't achieving anything in my opinion.
well the little 'ugly duckling' couldn't have worked hard to turn into a swan anyway, so I think what Hans Christian Anderson means is if you have the ability/are born with the capacity to do something, it doesn't matter if others repress you, you can and will become that something. You can see she refers to someone' talent, which in some cases can achieve the same thing that other people can but with less effort than other people put in. (example for me are two famous poets from Ancient China, one could purportedly write a beautiful poem while piss-drunk in 5 minutes, while the other could write an equally beautiful poem, on different subject matter, but over the course of several months) Certainly if you don't put any effort in at all, you will still fail, (if the ugly duckling had starved to death because he was so upset, he wouldn't have become a swan would he?)
You have a valid point. I guess what I meant is that you should work hard to be whatever it is you want to be. If your head is geared toward impossible goals, however, then it's pretty understandable you won't achieve it.
Morality isn't all black and white. So, in the end, neither is completely true or false.
PS. viste det til min dansklærer, hun syntes det er meget flot.
I'm depressed as hell now.
You can achieve anything if you work for it, and those that get it without work aren't achieving anything in my opinion.
You can see she refers to someone' talent, which in some cases can achieve the same thing that other people can but with less effort than other people put in. (example for me are two famous poets from Ancient China, one could purportedly write a beautiful poem while piss-drunk in 5 minutes, while the other could write an equally beautiful poem, on different subject matter, but over the course of several months)
Certainly if you don't put any effort in at all, you will still fail, (if the ugly duckling had starved to death because he was so upset, he wouldn't have become a swan would he?)
In the end both ideas are valid to me
Morality isn't all black and white. So, in the end, neither is completely true or false.
Thanks for catching me on that.