# The meaning of Fafner as a dragon.



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I'm wondering why Fafner turns himself into a dragon and sits asleep all the time after he gets the ring and the gold. What's the message or meaning here?


----------



## rsmithor (Jun 30, 2011)

*Think Fat cats, Fat Dragon's*

Think capitalist fat cats, think bloated bellies, think morbid obesity, think banks charging 21% on credit cards, buying unlimited gold, think endless hording, think massing ever greater wealth... all excesses... all unstoppable greed...The fall out from the curse is never getting enough... he swore off love when he killed his brother... he's tired, he's fat, he's horded, he's bloated and he's turned himself into a massive dragon that radiates fear, even while he's sleeping and guarding the gold... now... all he wants is sleep.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Because it's an awesome thing to turn yourself into! If you had the tarnhelm, what would you turn yourself into? Tom Cruise?  Nah, I think I would rather be a dragon!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Apparently it's lifted quite directly Norse Mythology, where the dwarf Fafnir turns into a dragon to protect his gold (stolen when he killed his father Hreiðmarr) from the designs of his brother Regin, who eventually does get the gold when he sends his foster-son Sigurd to slay the dragon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fafnir

I'm not sure there's any meaning beyond the fact that it's easier to protect gold as a fire-breathing dragon than as a clumsy and slow giant. I suppose the take-away message from the whole affair is if you ever get an all-powerful ring, maybe you want to get more creative than a dragon in a world with fearless idiots wielding invincible swords.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

It definitely seems to be be modeled off earlier Norse mythological narratives. If you look into how many ancient myths from around the world feature a hero slaying either a dragon or a serpent-like monster these types of stories are incredibly numerous. Wagner is striking again here with familiar archetypal images of the deep mind... the sub-conscious, what do they symbolize though? I think one common and very basic interpretation for the Monster slaying myths is the idea of order vs. disorder, whether that interpretation applies in this story is debatable. There seems to be the idea present that, it takes the mind of a child, (or one who doesn't know fear) to defeat the fiercest enemy.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

tdc said:


> It definitely seems to be be modeled off earlier Norse mythological narratives. If you look into how many ancient myths from around the world feature a hero slaying either a dragon or a serpent-like monster these types of stories are incredibly numerous. Wagner is striking again here with familiar archetypal images of the deep mind... the sub-conscious, what do they symbolize though? I think one common and very basic interpretation for the Monster slaying myths is the idea of order vs. disorder, whether that interpretation applies in this story is debatable. There seems to be the idea present that, it takes the mind of a child, (or one who doesn't know fear) to defeat the fiercest enemy.


Possible. Personally I think Wagner was reading the Völsunga saga when he saw this and thought "that'd be sweet", and added it to the opera.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Another thing that comes to my mind is a Schopenhauer/Buddha interpretation... that need can be only quenched from the inside out. No matter how much power or gold Fafner has, his need is unsatisfied. He has everything he ever wanted, yet he still feels empty and lacking. It has turned into decadence, self-hatred and desire to fade away from the world. So, he sleeps on his gold, unable to satisfy his need through material things.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't have anything new to add, other than to suggest that the mythological basis for this image is not inconsistent with a materialist critique. The original myth obviously arose under completely different economic circumstances. But it does serve to exemplify, in a very pointed way, that basic human impulse toward greed and hoarding that would later become institutionalized under capitalism. Wagner himself was articulate (not to say long winded) about these dual interpretive levels in the Ring.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

I think otto schenk's interpretation is rather magnificent. that murky ugliness just reeks mud and greed. more effective than a straight-up dragon. also, i'm pretty much agreeing all of these contributions.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> Because it's an awesome thing to turn yourself into! If you had the tarnhelm, what would you turn yourself into? Tom Cruise?  Nah, I think I would rather be a dragon!


This is my interpretation of it too. Why would he turn himself into a dragon? Why _wouldn't_ he turn himself into a dragon?? I mean, it's a dragon!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

rgz said:


> This is my interpretation of it too. Why would he turn himself into a dragon? Why _wouldn't_ he turn himself into a dragon?? I mean, it's a dragon!


 On the other hand, if I had a ring that allowed me to control the whole world, I wouldn't just turn myself into a dragon and sleep all day long in some cave. I'd want to be King of the World, and have a court with plenty of beautiful women around me. What's the point of having the ring if all you do with it is sleep in a cave, without even having a she-dragon to keep you company?


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Almaviva said:


> What's the point of having the ring if all you do with it is sleep in a cave, without even having a she-dragon to keep you company?


You can't do that if you have forsworn love.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> You can't do that if you have forsworn love.


Who said anything about love?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> You can't do that if you have forsworn love.


That was Alberich, not Fafner. Besides, Couchie has a point.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> That was Alberich, not Fafner. Besides, Couchie has a point.


Yes, in spite of forswearing love, Alberich fathered Hagen. But I think part of the Ring's curse is that it messes up the love life of whomever possesses it -- such as Siegfried.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

The only problem with turning yourself into a dragon is that if you suddenly want to use the hoard to enjoy life in a bigger cave in a more upmarket area of the wilderness then you could get some funny looks going to the estate agents if you haven't the facility to turn yourself back into a giant.

I don't want to ruin a great story but assuming it was possible wouldn't it have been far less hassle to have made the gold invisible instead if he wasn't intending to spend it?!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> I don't want to ruin a great story but assuming it was possible wouldn't it have been far less hassle to have made the gold invisible instead if he wasn't intending to spend it?!


Yes, I think the bottom line of all these qualms about the plot holes is - "but then, we wouldn't have these gorgeous operas."


----------



## FragendeFrau (May 30, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Yes, I think the bottom line of all these qualms about the plot holes is - "but then, we wouldn't have these gorgeous operas."


Sort of like, why didn't Frodo just ask one of the Eagles to fly him over Mount Doom and drop in the ring...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Yes, I think the bottom line of all these qualms about the plot holes is - "but then, we wouldn't have these gorgeous operas."


I know I can be accused of taking the whole discussion too seriously, but . . .

I don't see this particular feature as a plot hole. Turning yourself into a dragon and sitting on a hoard of treasure--both in the original myth and in Wagner's appropriation--seems a very apt metaphor for what too many do with their wealth. They accumulate it, hide it away, derive no joy from it, all the while becoming something monstrous through their cold, hard avarice.

With the disparity of wealth in the U.S. as great as it's ever been, and with certain political factions determined to let the rich hold on to as much of their treasure as possible, regardless of cost to the country as a whole, I'd say Fafner is alive and well and more pertinent than ever.

But that's a discussion for another forum entirely.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Poor Fafner, he's so Genre Blind. Surely he had never heard what happens to dragons who sit on their booty... 

Also, it seems he can't breathe fire or he would've BBQd Siegfried. (Since ADWD... make that verb "BBQuentyned'.)

I totally loved the obese capitalist Fafner in the Copenhagen Ring, he pretends he can't even walk... then suddenly gets up and pwn's Fasolt.  

Also, I think Fafner should get his giant form back when he's dying. In most cases he does.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Sieglinde said:


> (Since ADWD... make that verb "BBQuentyned'.)


haha :lol:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

amfortas said:


> With the disparity of wealth in the U.S. as great as it's ever been, and with certain political factions determined to let the rich hold on to as much of their treasure as possible, regardless of cost to the country as a whole, I'd say Fafner is alive and well and more pertinent than ever.
> 
> But that's a discussion for another forum entirely.


So you're saying... that Obama is Siegfried?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Sieglinde said:


> (Since ADWD... make that verb "BBQuentyned'.)


Don't spoil it for me, I haven't reached ADWD yet, I'm still with AFFC.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> So you're saying... that Obama is Siegfried?


Actually, Bush was more like Siegfried. Dim-witted, blundering, and bellicose.

Maybe Obama is Parsifal. Inexperienced, uncertain, sometimes a bit naive. But his heart's in the right place, and after a lot of wandering in the wilderness, eventually he manages to do some good.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

amfortas said:


> Actually, Bush was more like Siegfried. Dim-witted, blundering, and bellicose.


I get what you are saying, but I don't think I can imagine him with his shirt off, forging a sword and screaming a lusty "HOHO! HOHO!! HAHEII!!!!" ... can you?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Amfibius said:


> I get what you are saying, but I don't think I can imagine him with his shirt off, forging a sword and screaming a lusty "HOHO! HOHO!! HAHEII!!!!" ... can you?


Recalling his notorious lack of verbal accuracy, it would be more like to be HOHEII, HAHA, HEHE, HAHO.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Amfibius said:


> I get what you are saying, but I don't think I can imagine him with his shirt off, forging a sword and screaming a lusty "HOHO! HOHO!! HAHEII!!!!" ... can you?


Not . . . until . . . you said it . . .

AAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!


----------

