Study Break: La Llorona
Don't get me wrong: I love the law. It's a fascinating field, and the academic study of law holds a deep fascination. But it's not the only thing that fascinates me, and one concern I have is that as I get further into the profession, my rather eclectic magpie-nest of knowledge will get ever more narrowly-focused. I'm deeply resenting having to stop reading The Hebrew Goddess in order to focus on Property this week. Not because there's not interesting things in Property, but because the last two weeks have been a bit law-heavy.
I'm addicted to little bits of useless knowledge, things that spice up a world-view and keep one's wonder at the breadth of experience alive. In order to share a bit of this, every so often I'm going to post a "Study Break" on here: a link to some source of obscure trivia that won't help you at all with law, won't change your political perspective, but might just be a bit of fun. How will this differ from my other trivialities? Who knows--but maybe you'll enjoy it.
So for the first topic, let's try La Llorona, a bit of hispanic legend. The link above has various versions of the legend, with a fair degree of background. It's a sort of tying-together of ghost stories, each involving a few common features: a wronged woman, a murdered child, and in most cases a river. Many versions have much in common with Medea: the concept of killing one's child to spite a powerful but wrongful man. Another version of the story, from my old haunt of El Paso, can be read here.
In true magpie fashion, I tie my interest in this legend together with my recent commentary on Philip Pullman and his anti-Christian children's story, as the first version of the story I ever heard tied it in with a similar revolt against a Patriarchal figure. She figures prominently in children's tales from homeless shelters in Miami, where she has been merge with other figures from another pantheon. On the other hand, the mythological revisioning of these children is far less comforting than Pullman's.








Comments
Wow. Thanks for linking to this stuff; I'd seen the Miami New Times article a while ago, but never followed up. Coincedentally enough, I was just working on something ghost-story related to distract myself from finals, and a few of the details here will plug in *perfectly*!
ddjlPosted by: Mike Russo | December 11, 2004 07:23 PM
Hmm. What makes law students think of gruesome ghost stories to distract them from finals?
I wonder if I could come up with an urban ghost story involving the Glowing Box of Despair, that strange disembodied eyeball statue outside the law school, and a strange woman wearing a bloodstained white robe holding the Lost Baby of Cardozo...
tylbPosted by: A. Rickey | December 11, 2004 07:29 PM
Along these lines, I picked up some Neil Gaiman yesterday. Not really ghost stories per se, but The Sandman comics can get pretty gruesome.
ylkbPosted by: Adam | December 11, 2004 08:37 PM
Not because there's not interesting things in Property
The collective groans of the Class of '06 actually have strongly implied that there are no interesting things in property.
As for what makes law students want to distract themselves with gruesome things -- having in mind several classmates who thought the best diversion immediately before their contracts final was viewing Blade Trinity -- I'm beginning to think that most of them have a strong sense of paranoia/ tendency to think about worst possible outcomes. In the normal course of things, this is focused upon the horrors that may be embedded in one's exams; the 'healthier' ones distract themselves with stuff that normal people also would be troubled by, like vampires and ghosts.
I suppose this tendency is good for anticipating what the other side might do, though I fear my future legal career will feel a little too much like being caught between drained humanity on one side and bloodsucking fiends on the other...
Give me some Harvey Birdman anytime.
ccwjikbPosted by: PG | December 13, 2004 11:28 AM