Initial Response to ETA Hoffmann's The Sandman
When Delibes' ballet Coppelia featured in ABC Classic FM's Classic 100 The Music of France it reminded me that I had written a response to Hoffmann's story, on which the ballet was based, so I thought I'd share it with you now. Warning - spoilers. You can find the story here.
Hoffmann sets up the situation and the theme of the story straightaway through three letters. The first tells us of the terrible events in Nathanael’s childhood and the possible reappearance of the villain of those events in his life. The second is the rational explanation of Clara dismissing the whole Nathanael’s fears to his own mind and in the third he accepts them.
The rest of the story revolves around, to a large degree, the irrational fears he has and the rational explanations that may dispel them – if they are irrational. We read how his conviction in the mystical is so fired up, and Clara’s adamant rationality is so fixed, that he almost comes to blows with her brother. This ends with another Clara-inspired revelation that he’s just being silly.
He continues the debate in his own head when confronted with the seeming double of the old villain from his childhood. Rationality seems to win out until Nathanael looks through a ‘perspective’ at the figure of Olimpia whom he becomes obsessed with – and who appears to steal his eyes.
This irrational period during which he forgets his former life and woos Olimpia, who says nothing in return but stares at him always, is unlike his morbid fears and bears none of the similarities to the ‘dark presence’. He is bewitched.
Olimpia, to all eyes but his, is ‘too perfect’ and unnaturally stiff in her movements. Having lost his ‘perspective’ to her Nathanael only sees her as true perfection. When going to propose to her she is revealed as an automaton; the eyes of which were stolen from Nathanael by Coppola. Coppola – speaking with the voice of Coppelius, the childhood villain – steals Olimpia but throws Nathanael’s eyes back into him. After temporary madness Nathanael is once again ‘rational’ until he sees Clara through the ‘perspective’ and believes her to be an automaton too and goes mad. Coppelius watches on, possibly stealing the eyes back.
PERSPECTIVE
To me this story is about perspective. Nathanael’s perspective, for the most, is affected by the events of his childhood. He is told the story of the sandman, who steals children’s eyes – so their sight, their view on the world. When he spies his father with Coppelius they seems to be in some sort of alchemical experiment, possibly creating homunculi – all that’s needed are eyes.
Clara’s perspective is steadfast in its rationality. She suffers only a minor wavering in the description of the events but quickly returns to her disbelief in the mystical as an outside force. Her eyes are described in glowing terms – like a lake even. Her perspective then is sharp and unchanging.
Thirdly, we have Olimpia, whose eyes seem to ‘lack vision’ but are not blind. She is simply without a perspective; she sees but does not comprehend. Those eyes however draw Nathanael in through the glass ‘perspective’ of Coppola, and cause him to lose all perspective and see only her.
Only after this happens will her creator allow the public to see her. After Coppola/Coppelius steals her body, Nathanael gets his eyes returned. The rush of perspective drives him seemingly mad – but he has just realised he’s been tricked into an obsession with a ‘doll’ so his madness is not singularly surprising.
Clara’s clear, clean perspective restores his sanity, so he says. Seeing her through Coppola’s glass perspective however, he again loses his sanity and Coppelius seems to claim his ‘foine eyes’ once more. So Nathanael’s perspective is again stolen, he goes mad and dies. Coppelius disappears. Did he exist outside the mind of Nathanael? That remains unclear. He may have, Nathanael did have the glass perspective, or Clara may have been right and Coppola was a normal man Nathanael’s perspective turned into a childhood nightmare made flesh. Hoffman doesn’t say. It’s a matter of our own perspective.
If there were any moral behind this tale it would be to keep your clarity and not allow outside forces to alter your perception of the world. Clara remains true to her world view and ends up happily. Nathanael’s view changes with the wind and he dies violently.
Hoffmann sets up the situation and the theme of the story straightaway through three letters. The first tells us of the terrible events in Nathanael’s childhood and the possible reappearance of the villain of those events in his life. The second is the rational explanation of Clara dismissing the whole Nathanael’s fears to his own mind and in the third he accepts them.
The rest of the story revolves around, to a large degree, the irrational fears he has and the rational explanations that may dispel them – if they are irrational. We read how his conviction in the mystical is so fired up, and Clara’s adamant rationality is so fixed, that he almost comes to blows with her brother. This ends with another Clara-inspired revelation that he’s just being silly.
He continues the debate in his own head when confronted with the seeming double of the old villain from his childhood. Rationality seems to win out until Nathanael looks through a ‘perspective’ at the figure of Olimpia whom he becomes obsessed with – and who appears to steal his eyes.
This irrational period during which he forgets his former life and woos Olimpia, who says nothing in return but stares at him always, is unlike his morbid fears and bears none of the similarities to the ‘dark presence’. He is bewitched.
Olimpia, to all eyes but his, is ‘too perfect’ and unnaturally stiff in her movements. Having lost his ‘perspective’ to her Nathanael only sees her as true perfection. When going to propose to her she is revealed as an automaton; the eyes of which were stolen from Nathanael by Coppola. Coppola – speaking with the voice of Coppelius, the childhood villain – steals Olimpia but throws Nathanael’s eyes back into him. After temporary madness Nathanael is once again ‘rational’ until he sees Clara through the ‘perspective’ and believes her to be an automaton too and goes mad. Coppelius watches on, possibly stealing the eyes back.
PERSPECTIVE
To me this story is about perspective. Nathanael’s perspective, for the most, is affected by the events of his childhood. He is told the story of the sandman, who steals children’s eyes – so their sight, their view on the world. When he spies his father with Coppelius they seems to be in some sort of alchemical experiment, possibly creating homunculi – all that’s needed are eyes.
Clara’s perspective is steadfast in its rationality. She suffers only a minor wavering in the description of the events but quickly returns to her disbelief in the mystical as an outside force. Her eyes are described in glowing terms – like a lake even. Her perspective then is sharp and unchanging.
Thirdly, we have Olimpia, whose eyes seem to ‘lack vision’ but are not blind. She is simply without a perspective; she sees but does not comprehend. Those eyes however draw Nathanael in through the glass ‘perspective’ of Coppola, and cause him to lose all perspective and see only her.
Only after this happens will her creator allow the public to see her. After Coppola/Coppelius steals her body, Nathanael gets his eyes returned. The rush of perspective drives him seemingly mad – but he has just realised he’s been tricked into an obsession with a ‘doll’ so his madness is not singularly surprising.
Clara’s clear, clean perspective restores his sanity, so he says. Seeing her through Coppola’s glass perspective however, he again loses his sanity and Coppelius seems to claim his ‘foine eyes’ once more. So Nathanael’s perspective is again stolen, he goes mad and dies. Coppelius disappears. Did he exist outside the mind of Nathanael? That remains unclear. He may have, Nathanael did have the glass perspective, or Clara may have been right and Coppola was a normal man Nathanael’s perspective turned into a childhood nightmare made flesh. Hoffman doesn’t say. It’s a matter of our own perspective.
If there were any moral behind this tale it would be to keep your clarity and not allow outside forces to alter your perception of the world. Clara remains true to her world view and ends up happily. Nathanael’s view changes with the wind and he dies violently.
Comments
Post a Comment