Although not implied, one subtle similarity between them and the Norns is that they're the major plot devises that shape / alter the protagonist's destiny, influencing him via revisits to his past, present and future. Or rather, they give him the understanding and power to change not only his but everyone else's destiny. Regardless, while the Norns create Fate, the Ghosts merely show time.
Ohh, the Norns! Okay, I understand what you're getting at. Yes, they are certainly an interesting analogy to determinism, especially since they also rule the fate of the gods. There is definitely a sense of fatalism in a lot of the Norse epics -- gods like Frigga and Odin know their fates, and reference them freely, but cannot but act them out -- and Greek tragedy is virtually all about the Inevitability of Events.
A Christmas Carol is a fascinating contrast to that because they suggest that self-awareness
can lead to choice; the ancients did not often think that, from what I can tell.
It's interesting because theories of randomness, and studies into the phenomenon, really throw a wrench into all discussions of free will and determinism, because, well, they call into question causality and our ability to philosophize about it at all. Randomness doesn't
necessarily mean that we ever have whatever we mean when we say "choice" -- but it does raise the question of whether it does! In that light, the plot device of the deus ex machina -- an event out of left field imposed on the situation, for good or ill -- which is essentially what those Ghosts are! -- become especially interesting.
Actually, just because it's the females that are dominating (or in some cases, especially in my case, bullying and discriminating... uh, long story) doesn't mean it's not sexist, since this is again discrimination against the opposite sex; thinking otherwise would take us to "males are monsters, women are angels" talk which is also a sexist view of looking at it. (Note: if I've in any way offended any gender, or you personally, I apologize; that was not my intention)
Oh, that's not what I meant. I meant that the forms sexism (if it can be called such) take in the animal kingdom are not necessarily analogous to our own, and used female dominance as an example of that; because while sexism against men exists, widespread female dominance is clearly not a problem. I completely agree that "men are monsters, women are angels" is a sexist meme like any other - sexist to both genders, in fact.
The case of bonobos is fascinating because the female dominance only crops up every once in awhile -- for the most part, it's an egalitarian society. But because the females do band together and the males don't tend to, they do typically get certain "sexist" privileges like first access to foods. (Again, I'm putting "sexist" in quotes because I'm a little hesitant to project the concept onto the animal kingdom. If the same phenomenon occurred in human societies I would obviously consider it sexist.) Clearly, this sort of thing does not happen in human societies - for whatever reason.
Incidentally, even more interesting, in my opinion, is the reaction of researchers to the incidents of female dominance; it's very often downplayed or dismissed. Frans de Waal, who has done a lot of research on bonobos, remembers an incident where a German researcher stood up during one of his lectures and yelled, "what is
wrong with these males????" lol. That sort of thing is why I think we need to use caution when it comes to comparing the behavior of animals to our own. Projection is too easy.
But again, there are plenty of species which display no overt dominance of one gender over the other at all.
