Dragon Psyche Revealed
Why do dragons keep princesses locked in castles?
Johannes Gärtner & Lee Di Milia
Vienna University of Technology & Central Queensland University
Introduction
The fact that dragons lock princesses in castles is well documented1,2. However, the question why dragons serve such a role does not seem to be addressed in literature and is not easily answered.
In general we know little about a dragon’s psyche, e.g. what is their ethnicity or spiritual beliefs? With the exception of the (female) dragon in the movie Shrek3 they appear to be gender neutral. Still we do have some clues that dragons have ambitions and plans. In the film and books of Grisu4 we learn that a small dragon wants to become a fire-fighter.
The movie Shrek 25 suggests that dragons may be influenced by powerful emotions. For example the dragon falls in love with donkey, a non-dragon. More importantly, this occurs after their initial meeting when donkey was considered as the enemy in seeking to rescue Fiona (the princess) from the castle.
|
The dragon also showed the capacity to switch her allegiance and assisted Shrek (the brave ogre) and Donkey in the final rescue of Princess Fiona before she married Lord Farquaad (a bad Lord).
Finally, the dragon’s emotions seem to be a reason for donkey ending the relationship. However, this excuse of emotional instability may also be a case of Donkey seeking to cover up his own misbehaviour.
In the absence of meaningful information to better understand dragons, we are guided by the stereotypical view that human-dragon interactions are mostly aggressive.
From a methodological viewpoint it is not easy to address a dragon’s motives or rationale for behaviour. Classical techniques of social inquiry that are applicable to humans6 cannot be applied easily; in fact there is general lack of methodological discussions in dragon research. Interview techniques and having dragons complete questionnaires may not be fruitful given that in most cases dragons seem unable to speak or are illiterate.
In the following sections we apply two different approaches to understanding dragon behaviour. First we discuss whether dragons can be considered as ‘independent actors’ that is, acting of their own volition. Second, we apply a framework developed by economists called the principal-agent framework.
Dragons understood as independent actors
What benefits accrue to a dragon by locking a princess in a castle?
We may answer this question by developing a number of interpretations in order for us to compare possible motives with other facts. We do know, for example, that a dragon guards the princess over a long time period and therefore, we can conclude that it is not the playful interaction of young dragons.
The lengthy time investment in guarding a princess seems to suggest stronger motives are driving a dragon’s behaviour. One possible motive is hate; is the dragon envious of a beautiful princess? We have long known that beautiful people are more likely to enjoy a number of benefits in society.
Alternatively, is love a motive? The possibility of losing a loved one may explain why a dragon goes to some lengths to keep a princess locked in the castle.
However, in Shrek 2 the motives of hate and love do not seem to offer a useful explanation. The dragon’s love for Donkey sees the dragon play a strong supportive role that indirectly benefits Shrek and the princess. The dragon helps Donkey and Shrek to reach the wedding of Fiona and Lord Farquaad in time to stop it, helps to fight Lord Farquaad and is emotionally touched when Shrek and Fiona kiss.
Such behaviour would not be reasonable if she loved or hated Fiona. From this discussion we can conclude that dragons are not independent actors and therefore, a more enriched framework to explain behaviour is needed.
Dragons understood as agents in a principal-agent framework
A more informed approach is provided by the principal-agent theory. This is where a principal seeks to govern the behaviour of an agent. In many narratives, witches and wicked fairies are the principals that are associated with the events leading to the imprisonment of a princess.
In a simplified principal-agent theory we might think of a dragon as a weak character that is directly controlled by a fairy, for example towards a specific behaviour. On closer inspection however this seems rather implausible: dragons have to act independently and intelligently in order to successfully keep the princess locked in the castle.
If dragons were simple creatures they could be easily tricked by a clever princess into freeing them from the castle. Similarly, if dragons were simple creatures they would be easily defeated in battle by knights (it does seem that the dragon is usually the winner in such confrontations). Therefore the view of dragons as a weak character does not go well with established knowledge.
In a principal-agent framework a dragon’s behaviour can be better explained by considering them as ‘employees’ of the principal.’ In this interpretation, a dragon is effectively a guard employed to lock in the princess.
Considering there are few documented cases that dragons where bribed by knights, we can think of dragons as very professional guards with correspondingly high standards.
From a different perspective, is it possible that dragons are paid ‘actors’ for a knight wishing to win the love of a princess? It may be the case that a demonstrable display of bravery and strength is useful in convincing a princess that her interests are best served by a knight displaying such characteristics.
A knight driven by this logic may arrange a plan with a dragon that following their ferocious battle, the dragon will ‘play dead’ leading the victor to his prize. Again this leads us to an interpretation as dragons as paid employees,
The interpretation of dragons as paid guards or actors raises the question, why dragons need pay. A socio-economic approach seems to be fruitful to answer this question if we consider the technical and social circumstances of earlier centuries (no such events are reported from the 19th and 20th century).
In earlier years, there were not many job options for dragons. They would have had difficulties working as farmers as their fire breathing ability would damage crops. Also hunting was not an attractive option as the forests were full of brave knights looking to become famous. Although dragons were superior to knights, the constant skirmishes hindered a dragon’s productivity.
Finally, the lack of a proper social security system for dragons (these events took place long before the advent of the welfare state) was an important factor in taking up paid employment. For dragons, employment as princess-guarding monsters provided a means to earn money to care for themselves and their families.
Conclusions
This paper aimed to explain the motives of why dragons kept princesses locked in castles. We examined their motives from the perspectives of independent actors and from within a principal-agent framework.
We concluded that dragon behaviour is better understood from a principal-agent framework and that dragons were employed as paid professional guards or actors for the self-serving interests of other principals (e.g. wicked fairies). This was basically the only segment of the labour market they had access to and they needed to earn money in order to provide food and shelter for themselves and any loved ones.
Our discussion however, raises many other questions. For example, from a social sciences point of view it would be interesting to know if gender or personality constructs gave some indication concerning the make-up for the best guard or actor. Also the question whether dragons belonged to work unions remains completely open for now.
From a natural sciences perspective it would be worthwhile to explore whether this highly dangerous occupation and long working hours played a role in the extinction of dragons. Alternatively, did the decline in the number of princesses and therefore paid job opportunities make dragons move on to new occupations.
We thank Mikko Miksch (age four) for raising this question and for making Johannes watch the movies Shrek and Shrek 2 approximately fifty times. We thank our colleagues and friends in developing the arguments of this paper. We look forward to the opportunity to further our research with the imminent DVD release of Shrek the Third.
References
If you enjoyed this then why not try some more monster stories:
- Cool - The second coming of... God-zilla
- Funny - Biggest ever fossils discovered
- Weird - The 'They Might Be Giants' theory
- Interesting - The real aliens
Finally, the dragon’s emotions seem to be a reason for donkey ending the relationship. However, this excuse of emotional instability may also be a case of Donkey seeking to cover up his own misbehaviour.
In the absence of meaningful information to better understand dragons, we are guided by the stereotypical view that human-dragon interactions are mostly aggressive.
From a methodological viewpoint it is not easy to address a dragon’s motives or rationale for behaviour. Classical techniques of social inquiry that are applicable to humans6 cannot be applied easily; in fact there is general lack of methodological discussions in dragon research. Interview techniques and having dragons complete questionnaires may not be fruitful given that in most cases dragons seem unable to speak or are illiterate.
In the following sections we apply two different approaches to understanding dragon behaviour. First we discuss whether dragons can be considered as ‘independent actors’ that is, acting of their own volition. Second, we apply a framework developed by economists called the principal-agent framework.
Dragons understood as independent actors
What benefits accrue to a dragon by locking a princess in a castle?
We may answer this question by developing a number of interpretations in order for us to compare possible motives with other facts. We do know, for example, that a dragon guards the princess over a long time period and therefore, we can conclude that it is not the playful interaction of young dragons.
|
Alternatively, is love a motive? The possibility of losing a loved one may explain why a dragon goes to some lengths to keep a princess locked in the castle.
However, in Shrek 2 the motives of hate and love do not seem to offer a useful explanation. The dragon’s love for Donkey sees the dragon play a strong supportive role that indirectly benefits Shrek and the princess. The dragon helps Donkey and Shrek to reach the wedding of Fiona and Lord Farquaad in time to stop it, helps to fight Lord Farquaad and is emotionally touched when Shrek and Fiona kiss.
Such behaviour would not be reasonable if she loved or hated Fiona. From this discussion we can conclude that dragons are not independent actors and therefore, a more enriched framework to explain behaviour is needed.
Dragons understood as agents in a principal-agent framework
A more informed approach is provided by the principal-agent theory. This is where a principal seeks to govern the behaviour of an agent. In many narratives, witches and wicked fairies are the principals that are associated with the events leading to the imprisonment of a princess.
In a simplified principal-agent theory we might think of a dragon as a weak character that is directly controlled by a fairy, for example towards a specific behaviour. On closer inspection however this seems rather implausible: dragons have to act independently and intelligently in order to successfully keep the princess locked in the castle.
|
In a principal-agent framework a dragon’s behaviour can be better explained by considering them as ‘employees’ of the principal.’ In this interpretation, a dragon is effectively a guard employed to lock in the princess.
Considering there are few documented cases that dragons where bribed by knights, we can think of dragons as very professional guards with correspondingly high standards.
From a different perspective, is it possible that dragons are paid ‘actors’ for a knight wishing to win the love of a princess? It may be the case that a demonstrable display of bravery and strength is useful in convincing a princess that her interests are best served by a knight displaying such characteristics.
A knight driven by this logic may arrange a plan with a dragon that following their ferocious battle, the dragon will ‘play dead’ leading the victor to his prize. Again this leads us to an interpretation as dragons as paid employees,
The interpretation of dragons as paid guards or actors raises the question, why dragons need pay. A socio-economic approach seems to be fruitful to answer this question if we consider the technical and social circumstances of earlier centuries (no such events are reported from the 19th and 20th century).
|
Finally, the lack of a proper social security system for dragons (these events took place long before the advent of the welfare state) was an important factor in taking up paid employment. For dragons, employment as princess-guarding monsters provided a means to earn money to care for themselves and their families.
Conclusions
This paper aimed to explain the motives of why dragons kept princesses locked in castles. We examined their motives from the perspectives of independent actors and from within a principal-agent framework.
We concluded that dragon behaviour is better understood from a principal-agent framework and that dragons were employed as paid professional guards or actors for the self-serving interests of other principals (e.g. wicked fairies). This was basically the only segment of the labour market they had access to and they needed to earn money in order to provide food and shelter for themselves and any loved ones.
Our discussion however, raises many other questions. For example, from a social sciences point of view it would be interesting to know if gender or personality constructs gave some indication concerning the make-up for the best guard or actor. Also the question whether dragons belonged to work unions remains completely open for now.
From a natural sciences perspective it would be worthwhile to explore whether this highly dangerous occupation and long working hours played a role in the extinction of dragons. Alternatively, did the decline in the number of princesses and therefore paid job opportunities make dragons move on to new occupations.
We thank Mikko Miksch (age four) for raising this question and for making Johannes watch the movies Shrek and Shrek 2 approximately fifty times. We thank our colleagues and friends in developing the arguments of this paper. We look forward to the opportunity to further our research with the imminent DVD release of Shrek the Third.
References
- Grimm, J. and W. Grimm, Grimms Märchen. 2000: Nebel Verlag.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_and_dragon
- Adamson, A. and V. Jenson, Shrek. 2001, Dreamworks: USA.
- Pagot, T., Grisu - der kleine Drache. 2022: Deutschland.
- Adamson, A., K. Asbury, and C. Vernon, Shrek 2. 2004, Dreamworks: USA.
- Strauss, A. and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research - Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 1990: SAGE Publications.
If you enjoyed this then why not try some more monster stories:
- Cool - The second coming of... God-zilla
- Funny - Biggest ever fossils discovered
- Weird - The 'They Might Be Giants' theory
- Interesting - The real aliens
Share this
