Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-226878-20150710200046/@comment-174.89.110.232-20151116223035

To TheRozenQueen: I've written long replies to you twice and lost them both, and have a magnificent migraine again, so I might answer in greater detail later if you have specific points to discuss.

Long story short: unpopular laws are often broken by the masses either from necessity or as a type of freedom fighting. The issue was how many of the people of the time (when there was no social network; a dreadful royal, Prince John, running the country to his profit and its ruin, on the throne; and people just starved in the streets whenever John or his barons decided to declare new taxes and seized their property down to the last measure of flour in their homes) -- how many of them would consider Robin Hood a criminal? I wanted the numbers, how many are many and where's your source for comparison purposes: 90%, 50%, 10%, less than 1%?

Modern comparison: personal marijuana use. Many think of this as a crime. It is illegal. There is to the mind a difference between crime and illegality. Morality plays a part. Laws change. If the law where you are regarding smoking up changes tomorrow, are you drenched with criminality for smoking up today? Some laws don't change quickly enough, and I'm not advocating either legalizing marijuana or using it, let alone growing and distributing for profit, this is just an example, people.

When an unpopular law doesn't change quickly enough the masses may ignore the technicality that it's legal. How many hundreds of stupid laws are on the books going back to just the 1600's and 1700's because people *forgot* they were there? Joan of Arc burned in part because she dressed like a man when leading her troops, even though she won France her victory (she was sold out by her King/Dauphin). Stupid law. Didn't change fast enough. Don't throw out your jeans, ladies. Take a moral stand!

Comparisons with other fictional antihero/heros of the thief variety: Raffles, Flambeau, Cary Grant's role in 'To Catch a Thief' -- the saying is 'set a thief to catch a thief'.

Other antiheros/heros, other crimes, very popular nevertheless: Dexter -- definitely a criminal, fun to watch (till they killed off Julie Benz and then tried too mate him with his stepsister, utterly wrong writing there). His sense of morality was that being a serial killer who killed only other serial killers who'd escaped justice was a good thing. Dex wasn't a mental or spiritual giant, exactly. Still fun. The gamblers in 'Guys and Dolls', and their comical love affairs, great music. Popular in their times, staying power iffy. I somehow think the theme to the 50's-60's English 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' (Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen; Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his Merry Men; feared by the bad, loved by the good, Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood) is catchy and infectious enough to stay the track. Just threw that in, don't know why.

When laws declare the previously legal now illegal: Coca-Cola, whose Christmas ad of plump St. Nick in red trimmed with white fur showed him taking the 'pause that refreshes' with cocaine in the drink. Sherlock Holmes shooting up the 7% solution, whatever Dr. Watson thought. We like them and ignore the new criminality of the acts. Coke has to leave the coke out of the Coke now, though.

Robin Hood's popularity: a millennium of people loved the stories. It's the underdog theme. Robin, being sanctioned or sanctionable for his acts, nevertheless takes a bold step and creates a group of freedom fighters/redistributers of wealth in unusual circumstances, saving the poor and righting wrongs wherever he finds them. He is always, always shown as being overwhelmingly loyal to 'Good' King Richard, the enthroned king of England (off playing in the crusades during John's viceroyship of England), who always pardons Robin and the Merry Men when he shows up in a story. It's bad, bad, bad Prince John, baddest prince in all English towns, against whom Robin revolts. Robin is everyman in his attitude to the law then. (Even the barons/nobles hated John, who was a real person, and forced his hand at Runnymede into signing the Magna Carta, the real constitution, to prevent royal seizure of property the Crown had no right to. It didn't protect the commoners, though.)

There were other things I wrote in my first two reply attempts. I don't remember. But I would just caution that you can't form an opinion entirely on fictional accounts of things, popular or not. Look at the source instead, look at the laws of England in the 1200's and you become a partisan of Robin Hood whatever your sense of morality, as long as it's not a sense of immorality. Bollywood doesn't show us the sick and starving so beloved by the sainted Mother Teresa. That's not entertainment, though it is true.

Let me know if any of this is unclear or murky. My painkillers haven't kicked in entirely and when I start quoting song lyrics I'm off in a little paradiso-purgatorio hoping for clarity but unable to gauge it. Sorry if I've wasted your time.