Symbolism in Hiawathan beavers

[Cordilow]

This post pertains to The Song of Hiawatha, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and it contains spoilers.

I just finished this about 9–10 hours ago. I'm left with the memory of that one guy who petitioned the beavers to turn him into a beaver, and then to make him ten times as big as they were. The beavers wanted him to be their king. If they could change the size of someone, why wouldn't they make one of themselves huge? I'm guessing the reason is that it would break some symbolism (so, for the sake of the story, and not for the sake of straightforward logic).

Anyway, Hiawatha kills him in his beaver form before he can become king of the beavers (he's too big to escape). However, since he's a beaver, he doesn't really die, oddly enough—I guess he can't die for good when he's in an animal form, for some reason (and dying in an animal form changes him back or something, perhaps). Anyway, Hiawatha kills him every time, and eventually, I think he kills him in human form, too.

Later, Hiawatha's wife is dying from famine (because of some beings who are testing him or something). She dies. Now, my question is, why not have some animals turn her into an animal while she's starving—then she'll die, and, um, still be alive! But, I guess she might still be starving and this process might not make her any more full. Maybe she didn't want to die more than once—I guess that wouldn't be pleasant. But, alas, I do think it's for the sake of symbolism that the characters don't do tricky things like this—I could be wrong.

[Cordilow]

Anyway, this epic poem reminded me of a really long fairy tale, in poem form. It was kind of wild. In fact, I've seen variations on some of the stories in this (in fairy tales).

Wild. Why was Hiawatha so intent on killing the sturgeon? What did it do to him? I guess I just don't know his motive, unless it's also symbolic (in which case he doesn't necessarily need a motive; he might just kill it because it's a challenge—or to make himself great). He very often wanted to kill stuff, for some reason—except for that one time when he and his wife were merciful to the famished ones (I think this is the first time he's crossed or otherwise challenged and doesn't kill something).

Anyway, I think the killing and the need he felt to do it is something steeped in Longfellow-perceived Indian tradition/culture/values. He may or may not be right—I don't know. There's probably a code of ethics in there, and probably times when killing goes against it.

Killing the sturgeon (the king of the fishes) could represent some such as the greatest of all successes. One might think that if this were a dream, rather than a poem (according to some people's views on fish symbolism). Killing it (with the intention of challenging it) could represent a struggle to overcome the success, or the things in the way of obtaining it (the meat, or such).

The battles he goes through could represent his growth and development. In fact, I think it does, by the way the poem plays out—and it's more apparent when that man comes to fight him in order to make him stronger. Hiawatha honors the man afterward, by the way.

The more I think about this, the more I realize that I'm probably not so far out on a limb with this symbolism thing as I first felt.