A few weeks ago I was the drunkest I'd ever been in my life. After being pressured to down a "zombie brain" (don't try it), I wrote a short fanfic for "the Black Cauldron" on my phone. The following text is unaltered and in edited from its original drunken wording.
I don't own "the Black Cauldron."
BLACK CAULDRON CRACK FIC
At long last the brace warrior Taran and his comrades found the mysterious Black Cauldron.
"What do we do with it?" Asked Princess Eilonwy
"ITsA BOBG!" Cried Flefor Faggot or whatever his name is
"
Let's smoke this shit" said Girgi
"Fuck sure" said henwin the pig
"I'm high" declared Taran
TJE EMD
Editorial Notes: As I wrote this short piece, I did not give any thought to the story's events beyond face value. However, weeks later, I now realize there are several subtleties in this alternate take on "the Black Cauldron."
To begin with, we only have Flewfor Faggot's word that the Cauldron is a "bong" (or "bobg" as he so charmingly pronounces it). And if memory serves, the Flewfor character is, in canon, a compulsive liar. Ergo, these characters are attempting to smoke something that isn't even meant to be smoked. Taran's declaration "I'm high" at the end may indeed be accurate, but not in the way he believes. He is likely "high" not from marijuana, but from mercury poisoning.
The effects of mercury poisoning are grave ones. The proverbial "mad hatter" is a reference to the insanity brought onto hat manufactures by the mercury in the factories they worked in. In canon, the discovery of the Black Cauldron is followed by the Horny King's ghostly army of skeletons, and many other equally nightmarishly trippy events. In this interpretation of the story however, it seems to be implied that all of what followed from the discovery of the Cauldron was simply a result of the characters' brains being fried from trying to smoke the contents of a regular cauldron like that of a bong.
Feminist Analysis:
A feminist analysis of "the Black Cauldron and Zombie Brains" will reveal a disturbingly strict set of gender roles for the characters in this narrative. Whether this is because the author (me) is secretly a sexist against herself, or if she was simply representing the sociological environment of the story's era, is unclear. In any case, the two female characters, Princess Eilonwy and Henwin, are entirely passive characters, while the males are the decision makers. In the world of "Zombie Brains and the Black Cauldron," women can ask questions but not answer them; they can agree with the mens' decision to "smoke this shit," but not offer suggestions of their own.
Then we have Flewfor Faggot who, as discussed above, is portrayed as a deceptive and malicious figure; is the author homophobic, or is she simply pointing out how a homophobic society might drive a gay minstrel to lie and/or insanity? (It is unclear whether Flewfor Faggot was misleading the other characters on purpose, or if he in his stupidity truly did believe the Cauldron was a "bobg.")
Marxist Analysis
A Marxist Analysis offers introspective on the social classes of "Zombie Brains and the Black Cauldron." Note that the princess, Eilonwy, is the only character whose name is spelled correctly in this narrative. As a princess, she is treated with great respect by the author, even at the drunkest she (the author) has ever been in her life. Other characters have more respect for Eilonwy than each other. When Eilonwy asks "what is it?" Flewfor Faggot replies swiftly and without obscenities. When the peasants speak to each other however, their dialogue is riddled with obscenities. It is not clear if Eilonwy participates in the smoking of the Cauldron; Girgi and Henwin both make their intentions to get stoned clear, and Taran announces that he is high. Flewfor Faggot, of course, is the one who suggested using the Cauldron as a bong in the first place. But there is never any indication that the princess partakes in the low-brow peasant pastime of getting high.
De-constructionist Analysis:
Unfortunately, I am not and never have been drunk or stoned or blazed enough to provide a proper "de-constructionist" analysis of a piece of literature. And so we'll have to skip this one.
As one can see, interpretations of this piece are varied and perhaps unlimited. Feel free to share your own analysis in a review.