So Appealing: Memetics and Fairy Tales" is the amount of editing that the story of the Frog Prince went through. The Grimms were known for extending the length of the tales that they collected, this one not being an exception. The story, according to Zipes, doubled in length between the 1809 and 1857 editions of the Grimms' collections. This allowed for the characters to be developed more and also allows fore the tale as a whole to be fleshed out and more eloquently worded. The Grimms were able to do this while maintaining the original story's structure and motifs. The main fact that stood out to me was that the tale had been de-sexualized from the earlier versions. When i read the story and the frog wished to go to bed with the princess, i, perhaps naively, thought that the frog just wanted to sleep in the same bed as a princess, not necessarily have sex with her. This brings me to the part of this story that doesn't make very much sense to me. When the princess throws the frog against the wall, he turns into a prince and then beds her. Why would the frog be rewarded for trying unsuccessfully to sleep with a princess? Throughout the story, with the exception of the frog actually helping the princess in the beginning, the frog is rude and pushy. It doesn't make sense to me to reward this behavior within the story. Also, its good of the princess to refuse the frog, albeit trying to kill it is a little unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I won't lie; this post actually cracked me up, mostly because I had the exact same thoughts! Not a single bit of that story made any logical (or, realistic?) sense to me. Personally, I don't care how much I may love a toy, I'm not going to promise a frog eternal companionship in order for it to receive it. That's crazy. And yes, the consequences/rewards simply did not make any sense. If that creepy frog was coming after me and I was compelled to throw it against the wall (although I agree I think the princess is a bit overdramatic), I certainly would NOT be ok with a prince jumping off the floor and thinking "oh, he's cute, I can marry him." Again, that's just crazy and unrealistic, especially since the frog was so demanding. Maybe he just thought he was too good to be a frog?
ReplyDeleteYeah well, that is the nature of the fairy tale. We shouldn't try to rationalize or over analyze devices too much because clearly we will leave the tale unsatisfied. Of course it is silly to promise a disgusting amphibian loyalty in return for a toy. Of course if you look at it the other way, promising companionship for security and grasp with your virginity, it still seems a little weird although easier to comprehend. Either way, I'm happy the little runt got thrown against the wall. He deserved it.
ReplyDeleteHa, I definitely think you've explained the modern reaction to the story perfeclty. Your post actually reminded me of the section in Zipes' article where he lists the titles of a bunch of romance-focused self-help books (e.g. "Do Not Talk to, Touch, Marry, or Otherwise Fiddle with Frogs"), because I think we've gotten it pretty firmly in our heads that relationships don't work the way they do in The Frog Prince. (Of course, I’m talking about versions of the story where the frog promises the girl he is a prince). Most professed princes/princesses just turn out to be frogs in the end. It’s interesting that modern adaptations like the Princess and the Frog and the trilogy of novels Zipes discusses love to reverse the transfiguration, turning the kisser into a frog and forcing the “couple” to work out an actual relationship. True to Zipes’ hypothesis, the story is evolving right alongside modern romance.
ReplyDelete