The Wall of Briars

Into the Woods

2010-04-22T10:10:00.003-05:00

This is the first time I have ever heard of Into the Woods but I enjoyed it very much. It clearly plays off of many popular fairy tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel. The new fairy tale insert with the Baker maintains further exaggerates fairy tale motifs. The characters in Into the Woods have an opportunity to grow (like the Baker becoming more open to his wife helping acquire said items), and there are plenty of magical elements to remind the audience of the fantastical world the characters reside in. During the mini intermissions when all of the characters are in the woods and saying their lessons learned, we understand the morality aspect of the fairy tale. All of the quirky twists make for a very interesting adaptation of fairy tales that still contain no place specificity, polarizations between good and evil, magic, nature and interlocking quests (subsets of various stories).

Fables

2010-04-22T08:47:00.002-05:00

I think the most intriguing perspective of critically analyzing Fables: Legends in Exile comes from the way that the characters are translated. In a sense, what we have here is one type being exchanged for another. The Big Bad Wolf becomes the hard-boiled detective Bigby. Snow White takes the role of strong-willed female bureaucrat Mrs. Snow who helps him solve the case, instead of Prince Charming we get a misogynist cocksman. It's only appropriate that fairy tale characters, transported to a modern setting, would take on the role of types. They know nothing else. Their entire existence is based on playing a role, that of their fairy tale archetype. Although they've been shifted temporally, they have no choice but slip back into predetermined roles. The are incapable of creating their own original identities. Even the plot calls attention to its own recognizeability. It's the classic noir narrative. A grizzled, experienced detective tries to solve the case of a missing girl, searching through clues which point every direction, before one last clue finally solves the case. The entire story is so typical, in a sense, that during the "parlor scene", the creator admits its own lack of originality. But just as with the fairy tale characters which populate this story, whose identities have been adjusted, the "parlor scene" has been adjusted as well. Instead of inside a parlor, the scene takes place on the roof of a building beside a pool. These are characters whom have been ripped from their typical settings, so it would be appropriate that a classic scene of hard-boiled stories would too take place in an unusual setting. As

Into the Woods

2010-04-21T23:07:00.002-05:00

I would definitely consider Into the Woods to be a fairy tale in some ways. After all, the entire play is a compilation of well known fairy tales that all are centered around the main/ newly developed fairy tale. One could argue that this is a fairy tale in that contains many of the same motifs--there is a deep dark forest, and the woman and man want a child ( have a lack of something) and have to complete a task (getting all of those things). The structure is pretty similar. However, I feel like the entire point to the play is to make fun of fairy tales and call upon our common knowledge of these popular stories, Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood. I would definitely say that this play is much more complex in that it makes us think about the fairy tale genre by poking fun and exaggerating elements. Arguably, it could be similar to the literary fairy tales that we have read, taking the fairy tale structure but also maintaining an underlying complexity that calls upon us to think about what we are reading or viewing on a deeper level.

Into the Woods

2010-04-21T22:24:00.002-05:00

I must say, when it comes to Sondheim's musical, I'm a bit torn as to whether or not it counts as a fairy tale. My immediate reaction is that yes, it counts because of the instinctual "well why wouldn't it be if it includes all the fairy tale characters that I know?" but the more I analyze it, the more I realize that Sondheim had a bit of a different message. I don't think that Sondheim in any way wanted to mock or degrade fairy tales; instead, I think that he used famous fairy tales as a way to spark our imagination and to capture the intrigue of the audience. In successfully doing so, Sondheim is able to tweak the stories however he wants, even to the extremes that they really don't look like fairy tales anymore. The characters interact with the narrator; the songs and stories have violent breaks and pauses as the characters realize what's going on (almost as though from a third person perspective); the characters are modernized through sarcasm and speech. It's almost surprising that the audience doesn't get angry with Sondheim for so drastically changing what the audience has always believed to be a fairy tale. Even though I am typically one to get upset or at least surprised when tradition is broken, I too felll into Sondheim's lure. He was able to convince me through a balance of tradition and modernism that his characters are simply just modern day people encountering their own fairy tales (even through acknowledging the absurdities as absurd). No, I don't think that Sondheim would be able to convince an audience that the stories were true in reality, but he makes such an impressive argument for them that it seems hard to completely disregard the stories or characters.

Into the Woods

2010-04-21T22:11:00.002-05:00

Since Into the Woods clearly interacts with the fairy tale tradition as it was inspired by Bettelheim's 1976 book, The Uses of Enchantment, it clearly resonates with a fairy tale tone, especially as it intermixes the plots of some of the Grimms tales we have read. What I enjoyed about this play was that it delved further into the exploration of the consequences of the character's decisions and pursuits. When I did a little research it said the main characters were taken from Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstock, Rapunzel, and Cinderella which I thought was fascinating and gave me a little inspiration for my final paper actually. The plot of the a baker and his wife and their attempts to create a family of course tie into the tradition as well, of the poor humble family trying to make its way in a mystical and uncertain time. Where the production seems to depart and at the same time tie more into the fairy tale tradition is the ending. They are saying we should all try the woods (obviously a metaphor for trying new things) but never forget the past, which is perhaps both paying homage to and a departure from the tradition this production originated from . The show premiered at the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego, California in December of 1986 at a time when society was making serious shifts and technological developments were in their early stages but still trying to take off. The first PC virus began, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded seconds after it blasted off, Reagan signed off on an enormous reorganization of the US Department of Defense, in other words big changes were being made. Perhaps this production can be better understood when we see this need to cling to the past while also being force to look to the future, maybe this production was an indication of the struggle in identifying and situating within society's progress.

Into the Woods

2010-04-21T17:46:00.002-05:00

Into the Woods really has to be experienced first and analyzed later, because there’s no way to piece together some consistent philosophy while the musical assaults you with enormous shifts in tone and perspective. Like many fairy tales, in fact, what seems to be important in the first act (getting a baby) is hardly of any consequence in the second—consider how the incest themes of the Thousandfur stories disappear when the plot starts to mimic Cinderella. Meanwhile, the figure that drives the second act (the giant) is barely set up in the first (we only obliquely hear about Jack’s exploits), much like the sudden appearance of characters like the prince in Snow White. On the other hand, the story’s volatility sometimes acutely contradicts the fairy tale tradition. Wives, fathers, and mothers are only supposed to die at the beginning of the story, for example, and a witch who becomes beautiful should really either lose her beauty or be killed off by the end of the story—poetic justice is completely scrambled. It’s as though the musical has the pieces, appearance, and structure a fairy tale needs, but refuses to act like one.

Of course, to say something like “acts like a fairy tale” implies that we know what their “true” function is, which leads me to what I thought was the most interesting way that Into the Woods interacts with the fairy tale tradition. Sure, self-referential genre humor (e.g. picking up the cow) immediately grabs attention, and the imposition of realistic reactions (“you can talk with birds?!”) makes for an entertaining show, but what’s most fascinating is how the characters themselves seem to have to learn the Bettelheim-style lessons they are supposed to be teaching the audience. The baker is overwhelmed with fatherhood issues, the witch has to reconcile interpersonal relationships with morality—hell, nearly all the characters have to cope with loss. But the musical as a whole doesn’t communicate these lessons to the audience; instead they’re kept within the fairy tale characters. Is this simply the product of an era when the entire genre has already been dissected and criticized to death—can we now sit back haughtily and subject these characters to the psychological underpinnings of their own stories? No, I think the revival of some playfulness at the end of the musical lets us know that nothing cruel or permanently depressing is going on here. It is a tribute to fairy tales rather than a fairy tale itself, and consequently must portray all sides of society’s interaction with these endearing and infectious stories.

Of Feminie Subtlety

2010-04-15T23:47:00.002-05:00

"Of Feminine Subtlety" could not have a more typical fairy tale beginning. We begin with a king, and his three sons. The king finds himself nearing death, so he divides his fortune amongst the three sons, and then dies. Interestingly, we never see the other two sons again. In a "typical" fairy tale, moral weaknesses of the two older sons cause them to forfeit whatever advantages they've gained from their deceased father, only to have the cunning, earnest, youngest son hatch a plan to get these treasures back. In this case, the older sons are thrown to the periphery of the narrative, and it is in fact the youngest son's foolishness that drives the plot. The story does maintain the ambiguity in time and place typical for a fairy tale, other than the conspicuous naming of the lead character; Jonathan. As the end of the story is overtly Christian allegory, perhaps this is a biblical reference. The story is also fairy tale like in that it seems to be preaching a very specific moral theme, that man's desires for women can cause trouble and that the only happy life is one in service of the Christian God. The "concubine" whom cons Jonathan out of his inherited treasures does so with quite mundane tactics. For the most part, she just asks for the things and Jonathan the fool just gives them over. The first two instances are nigh identical. The third thievery, that of the blanket, is done after he falls asleep with his head in her lap. I don't know if this was meant as sexual, but the proximity between his head and her groin, analogous to his mind being preoccupied with sex, certainly calls attention to itself. The story does not end in marriage, Jonathan instead enacting violent revenge through the use of cursed apples and water. The viciousness of it rivals those gloriously graphic punishments from the Grimms, and the son does go back to his family. So while we don't get a marriage for the youngest son to end the story, very atypical, we do get a reunited family.

Where to Lay the Blame

2010-04-14T23:34:00.003-05:00

This story by Howard Pyle is a fairy tale for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is quite a bit of unexplained magic thrown into a very short tale. We start with a relatively typical character, a poor man who faces the daily problem of hunger. After a long day of fishing without success, he returns home to his wife who is cooking him dinner. Before he can eat, however, the magician enters his house and convinces him to go fishing one last time. On this bizarre trip, the man encounters an expanding palace in which the magician is king., but he is told that during the travels, he should neither speak nor see his means of travel. The man obeys the first time, but on the way back from the castle, he cannot resist but to look. Upon doing so, he notes that he is riding a billy goat, and cries out in exclamation of this. This is what causes everything to disappear such that the man is thrown back down into his own house without the promised gold. For some bizarre reason, the first thing the man says then is that he should not have listened to his wife's advice about going with the magician. I find this quite bizarre because I don't know why this man would blame his wife for his troubles when she is the one providing him with food. In a twisted way, this story reminds me of Bluebeard because there is a forbidden action which the main character is supposed to avoid. Here though, instead of the wife actually doing the forbidden deed, the man is, and he is allowed at the end to blame her for his own poor choices. The lack of food, the mysterious magic, and the wrong-doing all lead to the conclusion that this story is indeed a fairy tale, even if it is different from all others we've read before.

Gunter Kunert's Sleeping Beauty

2010-04-14T23:33:00.002-05:00

Kunert's "Sleeping Beauty" is interesting not only because of how short it is but also because it is not told really as a story but rather as a summary of the themes usually associated with Sleeping Beauty stories. Furthermore, there is nothing beautiful about the girl in his edition. He describes the princess as follows: "her toothless mouth half opened, slavering, her eyelids sunken, her hairless forehead crimpled with blue, wormlike veins, spotted, dirty, a snoring trollop". Clearly not the portrayal of purity and beauty usually associated with this maiden in fairytales. The only elements that actually remind me of a fairytale in this story are the indications of a universality and a place far away. The characters and setting are unnamed. However, in every other respect I would argue this is not a fairytale. Kunert analyzes the genre from the beginning, twists the elements against the typical purpose of the story. I am not staying the story is without merit, on the contrary, I find it extremely interesting, particularly his last sentence, "Blessed be all those who, dreaming of Sleeping Beauty, died in the hedge and in the belief that beyond it there was a moment in which time for once and all stood still and certain" , it is as though he is condemning anyone who does believe in fairytales. Granted in the back of Zipes' book it was indicated that Kunert was a poet more than a storyteller but I still find his analysis fascinating even though I can't fully grasp it.

Hyacinth and Roseblossom

2010-04-14T23:16:00.002-05:00

Even though this story does not seem like a fairy tale at first glance, once I thought about it, I realized it has many characteristics of one. First, it starts describing main character as being good, so we know to like him. All of the heroes in fairy tales are good on the outside and inside. This is the same for Hyacinth. We know he is good because he communicates with nature which is another aspect of a fairy tale. Nature knows who is good and bad, so if you get along with nature, you must be a good person. This brings us to our next characteristic: a magical world. Hyacinth is in a world where plants and animals can talk and laugh and sing (of course). Another characteristic is that the story begins with Hyacinth experiencing a lack of something: happiness. Then, he must go on a journey to fix this. And, of course, it is a journey around the world, especially through forests. It is this journey that helps him find happiness in the end. And who is to send him on the journey? A mysterious old woman from the woods. We do not know who she is, but she is knowledgeable and helpful in mysterious ways, so the reader can associate her with a good witch. A sorcerer is also included in this story as well, so we have magical people too. Hyacinth lives in a magical world. Then, after Hyacinth's journey, he gets the girl, but she is not just any girl, she is the most beautiful girl. "She was so lovely that anyone who had ever met her yearned to be hers." This is definitely a characteristic of a fairy tale. So, there are clearly a lot of fairy tale characteristics within this short story that make it more like a fairy tale than you might originally think.

Of Feminine Subtlety

2010-04-14T22:12:00.002-05:00

This story can definitely be described as a fairy tale. In the beginning, you have a king and his three sons. He gives his 3rd son, Jonathan, three riches with magical powers: a necklace, a ring, and a piece of cloth and is warned by mother that he must protect them. Already, we see the element of kings and queens, various representations of three, and magical objects. The son, of course, is mystified by a woman and ends up giving all three objects to the woman who in turn leaves him alone in the deep, dark forest. Here again, many elements of the fairy tale are seen. The unknown forest and the evil but beautiful woman figure are seen here. In the end though, Jonathan passes the test and gets out of the forest escaping burning water and leprosy. He ends up healing those that have leprosy, and then watches the woman who cheated him die in agony. He returns to his mother and lives happily ever after. It reads, " Then he recounted how God had saved him from various dangers, and after living many years, he ended his days in peace."

This story follows the structure of fairy tales very closely and includes an abundant number of elements which fairy tales also have. However, there is definitely a deeper message of Christian moral at the end, and importance of education over riches scattered throughout that make the story more complex than a traditional fairy tale.

The Fairy Tale of the King

2010-04-14T19:26:00.002-05:00

The Fairy Tale of the King distinguishes itself as a fairy tale for several reasons. The opening, "Once upon a time there was" lets the readers know that all of this is occurring in an unknown realm. The tale will not possess any elements of specificity like who and where. Additionally, the tale clearly polarizes the good and the bad through a quest. By altering his outward appearance, the King is able to cover himself behind a mask to discover the truth behind his power. In fairy tales, the protagonist can self actualize through some sort of transformation (e.g. Beauty and the Beast). Although the King's transformation is not magical, it is merely a disguise, he is able to search for truth and learn an important lesson. This tale also has the classic happy ending where the King is deeply moved by something beautiful in the young woman that results in marriage. Morally, the King understands the implications of his declarations and behavior and correspondingly does something to write his wrong. In the end there is some sense of retribution which is also common in fairy tales. Lastly the King's founding of a new realm, the realm of love where fish were seen to mate in the air brings in some fantastical elements typical of fairy tales.

The Griffin and the Minor Canon

2010-04-14T16:22:00.000-05:00

What a fascinating little story! In many ways its identity as a fairy tale shouldn’t be too controversial, given a general lack of specificity and the inclusion of a conspicuously magical creature. On the other hand, though, its title characters don’t fit all that well into the fairy tale canon. The griffin isn’t obviously good or evil, but he also doesn’t have that element of powerful, neutral mischief that characterizes so many other magical creatures. Instead, he’s rather consistent in his behavior, thoughtful—human, really, at least more so than you’d expect a giant winged beast to be. The Minor Canon isn’t quite the clever everyman of something like The Devil and the Three Golden Hairs or the Cinderella-esque model of honesty; in fact, he doesn’t seem that relatable at all, despite having a fairly attainable level of virtue. At the end of the day, the reader doesn’t identify with either of the main characters, so presumably we are part of the nameless townsfolk—a role I’m not sure I’ve been asked to play in any of the Grimm’s stories.

The one thing that does jump out as thoroughly fairy tale-ish is the obscurity in the story’s message. It seems moralistic, but you’d be hard pressed to say what exactly the moral of the story is; instead, taking a note from Bettelheim, the author lets us play out various social and moral episodes in an imaginative setting, offering more mental resolution than actual lessons. Of course, I say “social and moral” episodes mainly because I don’t want to exclude the possible reactions of others—personally, I saw the story as a clever “narrativization” of many religious issues. The griffin’s “lordship” over the town, for example, creates a system of morality enforced by punishment, which the beast seems to see as a necessary evil but not the ideal. The legitimately good Minor Canon plays a sort of self-sacrificial, messianic role in the beginning of the story, but in the end it’s the more Old Testament God-ish griffin who lays down his life so that the MC can be honored. What do we make of that, I wonder? It’s as though the God who lays down the harsh Mosaic Law (threatens punishment) and demands sacrifices (gazes at his own statue) has recognized a much better relationship between mankind and the divine, and sacrifices himself to enable it.

The Philosopher's Stone

2010-04-08T07:47:00.002-05:00

I thought the use of magic in the Philosopher's Stone was really amusing because it is clear that he wrote the story in order to mock magic but it his story has such a classical fairytale taste that it reminds me almost of Tex Avery's films in which he mocks Disney's classical and exaggerated fairytale narratives. Just like Avery, this story begins using magic in order to turn a king into an ass whereas in the first part of the story magic was completely missing. The introduction of magic is introduced in such a sarcastic tone it is clear that it is being mocked as an 'inherent' and even 'required' part of the fairytale genre. I thought it was refreshing actually because even though there is good and evil and transformations and magical beings in a faraway place, the characters are also given names and the story also comes across as grounded and able to make fun of itself. It is a fairytale because it exaggerates what is supposed to make it a fairytale. It also distinguished itself in that it was so much longer than the typical fairytales we have been reading that are short sentences with simple phrases and blunt transitions from one scene to the next wherease here the sentences are so long and descriptive it shows a marked separation from the oral tales from which fairytales are supposed to originate.

The Function of Magic in the Philosophers' Stone

2010-04-07T23:36:00.003-05:00

The primary question that hung with me after the completion of "The Philosophers' Stone" was this: how can we reconcile the presence of magic in the later stages of the story when the first part of the story takes great pains to demean even the suggestion of magical influence. While my first instinct was that this conflict was indeed troublesome, a closer reading of the text was illuminating. The principal "magic" moment of the story occurs when the beautiful young boy appears in front of King Mark and offers him a stone with which he is to rub all over his body. Mark does so, and is turned into a donkey. The impact of the stone, which the boy promises Mark that his "wish will be fulfilled", is certainly comedic. It's sort of a foolish image to think of this befallen king rubbing a stone all over his chest and head, only to find himself in the form of an ass. I think it is this form that he takes that governs my reading. He doesn't become a horse, a bird, or a "noble" creature. He becomes a jackass. Wieland uses "real" magic to further strengthen his argument for the nonexistence of magic. If you believe in this nonsense enough to rub a stone all over your body, you don't just become a jackass, you are jackass. When Mark awakens from his dream discovers that he is still in his animal form, it furthers this idea that Mark's true form is indeed that of a donkey, and the human form is but a disguise. When Mark transforms back he does so by eating a lily (Note that eating a lily carries none of the ritual that his initial "stone-rubbing" paraded). He performs an act natural to a donkey. He grazes. He's accepting his identity as a jackass. The wife's analogues victimization and transformation suggests that she too was living on false beliefs. Perhaps Wieland was just trying subversively comment on the idea of the adulterous knight, whom is actually the maidens true love. That she disappears in the middle portion of the story suggests that her narrative/message was not as interesting to Wieland as was King Mark's.

The Philosopher's Stone

2010-04-07T23:25:00.004-05:00

This story is different from a fairy tale, but it is definitely a fairy tale for a few reasons. First, there is magic. This story exhibits different types of magic throughout the plot. Therefore, this story exists in a world that is more suited for a fairy tale. Also, there is a transformation, which we have discovered is extremely fairy-tale like. There is also a predominate good and evil. The main character begins with a lack of something that he wants, and he must be tested before the story is over. There is a main theme that can be identified, and this is the lesson to be learned. Certain traits that King Mark exhibits are exemplified and respected (ex. when he is listening in the cave, it specifically says "If it were not for the limitless patience, a virtue most characteristic of the species of beast to which he now belonged, that lent him strength, it would have been impossible for him to prevent the fury that was boiling..."). It is easy for us to understand what is good and what is bad. We see the benefits and rewards of certain characteristics and actions. Therefore, even though this story is quite a bit longer than other fairy tales we have read, and it has more detail and development, it is still a fairy tale.

The Philosophers Stone

2010-04-07T23:19:00.002-05:00

The Philosophers Stone has the length of a short story, but managers to maintain its fairy tail status by the way it is written and the random use of magic. The way that it is written still sounds like it could be told orally in many parts. its as if the author is telling us the story one on one. The first page alone sounds as if it should be narrated, with the exception of the difficulty of some of the words. At the beginning of the story, magic is viewed in almost a disdainful way, but suddenly after the king is taken for all he has, a fairy appears. This random and ludicrous appearance of the absurd lends itself to the fairy tale genre. The quest for happiness that the king continues on also lends itself to being a fairy tail. He transitions between every level of society in order to give himself a more well rounded worldly view. The path he follows is almost that of reincarnation. Because of his bad karma in the beginning, he comes back as a donkey. He then is able to progress his way to peasant. At the end he is offered the chance to become a king, once again following the idea of coming back higher than the last life. At this juncture, he makes the fairy tale decision and stays as the peasant, thus teaching us all that happiness doesn't necessarily come with title or possessions. The different transformations that occur in regards to identity and deception, especially on the fairies and peasant girl's part, give this tail a fairy tail feeling as well. The idea that nothing is as it seems in the real world, but everything will turn out okay helps make this a fairy tail.

the fairy tale quest for the philosopher's stone

2010-04-07T21:15:00.003-05:00

When I read "The Philosopher's Stone," the only aspect that might have led me to believe that it's not a story tale is its length. This story happened to be much longer and more in-depth in its details than those that we normally read and analyze, but otherwise, I think the story is a true fairy tale, and I think that Vladimir Propp would agree with me. According to his 5 main functions within a fairy tale, there must be a lack of something which causes the hero to address it and go on a quest to overcome it. The hero will of course be subject to at least one test and after passing them, s/he will be rewarded. I think that this mapping can be easily applied to the story of the philosopher's stone. The hero is in this case King Mark, and the lack is his apparent lack of gold. Whether it be a true lack of gold or simply the case that he is never satisfied with the amount is trivial. King Mark addresses this lack by welcoming all of the bizarre magicians and scientists who claim that they can fulfill his desire for gold. Although the king's quest may not be much of a physical one (until his entrance into the pyramid), he does engage himself in many tests in order to try and find the solution. Even though most of the magicians and such end up being frauds, he does encounter at least 2 truly magical helpers, the fairies. His transformations may not immediately seem like they are beneficial to the king or his quest, but in the end, they help him to learn about what the true philosopher's stone is... not the ability to make gold, but the chance to spend one's life with someone he truly loves. Besides, the nice little twist on the end about the queen being the other peasant really amps up the theme of using magic for love.

Philosopher's Magic

2010-04-07T21:13:00.002-05:00

Wieland's literary fairy tale The Philosophers' Stone is different from other fairy tales we have read in class. What helps to distinguish the difference between this fairy tale and other fairy tales has to do with character development. Magic is seemingly degraded in the beginning of the tale but emerges as the principal mechanism that helps the characters learn an important lesson. King Mark is unbelievably gullible and desperately believes in magic. His greed for the finer things in life and irrational pursuits to attain all that his heart desires leads him to inevitable failure. Wieland essentially critiques magic through King Mark but unpredictably consults magic to help move the story in the resulting direction. Ultimately, magic is used to help identify happiness. Although magic is the agent through which happiness can be experienced, it does not serve as the object that gives you happiness per se. Magic transforms King Mark as well as his wife into characters who are more susceptible to appreciating what they have. Misfragmutosiris, the Egyptian adept uses magic to redirect the lives of ungrateful royalty to show them what happiness does and can bring. Ultimately, happiness can exist for all especially the underprivileged through ambition and rationality.

A Wondrous Oriental Tale of a Naked Saint

2010-04-07T21:02:00.003-05:00

This story by Wackenroader can be classified as a fairy tale in that it contains fantastical creatures, magic spells, and a short succinct story with a happy ending. The tale takes place in an unknown world. This fantastical creature lives in a cave and is perpetually haunted by this fear that is a spell that has been cast on him. He has no rest as he is constantly hearing "the wheel of time." The spell is broken when he hears the music of love. This has tremendous power as it breaks the spell and is is not constrained anymore by his fears. This story definitely has a lot of the characteristics of the stories that we have previous read; however, there is a much deeper meaning in this literary fairy tale. Wackenroader was a Romantic writer and these ideals are very much present in his work. The story is of a creature that is haunted in his dark cave. He is saved by music, love and aesthetic beauty of the world around him, ideas that are all typical of Romanticism. The author concentrates on the aesthetic, picturesque world as highly desirable, and something that this creature desires to grasp. There is this contrast with feeling nothing and being haunted by time and constraints which could be compared to the Enlightenment, as Romanticism was a movement away from these ideas that transcended rationality. Nonetheless, though this is like the fairy tales we have seen in structure, in some of the elements that it contains, and its reflection of culture at the time, there is a much deeper meaning pertaining to politics and intellectual movements that make this story more complex.

Magic in the Philosopher's Stone

2010-04-07T19:25:00.002-05:00

It's difficult to draw any kind of unified voice on magic from this story for two particular reason: for one, Wieland purposefully differentiates between all types of magic and preternatural abilities, and secondly, the story spends its first half refuting the very idea of magic and then absolutely depends on it in the second half. Nevertheless, there exists at least one easy--if not necessarily accurate--way of interpreting all of Wieland's "schools" of magic that ties the story nicely into the a different moral allegory than the one we first expect. The Philosopher's Stone may seem to speak of the virtues of honest work and true love over lazy greed--and certainly it does do those things--but it also may illustrate the triumph of good old-fashioned social aptitude over various systems of thought.

The first category of magic are the inexplicable, folksy kind of powers we often find in fairy tales: smelling treasure, hypnotizing ghosts, using divining rods. This magic may be "secret" in that the possessor does not always reveal his ability, but the actual mechanics are presumably straightforward--and they'd have to be, for we can't expect a fairy tale gnome or witch to have a bachelor's degree. Folk wisdom, superstition, old wives' tales--whatever you want to call it, this potential source of practical knowledge is quickly discarded, especially by those in the competing school of alchemy. Alchemy, with its strict measurements and matter-of-fact protocols for how this element mixes with that tincture, draws easy comparisons to science in general, which had seen no small boost in ego during the Enlightenment. In again dismissing this "magical" system as fraudulent, Wieland may be ribbing the science of his day for its impracticality. We discovered a great deal in the 18th century, to be sure, but not much of it served an immediate purpose for mankind--Hutton's "Theory of the Earth" wasn't exactly a farmer's almanac. The last school, then, the "disciples of the great Hermes" among whom Misfragmutosiris is clearly the most "adept," may stand in for any number of European mysticisms (Rosicrucianism? Freemasonry?) or may just represent religion in general. The fact that this system of thought gets the most attention and causes the most havoc in the story would of course be quite appropriate given the power of the Church in 18th century society.

What of the "real" magic, then? Its purveyors seem very much like the fairies that have already been repudiated, or even the angels whose reputation Misfragmutosiris drags down in his ploy. I believe it's most important to note that the only lasting effect "real" magic has is to give the King and Queen younger and, uhh, fuller bodies--a change which doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for true love anyway. If all this magic actually does is teach lessons, I wonder if we can't take it as a symbol of general common sense regarding your social and vocational endeavors. We may not be born into King Mark's wealth, and we may not have the benefit of a transmogrificative benevolent being, but Wieland's fairy tale encourages us that his happy ending is not beyond the reach of those who labor to behave honestly and intelligently.

Extrapolating Manhood from Iron Hans and The Wild Man

2010-04-02T12:06:00.003-05:00

In the Iron Hans stories, the boy learns a series of lessons, and grows from a child to a man. If we were to extrapolate the lessons he learns to a general view on those values which were construed as masculine at the time, we would assume that society admired men who were physically able, capable of self-restraint, extraordinarily brave, and humble about their deeds. The descriptions of beauty in the story are absent, so it would be difficult to infer what qualities were considered physically beautiful (as opposed to in a story like Snow White where we are told lots of features which would have been considered beautiful). The stories promote the pursuit of physical ability by having the boy prove his muster in battle before finally achieving his ultimate success. For showing his worth as a warrior, he is ultimately rewarded. However, he must first deny being the able warrior. It would be unbecoming for him to boast about his feats. He is instead expected to deny them, until everyone finds out by their own accord. The understated hero is the more worthy hero. It's also interesting that the boy finds success from freeing the wild man, but in order to do so he must defy his mother. In both cases, the boy steals the key from his mother's possession, from under her pillow in Iron Hans and from her pocket in The Wild Man, and this seems to be the correct action. The boy is taught that defying its mother, aside from its immediate threat of punishment, can be a rewarding venture. This a far cry from the stories with female heroines (Red Riding Hood stories for example) where the defying of the natural mother seems to always be punished. It's surprising that this mother is not called a step-mother to suggest some amount of evil about her. The call for a man to have self-restraint, as evidenced by the punishment the boy receives for dipping his hand in the enchanted pool, might hint at a common problem of indulgent men at this time. While this idea certainly hasn't completely dissipated, I can imagine that in an agrarian society where populations were far further spread, as well as a society that was extremely patriarchal, abusive husbands and fathers were more common. Without proper means of policing, it would have been accredited to the man's self-control for him to resist sexual deviance and physical violence. Violence is only to be dealt in time of war or self-preservation. It's also interesting that the Wild Man's identity in terms of good and evil is not immediately expressed in Iron Hans. In the Wild Man, the story begins by calling him a "wild man who was under a spell" but in the Iron Hans story we have to deduce the character of the Wild Man as we go. In this way, it's much more literary.

Iron Hans

2010-04-01T09:59:00.002-05:00

Iron Hans clearly reflects a male educational process because throughout it displays frequent references to our discussions of what 'manhood' and masculinity were supposed to be when the Grimms were writing these stories. For example when the gruff manly huntsman says to the king, "I'll go at my own risk. I don't know the meaning of fear", men are not supposed to be afraid of anything, they are supposed to be brave and courageous. However, the story is meant to distinguish between bravery and foolhardiness for instance when the boy "threw all caution to the wind" to get his ball back from the wild man's cage. He wasn't being brave, he was being foolish and didn't know what he was getting himself into. Likewise, when he stuck his finger in the spring and accidentally let his hairs fall in he was not being brave, instead it was impulsive, childish acts that got him in trouble because he could not restrain himself as a strong adult male should be able to. However, Iron Hans told him that "because you're not bad at heart" that he would continue to help him. Clearly a virtue of masculinity is being good at heart. As the boy grows up and learns to work in accordance with the governing Protestant work ethic of masculinity he also shows humility and unusual wisdom as when he brought the princess wildflowers instead of rare flowers because he knew, very practically, that they had a stronger scent that she would like more, and when he gave the ducats she gave him to the gardener for his children. Such displays of generosity are of course also part of what makes him turn into a 'man'. Similarly when the boy wants to go to war, his bravery is rewarded by Iron Hans' magnificent horse and army. It is here that the boy is starting to be called "a young man" as well, because he has learned to face and prevail against real danger, as he "did not stop until there was no one left to fight". Furthermore, after the war the young man returned the 3-legged horse to the gardener and did not say that he was the knight that saved the battle, instead he just replied, "I did my best, and without me things would have gone badly" a simple, truthful statement without boasting. In the end, he only tells his stories of bravery really in exchange for a wife and is also rewarded when Iron Hans is returned to his normal state as a king and gives him all his treasure. As usual in a fairy tale the education of the male comes through tales of hardship and bravery in which he must prove himself cunning, human/ handsome, extraordinary in some element, brave, and humble.

Iron Hans

2010-03-31T23:40:00.002-05:00

The story of Iron Hans is that of a boy learning what it takes to become a man. At the beginning of the story he is a boy in his truest form, only focused on getting his ball back and not being punished by his father. He follows Iron Hans into the forest where he is given a charge. He is instructed to protect a stream. He acts childishly in regards to his duty, failing them three times, but he learns his responsibilities along the way. He ends up with golden hair that somewhat signifies his approach into manhood. This is only further exemplified when he takes up the manly acts of wooing a princess and slaying the enemies of his king. As he matures more and more with his actions, he also acts more and more maturely. His humility is so great that he constantly tries to keep his cap on and refuses any recognition or money. At the very end he is rewarded for his humble actions and receives not only the princess, but also all the treasure of iron hans.

Learning the Creeps

2010-03-31T23:12:00.002-05:00

Even though we already talked about the story "The Boy Who Went Forth to Learn What Fear Was," I think it was one of the most interesting stories for the week, and I do see its relevance to the male education process. In fact, the whole reason that the boy has to leave home is because his father doesn't believe that the boy has any potential to earn a living. Everyone believes that he is too stupid to amount to anything, so of course he has to try and prove himself. I'm surprised about the fact that everyone thinks he's so stupid though. I mean, ok, not knowing what the creeps are is a little weird maybe, but I wouldn't think that a boy couldn't amount to anything just because he doesn't get afraid. What's probably most fascinating that the boy recognizes that a main part of his development will involve trying to learn how to get the creeps. That's exactly how the boy wants to earn a living. He thinks that knowing this will give him a "trick or two" so that he can earn a living. I think it's really interesting that the entire story would revolve around something that is presumably inherent. Learning how to be afraid is something that you wouldn't find in any other story (aside from fairy tales) because it is so out of the ordinary in terms of development. I also think it's amusing that he doesn't even learn what the creeps are (or thus earn a living) before he lives a comfortable lifestyle by marrying the king's daughter and living in a castle. To the outside world, it would seem that the boy had fully grown and developed, but even still, he is not completely satisfied with his own manhood until the minnows are thrown onto him.

Iron Hans

2010-03-31T22:57:00.002-05:00

In reading Iron Hans, there is a great transformation in the golden haired boy. This transformation represents the process of male maturity and education. From the beginning, we see the boy represented as very childish. He is playing with his ball, and it gets into the cage of Wild Man. Like all young boys, he responds in the childish and most immediate way to get what he wants (the ball) without really thinking about the consequences. He goes and retrieves the key from under his mother's pillow. After taken to the forest by the wild man, he is told to watch over the water. However, no matter how many times he is told not to do this he childishly and immediately responds to the first stimuli, whether it is his hurt finger, a lock of hair or his reflection. He is then sent off to go find work and ends up with a gardener. Here it is clear that he is becoming educated and learning to become a man. He starts showing signs of being a provider, and a courter as he brings the princess wildflowers and he gives the ducats to the gardener's children. He then goes to war, the ultimate test of manhood, and is quite brave and successful but remains unidentified for his good deeds. Finally, with the help of the Wild Man he catches the three golden apples for the princess while still remaining anonymous. Here the ideal man is represented as brave, strong, humble, a provider and courter. Throughout the process we see this movement from a childish boy only concerned with the immediate to a humble man that is not just looking out for himself but for others, and he ultimately ends up with the best prize, the princess and all of the treasures of the Iron Hans.

Iron Hans

2010-03-31T20:48:00.002-05:00

Iron Hans is a story follows the life of a boy. First, he is childish and plays with a ball that he can't even keep track of. He lets it fall into the cage with the wild man in it. Then, we see the boy trying to be obedient by not letting the wild man out. Yet, he is still easy to convince because he is a child, and he lets out the wild man by going behind his parents backs. He does not think for himself at this point - he either listens to his parents or to the wild man. Then, he is afraid of punishment when the wild man escapes. We do not know if he wanted to go with the wild man or not, but the fact that he goes with the wild man without putting up a fight shows me that he did not mind because he was afraid of his parents. The only bad thing the boy knows about is punishment from his parents, so that is what he is most afraid of. Then, in the forest, he must learn self-control. He fails, but he learns of a new consequence and he is changed forever, which he clearly does not like because he tries to hide his golden hair. After being sent back out into the real world again, he learns hard work. He hides his identity and works in the gardens. If somebody were to discover him, what would happen? He tries to play it safe. He receives gold, but gives it away. He is content with the way things are because there are no other consequences. He doesn't know what other consequences are out there if he strays from the path. Yet, then he hears about the war, and he wants to help. He has learned that he cannot do everything by himself and it is okay to ask for help. Then, he saves the kingdom and truly learns how to be a man because he can fight and lead an army and is still humble about it. Once he finally recognizes that the consequences are not always bad, he owns up to his actions and everybody lives happily ever after. A lot of growing up for this boy was to look ahead at the consequences to decide if they are good or bad. Once he can do this, he is no longer a boy anymore.

Masculinity and The Wild Man

2010-03-31T20:30:00.002-05:00

(I forgot to write it down, but I’m pretty sure the prompt was “wild man stories as a metaphor for the masculine growth/education process," so that’s what I’m going off of)

It shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think of the “Wild Man” from the story who bears his name as a stand-in for some sort of masculinity rather than an actual character (like a father or father figure). From a very general perspective, then, the story involves the boy: 1. learning how this trait is socially maligned (man in cage), 2. beginning to express the trait himself but sensing the social repercussions (freeing man, running off), 3. struggling with how to live with this masculinity (living out a “secret marriage” in the garden), and 4. embracing the trait to vindicate his social worth (saving England). I’m no psychologist, but hopefully those four stages sound at least a little close to certain identity-development theories—I know I’ve heard a somewhat similar framework for how we come to identify ourselves racially.

Even with this framework in mind, though, the tricky question is what this sort of masculinity actually is, and why it would be somehow “unpopular” in a thoroughly patriarchal society. The first quality that jumps out is the difference between how others see it and how it interacts with the boy: it is captured and displayed as an unkempt drunkard, but its influence on the boy’s life involves cleanliness and hard work (keeping the garden). Other somewhat at-odds qualities include being altruistic (passing on money, saving England) without being entirely moral (stealing the key, stealing meat, bragging about martial exploits), and being both independent (fleeing from home, living in forest at start) and involved in the affairs of everyone around it.

The only way I see of reconciling these differences is by looking at how the boy grows increasingly more proactive and less dependent on others (not counting the wildness itself, of course); that is the masculinity the story wants to promote. The contradictions we see come from the tension of forcing a society-endorsed model into a story about a social outsider; for example, his two thefts may seem to be transgressions in the context of the story, but to the reader they are evidence that the boy is becoming resourceful. I think it’s clear that the masculinity the story wants to foster is, however “ruggedly individualistic” on the outside, ultimately one that acts for the benefit of existing institutions. Still, if we guys are going to have to adopt this masculinity one way or the other, we might as well think we’re being a rebel while doing it.

Masculinity Ideals Extolled

2010-03-31T17:06:00.003-05:00

Amidst the variety of fairy tales that we are reading this week, it is clear that they all are teaching males what a man is composed of. Traditional values or characteristics like curiosity, bravado, adherence to authorities of greater supremacy and cunning ability are all examined. Curiosity proves to be detrimental for many female protagonists but for males, it is encouraged because it will yield positive results. In the Godfather variations, it is clear that you should not push the limits of your cunning ability or you will be a happy soul for your godparent. Risk is, naturally encouraged especially in The Devil and His Grandmother variations since risk ends up being the saving grace for the young men. We also understand that a male is needed to maintain order since a woman cannot be held responsible for such precious order-keeping items. Even the Wild Man variations allow for redemption. The stars align for the males and teach the necessary skill sets through different tests what is honorable and what is not.

Magic Mirror Man

2010-03-24T23:42:00.002-05:00

In the DEFA film the magic mirror does not have a face but instead glows and speaks to the queen whereas in Disney's Snow White the magic mirror is a dramatic face that as we discussed in class speaks to the heterosexual desires of the wicked queen. Of course it is a male · characterized with a deep voice and portrays something or some force almost demonic or evil. Literally surrounded by smoke and mirrors the mirror makes the audience question who the force is behind his decisions/ proclamations. Similarly in the DEFA film, there is no face or voice but the outer edges glow - this difference in personifying an object versus imbuing it with a voice and light change the tone of the messages but also keep alive the mystical and magical elements that are completely absent in the 1916 Marguerite Clark film. In both the DEFA film and Disney's we get the sense that there is a special force but only in Disney do we really feel that the mask is deceptive and wise but in service to something evil. In our Gilbert & Guber reading the mirror is the voice of patriarchy that judges women and creates self doubt/ self worth or lack thereof in woman – here its as though Disney wanted to dramatize their theory whereas in DEFA that component is absent besides the voice. The fact that this character is a mirror of course begs the question, are these the delusions of a crazy queen? Well yes partially but they also reflect the socialization of our society. You could arguet that the mirror is herself and what she has been hearing is herself saying these narcissistic things until day she looks in mirror and realizes her adolescant daughter is fairer and she can’t lie to herself anymore – her own voice no longer tells her she is beautiful. The self that is returned to her by the mirror is the person she gets back is what she hears with relation to male voice without something behind it – its not one person and its not behind her. In the DEFA film this is the same concept but the vivid personification that literally gives a face to our socialization is absent and actually further provokes the question- is it us?

2010-03-24T23:36:00.002-05:00

The differences between the Grimm brother's magic mirror and Disney's are fairly stark. The mirror in the Grimm's version is mostly just that: a mirror. This mirror just so happens to have a voice and never tells a lie. Other than that it is perceived as just a mirror. The Disney version has a much more personified version of the mirror. It contains a mask surrounded by a veil of smoke from within the mirror. The mirror itself almost seems to contain another world. The mask itself is lit from underneath giving it even more of an ethereal effect. The mask's expression seems to move between comedy and tragedy, giving it yet another level of mysterious appearance. We need to ask ourselves why Disney would make these obvious and distinct decisions when he chose to animate the mirror. The unknown and constant fluctuation between tragedy and comedy lend the mask to take up an appearance of a shifty evil character. The light from below is that of fire, possibly implying that the mask is a spirit from hell. No detail of the mask that Disney added lends itself to being a good character. The mask appears as a tortured soul in the Queen's service. This is a fairly deep and twisted leap from for Disney to make from just a plain mirror.

The Pluralized Queen vs. The Disney Queen

2010-03-24T23:22:00.003-05:00

Over the course of several different versions we see the Queen portrayed in wildly different fashions. Whether its the violent, sexualized version from the Disney film, or the more mundane, comedic, ridiculous version from the 1916 film, the way these different "authors" chose to portray the Queen reveals a lot about the story they were trying to tell, as well as reflecting the global context within which the films were made. In Disney's version, his Queen with her pale, striking features and blood red lips evoked the image of 1930's starlets. She was the manifestation of the dangerously irresistible woman, beautiful but dark. The Queen from the 1916 Lasky film was more a figure to be laughed at. She's not overly threatening, but rather just a bumbling fool. The threatening nature normally assigned to the Queen as one figure is given over to the Witch, while in the Disney film, the Queen retains both these powers. While the Queen's transformation proves horrifying, the 1916 film never reaches that level of horror. This is further shown in the end of each film, where in the Disney version the Queen dies in a terrifying scene when lighting strikes the cliff face where she intends to crush the dwarfs with a rock. The terrible storm emphasizes the danger of the sequence, one which terrified me greatly as a child. This ending though, legitimizes the Queen as a threat. She was so villainous, so powerful, that only an act of nature was enough to ensure her demise. The Queen from the Lasky film however never reaches this level of intimidation or terror. As her punishment, rather than death, she only loses the beauty that was never hers to begin with. In an odd twist, the evil witch attains her desire of long lustrous hair. It's interesting that by the end, the witch's success is supposed to be seen as an overall positive thing. This was the same women who ordered for the Queen to bring her Snow White's heart. This is more evidence of the Lasky film subverting the violence of the story through the use of pluralizing the "Queen" character. As their motivations are not combined, they can be reconciled, while in the Disney version, all evil is encapsulated in one figure which must be destroyed.

Magic Mirrors

2010-03-24T22:32:00.002-05:00

I think that the different representations of the magic mirror in the Disney and the DEFA film are really interesting. As we talked about in class today, the mirror in Disney takes the voice of a male. This is an important distinction as a male's opinion is more meaningful in determining her beauty. The mirror in this film is very much humanized as the masks has eyes nose and a mouth that moves when he talks. On the other hand, in the DEFA film, the mirror just looks like a regular mirror that lights up and really has no human qualities except that there is a voice that plays when it lights up. I think that both of these representations of the magic mirror are reflective of the film in which they are apart of. DEFA films show the artificiality of the fantasy world. This can be seen in the fake looking sets and props that they use within the movie. There is no real attempt to create the illusion of magic and the viewer is constantly aware of this. The mirror within this film looks like an ordinary mirror. Though there is voice that is somewhat all knowing, there is not near as much of an attempt to create such a fantastical object. The mirror in Disney is also very reflective of Disney themes and of his desire to implement his own morals. The masculinity afforded to the mask along with the sexuality of the stepmother show the rigid gender roles that are present in his other films. Also, the fact that he uses caricature that was anti Semitic goes along with the idea that he was always trying to fit in his morals within his films.

She's a witch!

2010-03-24T21:58:00.002-05:00

The transformation of the stepmother into an old hag has always been a bit puzzling to me, as it seems that such an intelligent woman could have chosen a more appealing disguise with which to ensnare Snow White. Nevertheless, the “character” of the hag (if she can be called a character) raises a number of interpretive issues for the reader/viewer. For one, it is easy to see her as the “true embodiment” of the stepmother, despite the fact that she contradicts one of the defining features of the queen (Grimms: “She was a beautiful lady”). The point seems to be that her concern for beauty literally drives her to make herself ugly (albeit temporarily, in her view); the Disney version metes out a rough condemnation of this behavior by killing the woman off in hag form. On the other hand, though, the old hag offers a much fuller expression of the stepmother’s craftiness and malice—whereas before she can just order proxies to kill off Snow White, the hag can (nearly) accomplish the deed herself. Ultimately, however, this brief display of increased power really only lets the queen heap more condemnation on herself, as it is through her actions that Snow White changes from a powerless refugee to a powerful new queen.

Having the witch as a character distinct from the stepmother was a fascinating innovation of the 1916 film. In some sense, it absolves the stepmother of a few crimes; in the Disney and Grimm stories, she simply wants Snow White dead, but here she is forced to collect the girl’s heart by the new witch character. Again, the witch plays an important role in the story’s rendering of judgment on the queen, literally making the stepmother pay the price for her vanity even while comically sharing that same character flaw (e.g., getting the “pigtails” or showing off her new hair at the end of the story”). However, the idea of the witch/hag being the true embodiment of the stepmother is weakened a bit in this interpretation. The queen does associate and struggle with the witch as she might with her own internal desires, but the fact that the witch herself points out the queen’s true ugliness (in the warning about not breaking the mirror) doesn’t make the viewer see the stepmother in a more evil light so much as it makes us pity her. So instead of reflecting viewer condemnation back onto the queen, the witch in this film seems to absorb it. Who, then, is the true villain: the beauty “addict” or her enabler?

(If the latter, it’s interesting that the patriarchal voice of the mirror plays the exact same role.)

Snow White

2010-03-24T21:07:00.002-05:00

I wanted to compare the character of the queen/witch in the movies. I found it interesting that these are separate characters in the 1916 version, they are the same person in the Disney version, and in the 1961 version, there is no witch. I believe that taking out the witch makes the film less fairy-tale like. I feel as if the witch represents evil magic. If you take this out, the story does not seem as magical or as evil. It is true that the stepmother does try to kill Snow White several times, but she does not seem as evil as the stepmother in Disney who is a witch. If you have an evil person, that sucks. If you have an evil person who also has magic powers that they can use for evil, I'd run and hide. So, I think that taking out the witch in the 1961 version takes away from the story. In the 1916 version, there are two separate people. This also takes away from the evil of the stepmother. As we mentioned in class, the stepmother just seems stupid to get herself into a dangerous deal. She must kill Snow White not because she wants to, but because she made a deal that she would. Therefore, she doesn't seem as evil. If the witch were the person actually going after Snow White, that would be more frightening than the stepmother. Yet, the witch simply tells the stepmother what to do, so this takes away from her evil as well. Having 2 separate people splits up the evil. Neither character seems as evil as they could be. This means that the ending is satisfying, but not as satisfying as it could be when good prevails over evil. Therefore, I like the Disney version the best. I could simply be biased because I grew up loving this movie, but the stepmother seems to be the most effective at portraying evil that must be overthrown. She is the same person as the witch. I would be most afraid of the evil stepmother trying to kill me who has evil powers that she could use against me than the other two stepmothers in the other films. I just found this interesting. I feel as if it is more rewarding that good prevails over evil if the evil is extremely frightening.

Snow White Characters

2010-03-24T20:26:00.002-05:00

I really wanted to say something about the depiction of the mirrors because I thought that the mirror as the patriarchal voice of judgment or as a woman's voice of vanity was really interesting. Unfortunately, I suppose that the mirror isn't quite a character so, I'll just review the character of the huntsman. I couldn't help but admire the huntsman in the 1916 Snow White and the 1961 Snow White. In both versions, the huntsman regrets to have to inform Snow White of the Queen's intentions and resolves to kill a beast instead and return the beasts heart to the queen. Lasky's Snow White (1916) had a little more sustenance to him. You could see his devotion to his children reunited his family in and trapped the guard to retrieve the keys. In the 1961 version of Snow White, (if my memory serves me correctly), he told the prince Snow White's fate and set out with the prince to find Snow White. He helped the dwarf to blow the horn, showing his virility and masculinity in the same fashion that the huntsman in the 1916 version did. Even though the huntsman's character is relatively minor, he does his part to keep the story going and display some morality of character (since he is supposed to be the saving grace for the female).

The Castle of Murder

2010-03-18T01:25:00.002-05:00

I must say, that after reading the other Bluebeard stories and discussing them in class, I was disappointed with this story. I do not even know why this is considered a bluebeard story. There are some similarities (forbidden room of death, drop key in blood), but it is still extremely different. The characters are different. The nobleman does not have a blue beard and is not unnatural. The girl is uneasy, but nobody knows why, so we do not know if it is because of the nobleman or something else. It seems very unspecific. Then, the nobleman gives his new wife all the keys to the castle and tells her to explore everything because it is all hers too. He never tells her what is forbidden, and therefore, she is not ruled by curiosity. She just happened to stumble upon a part of the castle that was partially hers anyways, so she had every right to be there. She meets a random old lady who works for the nobleman, knows what he does, but is nice. She is the person that claims that this is forbidden (only after she already entered the room) and she is the one who says that she would have been killed anyway. It did not matter if the girl entered the room or not: she still would have been murdered. There is no sense of punishment here. Then, there is one line in parentheses that adds that the girls two sisters died here as well... that is a bit unsatisfying. It does not give their story, it does not add to anything, and it does not give any explanation. It is as if the writers felt as if they had to mention the two sisters later in the story because they were mentioned in the beginning. And if they had the same fate as this girl, why didn't the old lady help them out as well? Why would the girl go live with this nobleman if he had already been with and killed her other two sisters? It does not make sense. Then, the ending is lame. Nothing happens with the key. The nobleman believes that the girl is dead. He finally gets to hear her tell a tale, and he never really knows it's her. The nobleman is simply stupid and makes it known that the tale she tells is true: she does not need proof. Nothing lived up to my expectations. I do not even know what the main theme would be for this story. For the other stories, it is about curiosity. I feel as if that is a main part of the bluebeard stories, but this story does not really even mention the curiosity of the girl, so I do not know what to make of it.

2010-03-17T23:42:00.003-05:00

"The Seven Wives of Bluebeard" by Anatole France is a member of its own genre, an offshoot of the fairy tale; that of the role reversal. Midway through this story, I was reminded of "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs." This story, an important part of my childhood, gives the story of the three little pigs from the wolf's perspective, depicting the pigs as rude and blunt, and the wolf as a sensitive, civilized asthmatic in need of some sugar. That story captured my imagination as a child the same way that France's story did. I loved the idea of turning the princesses into lecherous, superficial courtly women, and Bluebeard into a woefully misunderstood protagonist. The decision to tell the whole story as it were the retelling of a history is also interesting. Much in the same vein as "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs" it plays on this idea that what we've read about these characters is fantasy, while in reality there exists a truth far different from popular perception.

Bluebeard doesn't have a horrific dungeon in which he hides the hacked up remains of his past wives, but rather just a cabinet with women painted on the walls. He doesn't want his wife to go into the cabinet out of genuine concern that the images might frighten her. France legitimizes the idea that this is a history with his specific use of names. It reads at times like a genealogy chart. Bluebeard, for example, becomes Bernard de Montragoux, and his series of misguided wives are all also assigned titles of the privileged French. Anatole's repeated use of French titles also seems in itself a bit of a critique. The formalism of the French upper class comes across as fickle and sadist. Bernard becomes a tragic figure, in constant search of happiness but repeatedly exploited by those he tries to love. His wealth, which seems of so little value to him, prevents him from being happy, as it rather than himself is the object of desire for these women. The death at the end is not heroic. The brothers don't ride in at the last moment to save the day. Bernard's death is unearned and unjust. France fittingly ends the piece by reporting that the outcome of the story is identical to that of the fairy tale. The last wife inherits the wealth and honors that were her now deceased husband's and her companions whom helped her vanquish the previous lord become noblemen themselves.

2010-03-17T23:34:00.003-05:00

Given the choice of Bluebeard stories to write on, i decided to go with the Grimm's vanilla option. Their Bluebeard is the most streamlined and basic of all the other versions, even if it is lacking in certain fairytale elements. The most interesting part of the story to me is the three different roles of the male characters, the first of which is the father of the soon to be bride. His part, though brief, is very different from the other two. He wants only the best for his daughter, and because of this, he gives her away to Bluebeard, and is completely absolved of responsibility. It is also an interesting dynamic that the daughter approaches the brothers as a means of potential rescue as opposed to the father. The father essentially has no ties left to the daughter after he gives her to Bluebeard. Bluebeard himself is initially seen as a great provider for the wife. The only cruel action he commits is because he following through on his promise. Though it is an over reaction, in a strange sense, it can be perceived as a twisted form of justice. Bluebeard is only seeking to punish his wife for her transgressions. The brothers are the knights in shining armor in the tale. They are the idealized males, in that once the damsel becomes distressed, they immediately charge off to battle and rescue her.

Anatole France

2010-03-17T22:38:00.003-05:00

Since we didn't discuss this version in class (and it was so raved about), I wanted to read it. I was expecting a fictional story of Bluebeard, not a "nonfiction" (in quotes because it is hard to know what is truly nonfiction) tale about the man behind the beard. First of all, by the sheer horror behind the stories, I would have never guessed that they originated from an actual man. Naturally, when I first read about how convinced Anatole France was that Bluebeard/Monsieur de Montragoux was an innocent and kind man, I was hooked through doubt. I have not yet determined my stance on how good or evil Bluebeard (the man) was. I'm torn for a few reasons:

First, I'm skeptical because of the intense terror revealed in the stories. Why Perrault would write a horror story about a man who truly committed no crimes, I'm not sure. I don't know why any writer/transcriber of stories would pick sides so drastically. Perhaps Perrault's version is simply the written version of the much-exaggerated of the truth? Again, I don't think we can truly know. The main reason that I'm skeptical, however, is because of Anatole's "evidence" about Bluebeard's innocence. I'm not doubting that Anatole has done her research; I'm just a bit shocked by some of her claims. She even quotes Bluebeard directly... how that might have happened is a mystery to me. She talks about the "papers in front of [her]" but I wish that she had explained her sources more in depth. That would have strengthened her argument in my eyes. Lastly, it just seems impossible to me that some man could love seven women (with greater intensity each time), and never think that after the first 2 or 3 that the next wives might try and deceive him....

On the other hand, Anatole does bring up quite a few relevant points. If Monsieur de Montragoux did have seven wives, it is no wonder that his story became exaggerated as it was told if no one knew of the wives' whereabouts. Wives don't just disappear, so murder is an obvious choice. Also, I can imagine that the more gruesome/horrific the story, the more it was told. Especially since horror was such a new genre, it's not hard to believe that a story so bizarre would be exaggerated and manipulated in order to better please the audience. Anatole also proves her case a little more as she does account for all of the names and backgrounds of each wife. I would love to know where all of these accounts came from, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

I'm happy that we were assigned to read Anatole France's argument about Bluebeard, but I have to say, it left me quite confused...

Bluebeard's Ghost

2010-03-17T20:53:00.002-05:00

(edit: ha, forgot to add the title of the story I'm talking about...)
I was pleasantly surprised by this story, and by Thackeray’s ingenuity in using a horrific fairy tale as a springboard for a humorous, entertaining, and complex social drama. It’s clear from the last paragraph (“Psha!”) that the author certainly enjoyed himself while writing this one, and I have to say that his brand of thoughtful playfulness shines through on every page. The story very quickly establishes that it is NOT, like the story it’s based on, a fairy tale—there are nuanced characters that Thackeray slowly characterizes through dialogue and oblique descriptions (Mr. Sly “never drinks anything stronger than tea,” sister Anne is hilariously often referred to as a “minx” or “hussy”). We have not quite left the realm of magic, to be sure, but the otherworldliness here is of the same sort found in, say, Irving’s Sleepy Hollow; the plot veers into a “spookiness” of natural origin, not the uncanny horror of the other Bluebeard stories. Thackeray thrills us rather than terrifying us, for by the time the “ghost” appears we’ve already been conditioned by the multiple foiled suicide attempts not to take even the serious things too seriously. (At times this approach to humor gets a tad too dark: Doctor Sly wonders why his nephew hasn’t tried to commit suicide again after being rejected for the last time.)

The shift in genre also allows the story to offer a different sort of commentary than the very primal/psychological take on male-female relationships in the original Bluebeard fairy tales. The apparent Stockholm Syndrome (this probably isn’t the right term) going on with Mrs. Bluebeard in the beginning of the story is particularly interesting, as there wouldn’t really be any need to venerate the old murderer if all she cares about is money (as hinted by the narrator’s line about throwing a grand funeral for whoever left him a fortune). The scene with Mrs. Bluebeard and her sister going through the former’s late husband is comical, of course, but I wonder if Thackeray is playing her “condition” for more than just laughs. There’s a similar conundrum in the character of Mr. Sly—his morbid attempts to win Lady Bluebeard’s heart are very funny, but there’s also something poignant and pathetic in his efforts to put on false masculinity (both figuratively and literally, with the Bluebeard costume). Even as I laughed, some surprisingly sober thoughts of gender constructions couldn’t help but bubble up in the back of my head.

The Castle of Murder

2010-03-17T18:17:00.002-05:00

I must begin by saying, I was already expecting a horrific tale when I read "The Castle of Murder," but surprisingly, I was disappointed. The immediate difference between this story and "Bluebeard" is that there is nothing apparently unnatural about the nobleman. I guess it can make the story more interesting because the girl is easily duped since there is no inclination to suspect something wrong with a "rich gentleman." The nobleman questions if she feels doubtful to which she responds, no and proceeds as usual. The nobleman does have to make a trip and bestows all of the keys to the girl but does not restrict her access throughout the castle. I mean, this guy is careless. He knows that there is something horrifying in his castle but he doesn't even bother to prevent the girl from discovering it. Or maybe he's audacious and merciless and will derive the necessary satisfaction from killing her since her curiosity will drive her to fully inspect the residence.

Now, the old woman, the old crone, what's up with her? Why does she even decide to help the girl when she has clearly seen many females before her go probably without a second thought. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure why the basin of blood is even necessary because the nobleman gave his wife the autonomy to explore the castle completely. I think he is a serial killer and recruits women to kill for his own sadistic pleasure. The old woman is responsible for telling the girl that only her and the nobleman are allowed to enter this death chamber but it's obviously too late at that point. Through the goodness of the old women, the girl escapes and tells the lord of the castle that she escapes to about the nobleman. The lord of the castle holds a great feast and the nobleman's attendance at that feast seals his fate to be imprisoned. The girl tells her story, the nobleman is taken away by the authorities and she marries the lord of the castle.

What an utterly unsatisfying story. There is motive driving the nobleman's desire to kill girls, the girl escapes without any proof so she could just be lying on the nobleman and to set all things right in the world, she gets married to the lord of the castle and obtains all of the nobleman's treasures. I'm not sure what to consider this story. Something about it is just distasteful to me. It seems like an incomplete fairy tale and one that the title does not easily translate. At least with the Bluebeard stories, there is no intermediary that helps the girl and it seems like she should have listened to the requests of her husband and now she has to suffer since she didn't (although she is exonerated). Here is a tale of a what you see is not what you get and now you'll die, the end. BUT lucky you, the old crone will be nice today and you get to imprison instead of have the psychopathic man killed. Oh, isn't that swell?

Grimms The Robber Bridegroom

2010-03-17T17:18:00.001-05:00

The Brothers Grimms’ Blue Beard type story, “The Robber Bridegroom” is the most fairytale-like of all the Blue Beard stories we have read. In class we discussed that Blue Beard stories are generally different from the other stories we have read because it is a horror story that takes fear into reality instead of displacing it with magic. What makes horror so terrifying is that it takes something that is real or within the realm of possibility of the real and turns it from something know-able and safe into something horrible and scary so that what is natural to us becomes unnatural and foreign and therefore disgusting and horrible. This version is a lot like the Mr. Fox Tatar version but still is more fairytale-like.

The miller’s daughter didn’t love him like she should, she shuttered when she saw the bridegroom. In this story we don’t get a blue beard or some outward indicator of evil or unnatural-ness, only a “shutter” to identify the bridegroom as bad. Interestingly we as an audience automatically side with her that since something is off he must be evil. Moreover, his house is in a dark forest which in fairytales is the typical place for evil and challenges. As in Little Red Riding Hood, the bridegroom lures her into the forest, and reminiscent of Hansel and Gretel he spreads ashes for her to follow. She follows the ashes but adds peas and lentils which is again like Hansel and Gretel. Unlike other stories nature comes to the maiden’s aid or tried to as the bird calls out to her that she should turn back. There is a magical response where nature helps heroine as in most fairytales, the peas and lentils grow up and guide her home . She also finds the typical fairytale old crone who warns her. Interestingly she gets out of the danger with evidence of her challenge, the finger with the ring which follows the fairytale motif of a heroine holding a body part of another girl which is excused because there is valuable jewelry attached to it.

Furthermore the maiden gets away without immediate confrontation. And of course as we expect with Grimms tales it reads that “she got safely through with the help of God” as is consistent with Christian morals and Protestant values of the times. She says she had a strange dream but retells fairytale, alike old oral tellers retelling tales to an audience. Key elements are repeated and by doing so at end everyone thinks they’ve heard a tale but the twist is she shows the evidence and proves the fairytale wasn’t a story after which of course the robber bridegroom gets punished and everyone lives happily ever after with order and justice in place.

Perrault's Bluebeard

2010-03-17T16:39:00.003-05:00

Perrault's Bluebeard is a story framed around the transgressive desire of the female. Throughout the story there is this clear element of horror that results from the wife opening the forbidden door. It is clear throughout, and made even more clear at the end when he explicitly states the moral, that curiosity in women is a negative trait to have. In the moral, he states, "You can see a thousand examples of it every day. Women succumb, but it's fleeting pleasure." Not only is Perrault saying here that curiosity in women is dangerous and looked down upon, but he states it in a way that makes it seem that women make this "mistake" most frequently.

However, I also found his "Another Moral" that is placed after the moral to be equally interesting. It seems here that he is trying to explain or make right his statement about women curiosity in the first moral. He states that the story, "took place many years ago. No longer are husbands so terrible, demanding and impossible.... It's hard to tell which of the pair is the master." He seems to be making the point that times have changed and that men and women are more equal. Women are not as pushed around by their husbands. There is a completely different tone in this moral than the first one, as men and women are seen more equally, and less negatively.

Someday My Prince Will Come

2010-03-03T20:58:00.003-06:00

I loved this documentary it was like watching a mini soap opera with children. It was also sad though to see how the concept of a "happily ever after" fairytale ending was both a source of hope and a curse for Laura-Anne. Starting off with "Once upon a time in a faraway land/ lived a beautiful princess named Laura-Anne" immediately the viewer is saddened by the realization that this princess' world is actually a poverty-stricken area comprised of two streets in Siddick, a cold and harsh coal-mining town. What struck me most was how young these children were yet how old they felt they needed to act, and of course failed immensely and were extremely immature and hurtful. The children seemed to feel the need to grow up fast when obviously they, especially Laura-Anne, weren't ready. As she says, "Too old for the children’s party/ too young to be a teen/ Laura-Anne was feeling stranded/ stuck somewhere inbetween" after Jamie stands her up for the school dance. Ben he acts old enough to go out with multiple girls and give Laura-Anne pearl earrings, but still he is just a boy who find his greatest happiness in digging up worms. Jamie seems even older and is able to beat up Ben, as Laura-Anne says, Jamie was “a man of action, a man who could not be beaten” but later we realize that Jamie is so strong and grown up because his father beat him. Meanwhile Laura-Anne writes "I heart ___" in the sand for her boys and writes love notes like the one to Boston.

Of course as these children try to act as adults the perception of beauty as nearly a virtue comes into play. For example Laura-Anne talks about waking up early to make herself ‘look good’ and there is the interview with Boston as he looks into the mirror analyzing his hair, facial structure, eye color and says that he thinks girls like him for his cheeks.

My favorite lines were when Ben sent Laura-Anne a note saying he wanted to "take some space" (which is hysterical in itself for an 11-year-old) and Laura-Anne shows her dad. Laura-Anne then says, "There may be other fish in the sea/ that’s what her daddy taught/ which is all very well if she wanted/ to go out with a fish, she thought." She shows herself to be so wise and rational and yet is so willing to throw her heart after these three boys (Ben, Boston, Jamie). However of course reality confronts her in the end when she says, "I’ve no boyfriend, im so cold and glum, but ive heard things end happily in fairytales and I hope someday my prince will come" and there is a shot of her trailing behind Jamie and other peers. The fairy tale that gives her hope and the Disney - dream of unconditional easy love is the same fairytale that keeps her expectations so high at such a young age and sets her up for disappointment, as when she says, "All boys wanted, she realized/ wasn’t love, but to be fishermen".

the parents of beauty and the beast

2010-02-24T23:42:00.002-06:00

There are two main instances in which I was shocked by the behaviors of the parents (specifically, fathers) in the versions of the Beauty and the Beast tale.

First, I was very surprised by the way Disney portrayed Belle's father. In de Beaumont's version of Beauty and the Beast, Beauty's father is a simple merchant who had an unfortunate loss of his wealth. The main theme drawn upon this father figure is that he cares for his family above all else. This father is I think represented very well in Cocteau's version. The father cares for each of his children, even the terrible sisters, and hates to ever see them upset or bickering. In contrast, however, Disney completely changes this. Yes, Belle's father obviously still cares for her above all else, but there are no other siblings, the father is not at all rich, and he is in fact portrayed as being slightly looney (even Belle is considered to be "odd" by the village). This seems like a very bizarre thing for two reasons: 1) why would you include the threat of an asylum into a children's film? For the adult watchers? and 2) what was the real purpose of this? I don't see how it functioned to improve the film.

Second, I was completely appalled by the behavior of the father in Tiger's Bride. The fact that any father would care more about his gambling than about his daughter shocks me greatly. I don't care how comfortable you are with your poker hand; that is a seriously risky bet. It also surprises me how well the daughter takes it. Obviously she's not too pleased, but she seems to give her father a lot more credit than he deserves, and the tiger not enough credit. After all, although the tiger's request was perhaps a little strange, he did not try to touch her, and once they revealed their naked selves to each other, he let her go. The daughter must have recognized some kindness in the tiger as she now willingly goes to him naked, but she still holds on to this belief that her father truly loved her more than gambling. In this case, I can't tell which character appears to be more weak/stupid: the gambling, poor father or the naive/ignorant daughter.

The Purpose of Parents in Beauty & The Beast

2010-02-24T23:34:00.003-06:00

In each of the stories the father figure is doting and kind but also somewhat meek, he serves as yet another foil for the Beast’s brutality and vulgar appearance. The father figure, though poor in many cases, represents the bourgeois that is supposed to retain the manners the Beast usually presents with. As per our discussion in class today, in Madame de Beaumont’s version, when confronted by the Beast after picking a rose for Belle, the father tries to apologize and calls the Beast “my liege” and tries to flatter the Beast as was and still is occasionally customary when faced with a more powerful foe. The Beast however is the one who calls realistic expectations to the situation and becomes angry and tells the father not to give him “an honorific” because he recognizes that he is an animal though the father feels it is more prudent in the scenario to act as though he can relate to the beast on a human, proper level. He assumes that Beast would want to be treated as human. This interplay between the father and Beast and the permanent fixture of fathers in the Beauty and the Beast stories of course draws up the question of the Oedipus complex.

As described in the Oedipus complex in which a child wishes to find a mate similar to their parent and dismiss the parent of their same sex. Girls look for traits reflective of their fathers when seeking a spouse. Accordingly, in many of these stories a mother is absent or evil as many older women are in fairytales, but the father is supposed to represent what Belle wants. As she says in Cocteau’s film to Avenant, she cannot leave her father in order to marry. The Beast seems to be the complete opposite of her father but when Belle talks to those around her about the Beast she always says he is “kind and gentle” just like her father in the stories and the Beast gets deathly ill just as her father usually does in the stories so that Belle has to return to them both after journeys away. Perhaps the father figure is there to give the audience context for the type of male figure Belle is supposed to want to be with.

2010-02-24T23:21:00.008-06:00

The father figure in the varied beauty and the beast tales is the parent that always sets the story in motion. The father typically has multiple daughters, with one naturally being the favorite. This love for the favorite daughter is what brings the story to a conflict. The father must gather items for his daughters and it never fails that his favorite daughter's is the hardest to get. Whether it is a rose in the middle of winter or a singing springing lark. When the father finally locates these treasured goods, he always gets caught by some form of beast. This beast stakes claim to whatever object is in question. In exchange for his life, the father promises whatever greets him first when he gets home. This inevitably ends up being the daughter he loves so much. This selfish sacrifice the father makes is always overshadowed by his daughter's good will and devotion to the father. Even if the father wishes to break the deal, the daughter is so pure of heart that she insists the promise must be kept. If the father shows up later in the story, it is generally due to an illness or a sister being married. Regardless the circumstances the daughter who is with the beast wishes to return home and see her father whom she still loves.

What do the Parents Want?

2010-02-24T23:21:00.007-06:00

The father in Beaumont's Beauty and the Beast and the mother in Straparola's The Pig King have very different roles when it comes to the finding of mates for their offspring. Beauty's father in the Beaumont is an unwilling match maker. When he returns home, it is simply for the opportunity to see his children one last time before he is too be killed, but Beauty reverses his fate by demanding to go in his stead. Beauty does not go seeking a mate. In fact, it is her own death which she is led to predict. The mother in the Pig King brings princesses to her son to try and satiate his sexual desire. She seems beleaguered, frustrated, with their gruesome deaths at her son's hands, though not viewing the incidents as terrible tragic, for she immediately finds another princess as soon as one has expired. The parents of the princesses are not shown, even though their fathers would presumably have to give over their hands in marriage in order for anything official to go through. The Queen loses agency in deciding her child's mate as well, so in that regard, she shares a feature with Beauty's father. The both have lost control of the fate of their children to a large extent, something a suppose is a common anxiety among those with children. Neither Beauty nor the Pig seem to have any ability to view life from the parent's perspective. The father would have willingly died for her daughters, but Beauty sees the moment as an opportunity to show her sincere love of him, It would seem, however, that the truly loving thing would have been to allow the father the opportunity to sacrifice himself for his daughters. Even if he could not provide financially after the collapse of his merchant business, he could give them the gift of life.

In this way, Beauty's martyrdom was disobedient, yet eventually benefited her. In a similar fashion, it is not until she disobeys Beast and stays at her house for more than seven days that he finally transforms back into a man. For such a conventionally self-sacrificing girl, it's interesting that the two things which must lead to her happiness are in fact, when fully dissected, selfish. Both the Pig King and Beauty are rewarded for acting against the desires of their parents.

a beast in sheep's clothing

2010-02-24T21:47:00.000-06:00

One of the most fascinating components of Angela Carter’s already interesting “Tiger’s Bride” was the story’s revisionist take on the father figure of the traditional Beauty and Beast story. Sure, some of the other “in-laws” have their time in the spotlight in this tale type (I particularly like the long-suffering and emotionally complex mother in The Pig King), but Beauty’s father has always been the important one. His character in early versions shows a confusing blend of sympathetic and condemning traits—he seems loving and lovable, but Beauty’s capture is ultimately his fault. Different adaptations try to obscure that fact a bit by focusing on Beauty’s virtuous insistence on replacing him (she escapes in Cocteau’s and is apparently quite persuasive in Beaumont’s), but the fact remains that a loving father probably shouldn’t have told his daughters about the “substitution” option in the first place (“ah yes, I will die—although, just so you know, one of you could save me *wink*”). The only acceptable way I see of dealing with this character flaw is to do what Disney did: have Beauty find out about her father’s state herself, and have the Beast make the offer to her.

Anyway, getting back to my first statement, I was pleasantly surprised to find the father’s negligence aggrandized and thoroughly villainized in “The Tiger’s Bride”—quite honestly, Carter’s overwritten style made me worry for her relationship with her own father! From the opening line, all trace of “lovable” has been taken out of Beaumont’s/Disney’s lovably pathetic dad, to an extent that fundamentally transforms the story. The girl’s interactions with the beast, generally the focus of and driving force behind these stories, are cast in a weirdly reactionary light. I say “weirdly” because all the elements are there for this to be a straightforward and powerful allegory of sexual awakening (or identity-finding, or what have you), but instead the reader can’t shake the sense that the girl’s actions are born out of resentment rather than any internal vitality of character. Thus, in a roundabout way, the very act of “correcting for” the original father’s overlooked flaws turns him into a far more important character than he ever was in the early stories, and one has to wonder if that’s really what Carter was shooting for.

Beauty and The Beast Parents

2010-02-24T18:10:00.002-06:00

The father figure in many of the Beauty and the Beast stories is the character with whom the story starts to unfold. It is because of his actions that he is led to the beast in the first place. I found the way that the father figure was depicted in Beaumont's version to be particularly interesting. The author makes a conscious effort to portray Beauty's father as a good and virtuous man and in no way responsible for the sequence of events that happen to Beauty. From the beginning the father is considered a "good man" and not only this but " a man of intelligence and good sense." It is because of him that his daughters are educated, and thus Beauty possesses the same wit of her father, characteristics that were well respected in that day. What I also found interesting, was although he is portrayed as intelligent and virtuous he is also portrayed as weak in comparison with his daughter. First, he looses his fortune and has very little as they live in seclusion. Secondly, although he says that he doesn't want Beauty to risk her life to save him, he still makes little effort to keep her from going. Beaumont writes, " There was no use arguing with Beauty. She was determined to go to the palace." In many of the Beauty and the Beast stories the father is described as old or may become sick of heart-brokenness. In the case of this story, Beauty is the one who steps up and makes the sacrifice, while her old and weak father makes very little effort to stop her or take her place instead. Though her father is portrayed throughout as a virtuous and good man, it doesn't really seem like he has the qualities that one would associate with a gentleman such as bravery and self sacrifice to family. I think that this is true of many of the Beauty and the Beast stories that we have read. I have found myself automatically liking the father and thinking of him as good, but at the same time thinking how could he have possibly let her go. In Cocteau's version as well as others, she escapes on the horse and I think that this allows the issue of her father's virtuousness to fade away.

Beauty and the Beast - Parents

2010-02-24T12:50:00.002-06:00

The principal parental figure present in Beauty and the Beast stories is the father. In some versions of the story it is the father’s love (and other times possibly guilt?) that moves him to reward Beauty’s piousness and undying love for him by honoring a simple request for a rose. The father’s determination to obtain the rose sets the story in motion and instigates the union between Beauty and the Beast. In Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, the father doesn’t let the sisters mistreat Beauty, as there are no sisters, but he takes a wrong turn in the woods and enter the Beast’s house for shelter. The father’s lack of direction causes him to make the acquaintance of the Beast and his daughter seeks to find him after his extended absence. Additionally, it is the father’s fear of the Beast in most versions that is juxtaposed with Beauty’s fortitude in getting to know the Beast beyond superficial layers. Beauty’s unconditional love for her father prompts her to take her father’s position as the Beast’s slave as she would rather die because of the Beast instead of the grief she would suffer from the loss of her father. It is also the father’s sickness that helps the Beast to realize the magnitude of his love for Beauty. Beast cannot handle Beauty’s sickness (which manifests because of her dads sickness) and agrees to let her visit her dad for a three days (or a week). When she doesn’t make good on her promise, Beast suffers. Beauty’s return and care ultimately sets the breaks the magic spell and begins the magical transformation. The father principally plays the role of uniting the Beauty and the Beast. Sometimes it is his promise, not thinking that beauty would be the first thing to greet him, or his dismay toward his fate after obtaining the flower or his directionally challenged nature. Either way, Beauty seeks to do all that she can for her father even if that means the possibility of dying.

Little Red

2010-02-17T23:27:00.002-06:00

This anime version of this tale raises a few interesting differences. The largest difference from any of the tales we have read is the large involvement of forest creatures from the beginning. it goes into relatively great detail explaining the relationship between little red riding hood and all of the forest creatures. Later in the story, once Little red is on her way to the house, the bird tries unsuccessfully to warn her. After that, the bird flies to collect an army of woodland creatures to save her. None of the other versions had this level of anthropomorphic woodland creature involvement. The wolf is also portrayed interestingly in this version. He comes off as a buffoon rather than the clever carnal hunter. He is constantly seen as fat and drooling and even eats a cuckoo clock. This leads me to the next big difference. Little red actually fights back in addition to attempting to run away. No other story has her physically causing the wolf harm.

Splendidly Terrible

2010-02-17T23:19:00.002-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2pR8n-4Y_E

"Little Red Riding Hood Animation directors cut"

Spotty illustration, awful voice acting, brain-twisting music choices, and strangely endearing. It seems like something made in fifteen minutes (he made it for a college assignment so you never know). But the sloppy film making sort of mirrors the ridiculousness of the plot. A Warner Bros. version with its slick animation and cohesive storyline doesn't capture the spirit of the fairy tale. The fairy tale does not have a cohesive storyline. It's not "well written". In some ways I felt like this version recreated the fairy tale, loosely based on the Grim version, better than an animation that would be more professionally produced. The moment which fully captures this absurdity is when the wolf first appears to Little Red Riding Hood as she's walking down the path toward Grandmother's house. The wolf asks her where she is going, she answers, and then the wolf has nothing to say. What is there to say? It's an unfathomable moment. What's keeping him from eating her right there. Why isn't his interest entirely suspicious. I'm not necessarily arguing that this effect was entirely intentional. I'm just not ruling out the possibility of meta elements. If the animator looked like he gave a shit, I surely would have pursued his work further.

Mysterious Wolf

2010-02-17T22:41:00.003-06:00

This video completely fascinates me in the same way that the video from today did. This piece took a classic fairy tale and "experimented" with it (as is said in the description) in order to make it a short film. Clearly, the point of the film is not to tell the true story but to show off David Lehre's ability to direct a short film. Seriously, his name spent probably more time on the screen than the wolf did.

I think this video really mixes a lot of genres and labels. The music is meant to be a bit sketchy, scary, or creepy (or all of the above in my opinion) and tells the story as much as the actors do. It also by no means holds onto the idea of being composed for children. There are themes of beauty, age, sex (and violent sex like rape from the wolf), heroism, and love (between Red and the lumberjack?). It doesn't teach much of a moral to me (other than the fact that pretty girls apparently have to stay away from the woods). I also think that the choice in the actor for the wolf is very interesting. To me, the lumberjack seems like a bigger, burlier man than does the wolf, and the wolf is clearly very primal with his bare chest and "scary" mask.

In terms of sticking to the story, this video obviously did anything but. There is no background and no real idea of a future. In other words, we know nothing about the characters except the little that we see based on clothing, actions, and expressions. Also, there is no true ending to the story, unlike the tale where it's quite clear. Red seems to have been saved but you just never know... (again, Lehre is really forcing the creepiness here...)

Little Red Riding Hood

2010-02-17T20:33:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpL1C7ljzo0

What is interesting about this video to me is that its as close to the version I grew up with that I can find, with kind doting parents and a girl that gets lost along the way because she literally stopped to “smell the flowers” and all her animal friends ran away when they saw the wife, narrated by a British deep-voiced older sounding man and a polite and somewhat dashing (in cartoon terms) wolf – an idyllic PG version I think more kids today are familiar with. I just thought it was interesting to compare it with the more gruesome original stories. I also thought it was interesting that when the wolf became “evil” he took off his hat and scarf, showing that it is unnatural for a human to possess these evil characteristics, only big bad wolf animals. And of course the woodcutter jumps through the door and faces down the wolf who saw the strong father figure and knew he could never handle fighting him, and the grandmother lives… happily ever after. No sexuality coming from the little girl, just good vs. evil and the strong manly father figure coming just in the nick of time to save the day.

Because I figured everyone else would do the Monty Python version...

2010-02-17T19:47:00.001-06:00

Ah, leave it to the classics to give us something original! Many takes on the Red Riding Hood fairytale seek to upend the predator-prey dynamics of the story by giving the girl herself considerable power, whether it be intellectual, sexual (as in today’s movie), or physical (as in the Thurber version). This version keeps Red Riding Hood as “little” as she’s ever been, with absolutely no hint of sexualization and only a serendipitous sort of evasive skill. In other words, she’s completely boring, and so the cartoon quite rightly derives all its entertainment from updating our conception of the wolf. (The fact that there are two “wolves” actually doesn’t create as big a change as one would expect.) Instead of the cunning and ravenous beast to whom we are accustomed (and who easily makes the metaphorical jump to a lusty male), we have a cranky, bumbling oaf with conspicuous memory issues (a.k.a., a funny character!). Since the audience’s moral radar is barely engaged, our dramatic sympathies are allowed to stick with the bad guys; we laugh at their failures, yes, but with no more ill-intent than that of new pet owners watching their puppy try to climb stairs for the first time. This unique perspective on the tale produces a better story (in my opinion, of course), but at the cost of losing any real moral implications or serious metaphorical readings.
Another interesting change is that the hand of retribution works not through RRH or the huntsman but through the rather pathetic granny character, who capitalizes on her lack of being eaten by serving both Sylvester and the Big Bad Wolf a well-timed pow, right in the kisser. Granny has had to endure a long tradition of disappearing for most (if not all) of the story after the wolf shows up at her house, so it’s nice to see her get to mete out some justice.

Little Red Riding Hood Song

2010-02-17T19:35:00.002-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7dfBMmMeak

This version of little Red Riding Hood is geared towards very little children. I felt kind of silly watching it, and then even more silly when the song got stuck in my head. But, I was really interested in this particular movie because of the discussion that we had in class today about how the Little Red Riding Hood stories are reflective of a societies' perception of childhood. Unlike medieval times, when their children were thought of as "little adults", this story/song is reflective of a society that not only separates childhood from adulthood but wants to keep its children innocent for as long as possible. This song begins with a teacher telling the story to students with the moral of not wandering in the woods alone. Even the wolf in the story is made amusing and not scary in the least. When he gobbles her up, you can see LLRH inside the stomach, and she doesn't even look frightened, just confused. After they mention LRRH bringing her grandmother pie because she was sick at the beginning, she is completely forgotten and never returned to in the story. LRRH is finally saved by a woodsman who shakes her out of the wolf's stomach. He takes her back home and is the one to teach her the lesson. There is no violence at the end towards the wolf, and he is even included at the end scene chorus with all of the characters bobbing back and forth. Overall, I found this depiction of LRRH so interesting in that it contrasts with all of the stories we have read in class so greatly. This story/song, though keeping with most of the main themes of the story, is so incredibly geared towards a younger audience. It aims to take out all of the scary and inappropriate elements and to keep the story upbeat and happy through a catchy song even at the points that are supposed to be scary or suspenseful.

A Very Different Little Red Riding Hood story

2010-02-16T20:32:00.002-06:00

Here is a video that I found rather entertaining. My roommate and I were laughing as we were watching. First, I had no clue what this had to do with Little Red Riding Hood. This is not your typical "Little Red Riding Hood" story. I wanted to post it, however, because it draws upon the story. If you are not familiar with the story, you will not understand the ending of this video. This shows how influential this story is - the people who made this film automatically assumed that people would understand it. Not only that, but this portrays the girl to be extremely sexual and promiscuous, which is somewhat similar to the original stories, but this takes it to a different level. Also, little red is able to cut open the wolf and retrieve her grandmother unharmed in this film, which is the same as other stories.

This film also made me wonder if it is merely an alternate ending to the story, or if it is a sequel. If it is a sequel, what story is it based on where the wolf eats the grandmother, and little red is able to escape without harm to the wolf? Either way, this film portrays Little Red as smart and manipulative. She uses her promiscuity to defeat the wolf. This is different from the older stories because in those stories, the wolf makes the girl take off her clothes, and uses that for his own gains. Now, the tables have turned. I thought that was interesting.

Bedtime Stories: Little Red Riding Hood

2010-02-16T20:31:00.000-06:00

So, I thought this version was fairly funny, not the funniest (because that one was incredibly sexual and I didn’t want anyone to judge me for posting that one ahaha) but none the less, interesting. It was an interesting twist to propose that LRRH had obsessive compulsive disorder for constantly wearing her red cape. The origins of the cape had nothing to do with Granny and her love for LRRH. LRRH is pictured quite autonomously here. She is clearly old enough to accurately survey her surroundings and hormonally speaking, she acts like a teen. She doesn’t like being told what do; she barely likes people. The prevailing sense of geriatric contagion is discussed and her fear of the woods is not because of predatory animals, but of bugs crawling up her legs into her vagina. (Pause) When she meets the wolf, she isn’t scared or over friendly like other versions; she’s a little defensive, crude and attitudinal. Not the polite etiquette that mom imparts to LRRH before she leaves for Granny’s in other versions. She is very practical about the wolf’s activities and brushes him off. Granny actually dies in this version but at the same time, LRRH immediately notices that Wolf Granny isn’t really Granny. She isn’t fooled, the strip tease is null, and the superhuman (except it’s actually very human power) and political mind of LRRH leads her to get the wolf castrated instead of her killing him. So the element of controlling the predatory male is still prevalent but the girl is responsible for this decision, it is not another male who comes to save her. There are several references to retards and idiots which is slightly disturbing but still sort of funny. The castration of the wolf is met with ambivalence by LRRH when she sees that the vet isn’t capable of properly neutering the wolf (and thus controlling his desires by showing him the repercussions of his actions) but ultimately, in the age of technology she can, hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil by turning her head and blasting music on her ipod. Maternal and paternal figures play virtually no role in the story. LRRH just has common sense and can be viewed as well intentioned as she wasn’t trying to kill the wolf. Just an overall different version of the story we grew up with.

Boy as bird

2010-02-11T01:15:00.002-06:00

In The Juniper Tree, the boy is turned into a bird after he is dead and his body is devoured. This, in itself is different from other stories we have read when the boys have been alive when they were turned into birds. I believe that this means that the boy in The Juniper Tree cannot be transformed back into a human, since his human body is nonexistent except for the remains that were buried. In other words, what I have gathered from this is that his spirit is in the bird because that was all that was left to be transformed. If he were to turn back into a human spirit, he would be some angel or ghost. The boys in other stories were transformed by some spell, so the bird is their body, just in a different form. So, does that make him more of a bird or a boy? I believe that this puts him somewhere in between. I believe that he is more bird than the boys in the other stories, who are still boys, but in a different form. Yet, we hear his song, and he still knows exactly what happened to him even after he died. Then, he was able to receive gifts as a bird, and he knew exactly what to do with each gift. This shows that he is still there. I think he is merely a spirit occupying the bird. Therefore, he is somewhere in between. Yet, since the spirit controls the body, he is still more of a boy than a bird. Either way, the reader can understand that this transformation is different. It is closer to resurrection than pure transformation as in other cases.

2010-02-10T23:33:00.002-06:00

The transformation that takes place within the Juniper Tree I believe is different from the other transformation stories based on two main facts. The first is that the boy is dead before he becomes a bird in the Juniper Tree. In the other stories the boys that get transformed are always alive and then transformed. The fact that the boy is dead and then becomes a bird in the Juniper Tree leads me to believe that the bird is meant to be the physical manifestation of the soul/angel/ ghost or whatever else you would like to call it. This leads me to the second difference, which is that the brother does all the work to be converted back into human form. The sister does her part at the beginning by burying the bones, but that aside, the boy does all the work. In the other brothers into birds stories the sister has to go through some tumultuous trial, usually over the course of several years, to finally turn the brothers back into humans. In the Juniper Tree it seems as if the boy takes one to two days max before he is reborn as his old self.

Boy or Bird?

2010-02-10T23:26:00.002-06:00

I definitely agree with the general consensus that the brother is more human than bird when he is transformed. I think that is transformation is only a physical one (and not even complete at that since he can still talk/sing). The brother seems to maintain all personality traits, communication skills, and ability to analyze. I think that the latter is a main point in my argument. Often times we have seen other children transformed (again, the theme of a transformation into birds is quite common), however, we do not typically have that much inside knowledge into the fullness of that child's transformation. The transformed child can still usually talk, but our interaction with them is very limited. In Juniper Tree, the boy is still a main character. In fact, I find it most impressive that the boy is actually able to save himself. I think this is the first story (unless I've forgotten one) where the transformed animal is the one who transforms itself back. For example, we talked earlier about how the sister typically had to transform her brothers back, but in Juniper Tree, she merely saved his bones. The "bird" is clever enough to come up with an elaborate plan so that he may kill the stepmother and reverse the spell. I find this quite interesting because I think that this, above all else, shows his "humanness." Not only can this brother still communicate, but he can also still purposefully use this communication in order to create an elaborate plan. Besides, there would be no other point for a bird to have shoes, a golden chain, and a millstone-- there can be no doubt that it was all planned. Lastly, as a side note, I think it's interesting that the versions of this story have all very similar songs for the bird. My guess is that that's because a song is more likely to be remembered in a story than the precise details of anything else.

The Death Axis

2010-02-10T23:12:00.002-06:00

To ask where the boy's identity lies between beast and animal is attribute his identity to an X,Y axis. Along the bottom of the graph we chart his progress towards the human and from top to bottom measure's his existence as an animal, or in the case of Juniper Tree specifically his "birdliness." But I think this charting, though certainly academically fruitful, benefits even further from the third axis; in what sense is our boy alive, and in what since is he dead, and how does that play into the animal vs. human debate. This evocation of the "death axis" provides another dissimilarity between this story and those of the "brothers transformed into birds" story type. In the Juniper Tree the subject of transformation dies before corporeal transference. His conversion from bones to bird acts as a resurrection, and it might be argued that boy's bird identity is actually just an avatar, or a vengeful spirit. Only in loose terms is he actually a bird, since he seems to maintain all of the conscious operations he could have performed as a human. In his bird form, he is still deceased, his repeated song like a stubborn memory. When he finally returns to his boy form at the end, the question has never been answered as to what has granted him life. The transference of matter is somehow more plausible than the recreation of matter, even in the context of the mystical fairy tale. It may also be significant that the bird form was considered a link between earhtly and heavenly bodies, since that is actually what this boy has become. Somewhere along the "Death axis" between the living and the deceased.

The Juniper Tree

2010-02-10T21:41:00.002-06:00

When I first considered the transformation of the boy to the bird in the Juniper Tree, I thought about the brothers and birds stories that we read last week. These brothers went from human to bird and then to human again, and all by the help of their sister. Although, the reason for the transformation to and from the bird is not as explicitly stated as it is in the brothers to birds stories, the brother seems to turn into the bird because his sister, Marlene, took the bones and wrapped them in silk and buried them under the juniper tree. However, somethings are remarkably different. Unlike the brothers into birds stories, the young boy is already dead and it is his bones that turn into a bird. Also it seems that with the death of the stepmother, the boy is able to become human again even after he has died, he is not necessarily saved by someone in particular. It seems as though the tree is what gives him this sort of life when he is buried there. I also found it interesting that the boys' mother was buried there too and was wondering what significance that had. I thought that his song was also interesting. It makes sense that he says that his mother killed him, but I found the fact that he chirped that his father ate him was weird considering he rewards him in the end, and that the father is oblivious to the fact that he is eating his child. It is his beautiful voice as a bird that allows him to give to those what they deserve, and for the stepmother that is stoning which seems to create human life out of the bird. In closing and in regards to the prompt, I really don't know where he lies on the scale of human and animal, but I think that its interesting that this is a transformation in which the dead is transformed into a bird and then has life again, rather than the pattern we have seen in the brothers to bird stories where they simply go from human to bird and back again.

Transmogrification

2010-02-10T16:01:00.002-06:00

At first glance, the transformation in The Juniper Tree doesn’t strike the reader as anything out of the ordinary (as far as these matters are concerned, at least), as the bird seems to function less as a beast and more as a boy trapped in a bird’s body—he thinks, he plans, and he works to seek revenge (which, whether he knows or not, is tantamount to working for his own resurrection), but he must do so within the confines of the avian practices of flying and singing. In other words, then, this “transformation” is just that—a change across forms, not minds. Unlike other fairy tale transformations, being a bird is a means to an end, not a new condition to be accepted; the brother in The Juniper Tree does not have to deal with the concerns of a bird in the same way that the brother in Brother and Sister must try to live a happy life as a fawn, feeling the call of the hunt and what not.
Interestingly, however, not all the stories in this tale type operate in the same way. Sometimes the boy’s song is sung by a whole group of birds (The Girl and the Boy), and the boy himself is never transformed or resurrected. Other stories (like The Milk-White Doo) mention the bird coming from the boy’s bones but ascribe no conscious thought to the creature, ending abruptly with the (step)mother’s death. At the root of all the stories is the idea that the bird is in some sense a manifestation of the boy’s (and the reader’s) cry for justice against the wrongdoer, but only rarely is this link spelled out as “the boy’s mind was reborn into a bird’s body.” The fact that the bird’s song is always from the boy’s perspective is only incidental—for one, a bird’s song is more associated with identification than communication, and no one seems to understand the song’s story anyway.
The boy’s birth, death, transformation, and resurrection (the last of which, as we have seen, is not too common outside of The Juniper Tree) are all heavily tied to the women in his life (“birth” might seem obvious, but the story gives it a magical emphasis), but ultimately his own efforts in killing his stepmother are what allow his rebirth. Given the boy’s rather complicated life history, then, it’s difficult to say which gender comes out on top, so to speak. We could point to the violent death of the stepmother as just another example of patriarchy in action, but so much of the boy’s existence and the story’s plot is owed to the actions of women (2/3 of which are positive figures!). I’ll call it a draw.

Brother Bird - Human or Animal?

2010-02-10T11:42:00.000-06:00

The Juniper Tree has personified brother bird, giving him human characteristics such as singing in an understandable language to humans and memory to remember his human lifestyle after his transition from a bird back to a human. Brother bird is no ordinary bird, but a unique, thinking bird, who clearly responds to the request of goldsmiths, shoemakers and millers to obtain items in a grand plan. Brother bird’s previous life translates into his animal life which causes me to categorize him more towards the totally human side of the spectrum. His song, his life, is unfortunate and he is clearly aware of this. He calls out the devilish, the ignorant and the dutiful, clearly delineating properties to the various people in his life. Not only does he acknowledge his misfortune through the words of his song but ironically ends with “what a lovely bird I am!” Yeah, right. Furthermore, the bother comes back from the dead with the help of someone who possesses both the power to heal and destroy. Even though we think of stepmothers as evil, in some of these other fairy tales they do in fact have their own children who they are nice to, just at the expense of the stepchild. In the Twelve Brothers for example, the daughter although innocent and benevolent, is indirectly responsible for the mal fortune that befalls her brothers. Her piety just like Marlene’s, is responsible for restoring her brothers. It is a derivative of the archetypal mother that is responsible for the saving in most of these fairytales. Even in the Seven Ravens, the sister actively searched for her brothers to rescue them putting herself in danger in an act of selflessness. The transformations all seem relatively smooth, ending happily ever after with everything resuming as usual but with perks (– dead stepmother, royal marriage).

Brother Bird Transformation

2010-02-09T19:59:00.001-06:00

Perhaps the point of fairytale stories, and part of their intrigue, is that one can never be completely certain about definitions. Yes the morals are strategic and outlined fairly clearly but the characters are meant to be ambiguous, particularly the men. The brother who is turned into a bird is, I believe, still mostly human since he is able to transform back, he just has a spiritual and physical for a time connection with the heavens and the supernatural realm. So he is not entirely animal but his animal form gives him a connection with the fantastical realm of fairytales while he retains his human sensibilities as displayed by his song. Although the brother sings, “tweet tweet! What a lovely bird I am!” I think it is meant as a kind of joke because of the tragedy and horrible circumstances he describes in the previous lines of the song about how his mother killed him and his father eating him.

The brother can come back from the dead because he is a brother, a virtuous figure who can overcome the horrible things the evil woman in the story does to him. If male virtue and strength cannot overcome the evil nature of the woman it overthrows the hegemonic traditions and the moral of the story. This transformation is different because when he returns he is able to physically crush his captor, the woman who put the spell on him, with the millstone and transforms himself rather than his sister completing the process for him.

The Boys Who would be Birds and Women who Love Them

2010-02-04T23:40:00.003-06:00

Tale type 451 - The brothers that were turned into birds.

From a value standpoint, the role of the sister in these narratives seems most revealing. While in most of the stories we've seen with male protagonist, the male vanquishes his foe or overcomes his obstacle withe the use of ingenuity, hard work, and/or verbal wit, the sister must overcome her obstacle with self-sacrifice and domesticity. The sister, whom in only tangential ways was responsible for the brothers' plight in any of the stories that we had to read for class, must sacrifice her voice, going silent for years at a tilt, while also performing a typical act of domesticity, like sowing clothes. The sister, in these cases at least, suffers these indignities willingly, even so far as it would mean sacrificing her own life. The king which finds the sister hiding in the tree takes her as his bride, despite never hearing her talk. It is in a sense the ultimate misogynist gesture, loving the women based strictly on personal appearance with no regard for her identity. If these ills aren't enough, the sister must also find herself in such great peril by the end of the story that only the miraculous arrival of her bird brothers can save the day. She is not even given the satisfaction of existing as principle heroine, once again relying on the interference of male saviors. The sister's suffering finds her no benefit but a restoration of the status quo, and a new husband.

It's interesting that the bird was seen as existing somewhere between the world and the heavens, their flight supposedly granting them some connection with ethereal forces. The brothers show that they retain some vestige of their consciousness at the end, when they come to save their sister, so their departure at the time of their transportation could be read as voluntary. Granted this new "enlightened" perspective, the brothers take the sky, reveling in their new position as pseudo-heavenly body. It is only when their sister becomes endangered that they return to the Earth, themselves sacrificing their divine aspect to be man again.

Propp vs. Aarne and Thompson

2010-02-04T06:48:00.002-06:00

I thought that our discussion in class about the classification of fairy tales was really interesting particularly because as I have been reading a lot of the fairy tales I have kind of been trying to figure out which ones fit together and have common themes. It was interesting to read about two different people who tried to classify these fairy tales but in a very different way. Although the work of Aarne and Thompson is impressive, I think that I would agree with the way that Propp classifies fairy tales. Although Aarne and Thompson pick up on motifs that are important to not in fairy tales, they have thousands of motifs that they have come up with so the process of classifing and grouping fairy tales really doesn't have much of a point. On the other hand, Propp classifies his fairy tales by the actions that are in the stories. This seems like a much more effective way. Still though, he has 31 functions all of which are hard to keep in memory while reading the fairy tales. I think that the most effective way to classify these fairy tales is by the shortened Propp technique, the protagonist has a lack of something, that lack of something leads them to a quest, on the quest a magical helper is encountered, the protagonist is subject to one or more tests, and then their is some sort of reward for the completion of this test. I think for the most part when classifying fairy tales this is the quickest, most effective way to classify and think about the story while you are reading and taking mental notes.

Classifying fairy tales

2010-02-03T23:28:00.002-06:00

After talking about the Aarne and Thompson Classification System and seeing it in Tartar's book, I am not convinced that is the way to go about studying fairy tales. I feel that there are way too may categories to search through to find all the motifs of one particular fairy tale. I think it is a great idea to find motifs and compare them with other fairy tales, but I feel as if Aarne and Thompson took it too far. I'm sorry, but 40,000 standard motifs is not normal. Not every fairy tale has mice turning into horses. What about the different versions of fairy tales? Do they all count as an individual fairy tale, or can we classify them all together as essentially the same thing? Although that does get complicated when fairy tales begin to combine. However, I feel that if you take every single version of "Cinderella" for instance, you will of course get a lot of motifs that are the same. They're supposed to be the same. I just think that Aarne and Thompson took this classification system way too far.

That being said, I like what Vladimir Propp says. He narrows it down to 31 functions. I like the idea of narrowing it down to actions, but sometimes I feel as if there are some important motifs that are not necessarily actions. For example: the evil stepmother. She is in quite a few types of fairy tales, but no specific action is necessarily a motif for all of them. Yet, I like his 31 functions. As I read them, they sounded very familiar and I was able to think of a few fairy tales that we have already read that would apply to each function. Quite a few functions seem redundant, but for the most part they all work for me. I can see why it was narrowed down even further, though. Yet, I do think this is a good start to examining fairy tales. Like I mentioned in my previous blog, I believe that it is best if we compare fairy tales and find similarities and differences to understand them better. This is a good step toward comparing fairy tales.

On another note, one thing that I wonder is: since Propp looked more at the literary structure of these fairy tales, what would he think about the movies about them nowadays? I wonder how he would analyze the way a fairy tale film is made: what shots were used, what was shown and what was not, whose perspective we watch certain actions from, etc. I'm just curious.

Fairy Tale Biology

2010-02-03T22:20:00.002-06:00

I found Zipes’ breadth of research for “What Makes a Repulsive Frog So Appealing” to be very impressive; though the article seemed at times to be a hodgepodge of little “previews” for the fields he looked into (memetics, evolutionary biology, neurology, etc.), his tangents on the whole added up to a thoughtful and generally cogent argument. Memetics often seems to be a useless and overly systematized view of what are actually very complex cascades of communication and alteration, but The Frog Prince’s thematic link to sexual selection makes it a very believable example of a meme in action. What most interested me, however, was the potential to extend evolutionary ideas to other facets of fairy tale history. For example, Zipes’ crusade against the “Disney spell” casts Disney-fication as a sort of “dumbing down” process resulting from Disney’s own social agenda. But the less vindictive among us are quick to point out that Disney may have just been “giving the people what they want,” and I wonder if we might more accurately describe it as an analogy to evolution’s Fisherian runaway. We have all wondered why a male peacock would be so focused on getting an unwieldy and predator-attracting set of feathers, and the answer is that female peacocks just like them (because it’s beneficial to mate with a male who will give you very attractive sons!). In the same way, Disney movies have (arguably, of course) descended into a saccharine, romance-obsessed, conservative morass only because people like such versions (and people only like those versions because it’s culturally good to have seen popular movies…or something like that).
An easier application lies in explaining the “universal human psyche/disposition” hypothesis of why we find similar tale types all over the world (I believe Propp was a fan of this one). At first glance, it appears far-fetched that our neurology would be so rigid in dictating the creative processes of all human storytellers that any culture left to its own devices would come up with a definite set of tales. But we might view it this way: that humans come up with all sorts of tales (most of which have only been heard by a very small portion of individuals throughout history), and that it is only those tales that are most easily transmitted and make the most “sense” to our brains that survive from generation. Thus, we all know Cinderella not because the story is hard-wired into the genome, but because the story has features that are naturally more agreeable to us than the features of other stories. I suppose this idea is just Memetics 101, but I’d like to call it literary convergent evolution.

The Flying Brothers

2010-02-03T22:05:00.002-06:00

Today's discussion in class about the brothers being turned into birds was very interesting to me. Comparing the stories of "The Twelve Brothers," "The Seven Ravens," and "The Six Swans," it is quite astonishing how many similar aspects there are to the stories. In fact, considering how much the Grimms often "revise" (or in my opinion, drastically change) the stories, I'm a bit surprised that they kept these three as distinct stories. Although concepts like the evil stepmother and other such motifs are of course common throughout all of the fairy tales, the sheer number of motifs that these two stories share would be shocking I think. I'm quite curious to know just how many motifs (as categorized as discussed today) would be shared among the three stories.

It also would be nice to know where the Grimms (or other fairy tale analysts) think that the stories originated because I wonder how prevalent the concept of a transformation into a bird really was at the time of the origination of the tales. Although I am by no means a religious studies major, I know that flying is often a theme in religious tales as well. As professor Figal said, the ability to fly gives one a truly unique characteristic that no other human can (literally) come close to. Because of their ability, birds can be thought of as "higher" than humans in multiple ways. Actually, even just in general, I wonder if many of these stories have religious connections or origins. Religion (even unorganized spirituality) pertains very closely to stories. One could easily argue that without the concept of stories or tales, religion would not exist at all. The Bible in itself is just a collection of stories. I realize that I've gotten on quite a tangent; I just think it's an amusing topic, even for someone who is seriously lacking in knowledge about any religion or its history. Hopefully we'll touch on it more later.

Frog sexuality

2010-02-03T20:46:00.002-06:00

The thing that stood out to me the most within Zipes' essay, "What Makes a Repulsive Frog

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.

Zipes on Frogs

2010-02-03T19:53:00.002-06:00

Although I found Jack Zipes' argument in his essay "What Makes a Repulsive Frog So Appealing: Memetics and Fairytales" a bit of a stretch, I thought the parallels he drew between how memes are transmitted and the passing of genes was very interesting. Zipes argues that a meme becomes so memorable and relevant that we store it and pass it onto others and the reason stories akin to The Frog King became so popular is because we remember them because they give people advice essentially on mating and relationships. Zipes further argues that the "power of such a tale depends on the human agent's receptivity to it and use of it in understanding the environment (social-cultural context) and translation it in other situations". He goes on to say that "Tales of all kinds enable us to comprehend our strategies and to learn how to court and mate. They also help us to adapt and use strategies as cultural and environmental conditions change". However, although he may have a point in how we relate to relationships as children, I am not aware of anyone who, in times of dating desperation seek advice from a fairy tale. I understand that his argument is that adults may select these tales to read to their children because they reflect cultural values, and I do agree that sometimes when discussing relationships people may reflect back on the 'fairytale princess and prince' love story as optimal, but I think he goes a bit too far in saying that these stories have been perpetuated and have become popular because they instruct us on how to mate and date.

Zipes cites Geoffrey Milller from his book "The Mating Mind" in Miller's argument that humans developed a "strange new game of reproduction. They started selecting one another for their brains...The intellectual and technical advancements of our species in the last few thousand years depend on mental capacities and motivations originally shaped by sexual selection". Though I can get on board with Miller's argument, Zipes goes a bit beyond by arguing that Miller's analysis is evidence of how men and women competing for each other "fostered great and diverse innovations in the arts, sciences, and technology" which may have "contributed to biological adaptations and affected the way we transmit cultural artifacts with our brains". Although Zipes does provide some intriguing evidence, I don't believe that our sexual choices over the past generations motivated us or made us more able to recall fairytales and perpetuate them today. Although I do believe fairytales are representative of their respective cultures, I don't think we continue to tell them because we need dating advice.

2010-02-03T18:43:00.001-06:00

I am almost positive that most of my family members as well as my friends believe that Disney is the genesis of fairy tales. Although I don’t know, more than likely my family members and friends have never reviewed the history of Disney or (comparatively) analyzed Disney fairy tales. My little sister for example, thoroughly enjoyed Disney’s Princess and the Frog. Does she care about the morphology of the tale? Of course not! She was mostly excited to see a Black princess, which I think tapped into the “modernity” theme (landscape wise) that Zipes mentions in Breaking the Disney Spell. Princess Tiana is a realistic protagonist, understanding that hard work gets you where you need to go, not just wishing. Domesticity ideals are still upheld like cleaning and the use of culinary genius. Prince Naveen, the arrogant and lazy prince perfectly fits “Disney’s enterprising hero who does nothing to help the community.” Disney’s businesslike mentality allowed his empire to manipulate an existing story and infuse conservative ideas to prevent viewers from examining the tale too closely. Disney diverts the audience’s attention with agreeable imagery and engaging characters with an easy to follow tale. Zipes refers to this as “non reflective viewing that’s adorable, easy and comforting in its simplicity.” Whatever it is that you want to call it, the Disney legacy is clearly being upheld and will only continue to thrive with nostalgic, impressionable, loyal audiences and future technological advances.

Cinderella vs. Donkey Skin

2010-01-28T00:56:00.003-06:00

I think the most interesting information that can be garnered between a comparison of two story archetypes is the cultural ramifications of one form becoming more popular than another. But first, we must first argue that the two story forms are similar enough that they can be seen as nearly equivalent options, a zero-sum game where the acceptance of one implies a rejection of the other. The links between the two types, in this case the Cinderella story and the Donkey Skin story, must be isolated and defined. In both cases we have an abused young girl, splendidly beautiful and virtuous, being abused by an older figure. We already have lines of conflict drawn along similar boundaries; young vs. old, virtue vs. greed, beauty vs. ugliness. Tartar points out that the threats to the heroine in Cinderella stories are mothers or stepmothers whom force their daughter into a constant routine of domestic labor, out of jealous and general vindictiveness. The heroines of Donkey Skin stories are forced to flee from their homes, reject domesticity, because of the sexual advances of their "unnatural" father. It is interesting that in both circumstances, the solution for the female comes from escaping domesticity. In the Cinderella story, she escapes to the ball. In Donkeyskin stories the escape comes as well, just perhaps not as literally at first. In the Donkey Skin story "The She-Bear" from the Ashliman site, the heroine Preziosa takes the form of a bear, rejecting not only her domestic identity but her physical identity, to repel the gluttonous advancements of her father the King.

Darnton would argue not to weigh the details of an individual story too heavily in a discussion of broad archetypal forms, but it is interesting that in this one particular example, the link between external beauty and virtue gets manipulated in this way. In the "typical" Cinderella story, the heroine finds her escape from the evil mother by making herself beautiful, while in "The She-Bear" she makes herself ugly.

Cinderella and Donkeyskin

2010-01-27T23:11:00.002-06:00

One of the main reasons that I think these two stories can be compared is through the need for a woman with the "perfect fit." As Tartar discusses on page 105, "Finding the perfect fit between fingers and rings and between feet and shoes becomes a task set both for fathers and princes." Even though the father figure/s in Donkeyskin do not by any means share similar traits with the prince of Cinderella, they both have a bizarre desire to marry the woman which the ring/shoe fits perfectly. [As a side note: I think it's very strange to want this since in reality, a ring or shoe can fit LOTS of women, especially when testing all of the women in a kingdom.] As we all expected, the ring/shoe fit the "forgotten girl" who is working in the kitchen. Typically, this girl is extraordinarily beautiful (but no one notices as she is constantly dirty or disguised) and virtuous. Even though there are quite a number of variations of both tales, they generally hold the same (albeit very basic) plot. Although we cannot be sure if one of these tales arose from the other, it would not surprise me if this were true. I say this by observing the personality of the main character, the forgotten but beautiful girl. In the versions of Cinderella, she always fits the stereotype of the quiet, submissive girl who is taught to obey her stepmother. She is, unbeknownst to the stepfamily, extremely clever though, and is able to go to the inevitable ball where she meets that prince charming. In Donkeyskin, the main character could be described almost identically. She is clever when she (or a third party, in some versions) thinks to ask for "impossible" items in order to delay the marriage. Again, she is described as having the highest beauty in all of the kingdom (even perhaps hinting more so than her deceased mother?), and she is always doing what she is told. This clearly works in her favor when she is able to marry the far-away prince. These personality traits are displayed in a way that the reader is convinced that without being clever and beautiful and obedient, she would not have achieved the "ultimate prize/life" of marrying Prince Charming.

Overall, yes, I see these two stories pertain to each other. The details of incest vs. true love are minor in compared to the similarities of the main characters and their ultimate ability to achieve their shared goal of marriage.

Cinderella and Donkeyskin

2010-01-27T22:08:00.002-06:00

I agree that these stories should be analyzed together. I think that both types of stories are different from one another, but they mirror each other and have many similarities to the point that we will actually learn more if we analyze them together. If I had read the stories separately, I probably would not have compared the father or mother figures for example. I think if we do compare them, we learn more about fairy tales in general than if we were to analyze them separately. For example, lets take the father in both of these types of stories. In Cinderella, the father is generally nonexistent. He is either absent, or he lets the stepmother take over, and the reader does not even realize he is there. In Donkeyskin, the father is the source of the problem. He has sexual desires towards his own daughter and this freaks her out so much that she is forced to run away after it is clear that he will not give up in trying to marry her. If I were to analyze these stories separately, I would simply talk about how the fathers in fairy tales are apparently bad fathers. Maybe a lesson to be learned would be to be a good father, and you will not have any problems with your daughter. A good father would have made the stepmother treat Cinderella better then they are just a happy family. A good father would not have tried to marry his daughter and they could have lived on happily. So, we should focus on being good parents and remaining a happy family. This is good to realize, but we can take it a step further when we compare the two stories. Once we compare them, we realize that Cinderella is popular and Donkeyskin is not. This could be because the father is generally nonexistent in Cinderella. This takes the focus off of him, so we do not realize that he is the bad father. People would rather believe that the father does not exist or remains in the background as a neutral character than believe that the father would be the one to cause problems. Now we can analyze the psychological aspects of the audience and we could probably keep taking everything one step further. We can do the same for other aspects of the stories as well. Comparing the stories allows us to analyze these stories on a whole new level.

Also, on a side note, I found it interesting that these stories, although they had their major differences were actually very similar. On the Ashliman website, there were even some stories such as "The King Who Wished to Marry his Daughter" that combined the two stories. This story started out as a Donkeyskin type of story and ended with the prince finding the princess' shoe and trying it on everybody until he found her. This shows that these stories have great similarities, so it would be stupid not to compare them.

2010-01-27T21:59:00.000-06:00

I agree with Tatar’s argument that the stories should be read together largely because I like the contrast in the stories of the agency given to the lead female roles and I think it is interesting to see how different cultures adopted these different stories seemingly according to social and gender norms. As Tatar writes of Jane Yolen, “she asserts that the shrewd, resourceful heroine of folktales from earlier centuries has been supplanted by a “passive princess” waiting for Prince Charming to rescue her”(102). I like that when you read both the Cinderella stories and the Donkeyskin stories you get a more dynamic interpretation of the character of this lead female character. I also think it is really intresting to see how, as Tatar argues, society tends to choose the Cinderella stories with horrible stepmothers and poor girls with little ability and self-determination versus the strong-willed and able girls being chased by incestuous fathers.

Another interesting point is how these stories interpret virtue and apply it to the different stories. In both stories piety, chastity and beauty are upheld but also in Donkeyskin ingenuity, daring, and manipulation in a way are also seen as virtues. For example, in All-Kinds-of-Fur on the Ashliman site it says of the daughter, “The princess was horrified at his godless intentions, but because she was clever, she told the king that he should first get her three dresses…” and later she takes initiative and runs away. However in other Cinderella stories like “Doralice” on the Ashliman site the daughter Doralice escapes her father by hiding in a trunk because her servant told her to and then she is literally sold into her next husband. In that story she has no agency, I think reading stories like these next to each other help establish the daughter in these stories as a more well developed character.

Cinderella and Donkeyskin

2010-01-27T20:32:00.002-06:00

I definitely think that these stories should be read and studied together. I think that paying attention to the similarities and differences of these two fairy tales can give a lot of insight into the society that accepts one and/or the other. Tartar claims that, "The two plots can be seen as conveniently dovetailing to produce and intrigue that corresponds to the oedipal fantasies of girls." Each story suppresses one of these components, love for the father and hatred for the mother. For example when reading " All Kinds Of Fur" and the Cinderella stories I noticed countless parallels that involved incestuous father or the evil stepmother. For example, in All-Kinds of Fur, the King will do anything to get the daughter to marry him, buying her the most beautiful dresses. On the other hand, in Grimm's Cinderella, the jealous stepmother will do anything in her power to keep her away from the ball. Both characters have these intense desires toward their daughter whether it be fervent love or jealousy and they are both willing to go to extreme measures. Basically, these stories mirror each other so much as they are centered on the beautiful girl, but they are really fueled by these two different characters', evil stepmother and unnatural father, desires.

I think its interesting and important to study both of these texts especially in relation to our own society, as we choose to retell the Cinderella story rather than the Donkeyskin story. Do we feel more comfortable with women being the evil villians rather than this "unnatural" father? I know that the father's proposal to the girl in Donkeyskin made me a little bit uncomfortable, but is that just because I have been brought up in the world of Disney where something like that is unheard of? I think its crucial to ask why these Cinderella stories have persisted while the Donkeyskin stories have kind of been on the back burner. I would also be interested to know whether some sort of society accepts the Donkeyskin version as opposed to the Cinderella one.

Donkeyskin/Cinderella

2010-01-27T20:03:00.002-06:00

My initial aversion to Tatar’s grouping of the Cinderella and Donkeyskin stories came from the very knee-jerk reaction that Tatar anticipates: the two story types are driven by entirely different things, the “anxious jealousy of biological mothers and stepmothers” on the one hand and the disconcerting incestuous efforts of fathers on the other. Furthermore, the apparent points of contact between the story types are really quite generic elements of patriarchal society and can hardly be considered unique to these two narrative traditions. For one, the requirement of a heroine to complete arduous domestic tasks (or to complete normal tasks like baking exceptionally well) seems to require no special explanation given the overwhelmingly domestic role that has been imposed on women for millennia—the second century story of Cupid and Psyche provides a telling example outside the immediate tradition of fairy tales, as the heroine must sort grain and shear sheep for her heroic quest. Likewise, the idea of the heroine revealing her beauty in order to convince a prince (or whoever) of her goodness or acceptability as a mate is only an extension of an idea so universal and obvious that it can’t properly be assigned as a literary maker: human civilization has long associated beauty with other logically unrelated character qualities, sometimes quite openly but always on a subconscious level.

Though I still believe the above points have some validity, other considerations shifted my viewpoint much closer to Tatar’s. Perhaps the most important realization was that the enormous differences I saw between the two tale types (i.e., incest vs. wicked stepmother) resided in elements that the narratives themselves didn’t always focus on. The idea of incest immediately jumps out to a modern reader, but is quickly abandoned in stories like Fair Maria Wood—the only mention of the princess’s early tribulations lies in a throwaway line about the wedding company “staying to hear her story.” Similarly, Perrault’s Donkeyskin only reintroduces the heroine’s father in one conciliatory paragraph at the very end of the story. Rather than dominating the plot, the King’s/father’s advances really only enable it; considering how variable the fates of Cinderella’s stepmother and stepsisters are (as Tatar notes in the beginning of her Introduction), it seems a small jump to claim that they are also only catalysts in the Cinderella stories, not the substance of them. Meanwhile, the resulting “bulks” of both types of stories seem perfectly homologous, most notably in the repeated “ball” scenarios of anonymous beauty (the “ball” is not always an actual ball, of course—in Fair Maria Wood, the prince only spies on the heroine in her house) and in the “perfect fit” investigations that Tatar mentions only briefly. I still have some resistance to her idea of the Cinderella and Donkeyskin traditions as two sides of the oedipal coin (perhaps because I don’t see those sections as crucial to the story, or perhaps because psychoanalysis isn’t very romantic), but Tatar’s insistence on reading the story types together is spot on.

Cinderella & Donkeyskin

2010-01-27T15:10:00.000-06:00

In Tartar’s article Introduction: Cinderella, she states that “Again and again, mothers are the real villains, extracting promises that end by victimizing both father and daughter” (pg. 105). For me, this statement establishes the connection between Cinderella and Donkeyskin. I think that it is somewhat empowering to juxtapose Cinderella, the damsel in distress and Donkeyskin, the proactive heroine. In both tales, the (good) mother unfortunately initiates what becomes a series of cataclysmic events. In Cinderella, Cinderella’s mom dies and her weak willed father is in oblivion of “love” (damn near emasculated in my eyes) or removed from the story all together and unable to respond to the mistreatment of his daughter. In Donkeyskin, the mother’s impending doom either restricts her from lucidly outlining the conditions of her husband’s remarriage or leaves her request open to (loose) interpretation by the King. Either way you look at it, it is ultimately the mom’s fault for the calamities that befall her husband and progeny. Luckily, in both stories, redemption prevails. Cinderella’s piety and supernatural help helps her prevail and Donkeyskin’s initial help from the supernatural coupled with her culinary skills and ingenuity earns her happiness. Although all fairy tales have phantasmagorical elements, I would have to say that Donkeyskin is a tad more realistic than Cinderella. It seems more believable that a girl would have to create her own happily ever after than the happily ever after stumbling upon her. Donkeyskin possesses that proactive element and derivatives of Donkeyskin do so as well. Gold Teeth for example is an Italian adaptation of the Donkeyskin tale that begins with the same fate that plagues the family, the mother’s seemingly innocuous request that is interpreted strictly and (unfortunately) shamefully. Supernatural forces guide the daughter to delay the marriage and ultimately help the daughter in her travels after escaping. She still endures some assault as a flea skinned girl but ultimately triumphs in the end because of her culinary skills. As with most of the Donkeyskin stories, the royal kings and queens are too preoccupied with their positions and are unnaturally “perfect.” It is that perfection that prevents them from adhering to their obligatory parental duties. Consequentially, their intense and manipulated love drives them to think illogically and make ghastly decisions. Similarly, Cinderella’s dad is too blinded by love or manipulated by new wife to stop the madness before it happens. This is principally why I think that these tales can be read cooperatively as they both begin with similar motifs, spin those motifs in directions that instigate immorality but fortunately work out in the end.

Bettelheim's Future and Darnton's Past

2010-01-20T23:41:00.001-06:00

Darnton’s argument that the details of folktales cannot be overly scrutinized because they fluctuate so wildly through the different geographical and generational versions is convincing, but not actually a refutation of the argument Bettelheim makes in his own essay. Darnton argues that one cannot psychoanalyze the details of a fairy tale in order to prove that the oedipal dilemmas, unconscious, etc. extend back to Enlightenment era peasantry. Bettelheim’s essay does not deal with history. He doesn’t challenge the notion of the origin of fairy tales. He only hopes to explore the relationship between a child’s psychological development and the literature to which they are introduced. In that sense, Darnton’s argument that fairy tales don’t exist “in a timeless contemporaneity” does not apply. The tale being shown to the child, which is the only tale which concerns Bettelheim in this essay, does exist as a document to itself. The history of that document has no bearing on the psychological impact of its narrative for the child.

Whether Bettelheim’s sins are perpetrated in other essays, as Darnton claims, is not the topic at hand. Comparing the two juxtaposed essays, both seem to exist within separate spheres of influence. Darnton directs his queries to the past, while Bettelheim focuses on the future, specifically for children. However, Bettelheim’s use of vague generalities and under-explored terms makes the argumentative flow of his essay problematic. Particularly glaring is his claim that “Since the child at every moment of his life is exposed to the society in which he lives, he will certainly learn to cope with its conditions, provided his inner resources permit him to do so.” If this were the case, wouldn’t the correct course of action in child-raising, assuming the goal is to raise children which act toward the benefit of themselves within the rules of the society, be to not introduce the children to anything else at all? What are the conditions of these inner resources which allow or fail to allow children to learn to cope with the conditions of society? Bettelheim throws around the word “fairy tale” without taking the pains to define the term. For a product which he so wholly advocates, he speaks little of the actual product. When he does speak of the fairy tale, it is in abstract and reverent terms.

My main contention with Darnton’s argument is that he seems to be attacking an enemy which doesn’t exist. He chides psychoanalysts for assigning too much value to symbols which are not featured in every version of the fairy tale, but why does it matter if the details reoccur in every version of the story or not? If the story was taken from the Grimm’s collection, whether or not an accurate recreation of the oral telling, the story came into being without prior influence from Freud or any other psychoanalyst. From the psychoanalytic perspective, I could argue that my reading of the story cannot be discredited just because the tale has taken other forms. Just because there are many forms does not mean each one of the individual forms any less a “unified” tale. As long as the psychoanalyst does not try to extend his argument to a historical context he does not come into conflict with Darnton’s essay.

Bettelheim and Darnton

2010-01-20T23:34:00.002-06:00

I find Bettelheim to be fairly mistaken on most any of the original ideas he had within his paper. I do agree with his overall idea on children though. The idea that the environment a child is raised in is the most important determining factor within a child's development is a strong one. Bettelheim continues to say that the second most important part of a child's development is the literature he/she is exposed to at a young age. I would go so far as to say that the odds of a child from a negative home most likely wouldn't be properly exposed to the literature like Bettelheim wishes. Generally it is the parent's job to expose the child, and the parents are doing a bad job of parenting, there isn't much hope.

Darnton i find to have a much more down to earth and realistic approach to the topic. He is right in saying that Bettelheim makes broad generalizations and that it is wrong to take a single version of a folk tale and apply it to all people. Taking the common themes and motifs from all of the regionally affiliated stories and compiling them would create a much more accurate view of the intent of the stories. Darnton's idea to use these folk tales to examine peasant culture is fairly interesting to me. It is probably the best way to approach learning of a people with little written history of their own. Also, as the main purveyor of folk tales, it is likely that all of these tales contain some insight to each of the originating groups. Darnton, once again being the more realistic of the two writers, goes on to talk about the difference in the versions of the folk tales that we had today versus the original versions ( or at least the oldest versions). When first transmitted by way of mouth, these tales included the human element that cannot be captured on paper. The story tellers themselves added an extra element. Between the two arguments, i believe Darnton's to be the much stronger of the two, especially seeing as he disproves Bettelheims within the first two pages.

Darnton & Bettelheim

2010-01-20T22:42:00.000-06:00

Bettelheim sees fairytales as a means of connecting to one’s unconscious and cultivating imagination and exploring the boundaries of the unconscious so that it can be dealt with in the conscious. He is concerned that as children develop their egos they need ways to translate their urges that society sees a taboo and unspeakable so children negotiate these urges and fantasies by bringing them to the conscious in a safe way with fairytales. Although I agree with Bettelheim in the beginning of his essay and liked when he said, “to find deeper meaning, one must become able to transcend the narrow confines of a self-centered existence and believe that one will make a significant contribution to life…our positive feelings give us the strength to develop our rationality”. And I agree with him that the most important influences on a child are his or her parents. However, I do not necessarily believe that fairytales help exorcise our unconscious fantasies into our conscious minds. I think he is mixing the realm of fantasy with our unconscious as though the two are one and the same, which I don’t agree with. Even though fairytales do operate in a universal, magical, and almost timeless world outside our reality, that does not mean they operate in our unconscious or that we read them with our unconscious minds any more than we read or interpret everything else in our lives.

I think Darnton makes a more compelling argument when he discusses that you cannot take symbols from these stories and interpret them as with common meanings for all people. Bettelheim assumes all people have the same problems, fantasies, and ways of dealing with them while I think Darnton is more realistic and acknowledges that these stories have multiple variations, come from varying cultural environments which they are adapted to, and are read by different people different ways. I think Bettelheim has some good ideas but he takes them too far. I agree with Darnton and find his assertion that we can learn something about the peasant illiterate classes from these tales interesting. But I don’t’ think these tales are as specifically illustrative of the peasant class as he argues. Yes, these fairytales began with stories from the peasant class but the stories we have today have been contaminated by simple fact that they are no longer oral tales of the peasant class but instead they are literature written by and for the elite in society. So the tales we read today are not necessarily genuinely reflective of the peasant classes. I don’t think you have to take sides on this debate, both authors have their strengths and weaknesses although I find Darnton’s argument more reasonable.

Bettelheim and Darnton

2010-01-20T22:11:00.001-06:00

I found Bettelheim to be somewhat convincing. I agree that fairy tales play a more important role than providing entertainment. As children grow up, they need to learn more about life, struggle, and morals, and I agree that it is best to learn them through imagination and stories such as fairy tales. Bettelheim claims that a good children’s story “must entertain him and arouse his curiosity. But to enrich his life, it must stimulate his imagination, help him to develop his intellect and to clarify his emotions; be attuned to his anxieties and aspirations; give full recognition to his difficulties, while at the same time suggesting solutions to the problems which perturb him.” All of this sounds great to me. It may be unrealistic to hope for all of these aspects within one story, yet, a story may have quite a few of these traits to it, and that is something to aim for. That being said, I did not fully agree with everything Bettelheim said. He talks about how a “clean cut” fairy tale can make a child a monster in his own eyes because they may not always be good when everyone in a fairy tale is. I do not agree with this. I think it is good to have some fairy tales that have less than perfect lives and personalities, and it is okay to have some hardships and violence. But I do not see anything wrong with having some fairy tales show the brighter side of life. The child knows that most of these stories take place in a fantasy world, so it should be okay to want a happy ending. I do not agree that a child would see a monster in himself if the hero did not struggle with some flaws. This could help show the child how to be optimistic, and it can provide role models for children. Therefore, I do not see any big issue with cleaning up some fairy tales – they do not all have to be cleaned up, but it is okay for some to be.

Darnton’s view on fairy tales was definitely different from Bettelheim’s view. Bettelheim focused on the psychological aspect of fairy tales while Darnton focuses on the historical, more literal aspect. Therefore, even though they are completely different viewpoints, I believe that it is okay to agree with both Darnton and Bettelheim. If they both focused on the psychological aspect but had different points of view, it would be different, but since this is not the case, I think they can complement each other. I did not, however, find Darnton to be particularly stimulating. He did not agree with focusing on the psychological aspect of fairy tales, which I disagree with. He made some excellent points about how some people analyze fairy tales and its symbolism too much, but I think we should still analyze them somewhat. I agree that we probably could used fairy tales to study life during the Enlightenment only because we do not have anything else to study. I believe that fairy tales would be rather inaccurate, but since there is nothing else, we can learn something. Yet, I still find this to be not as enticing as analyzing the psychological aspect of a fairy tale.

Darnton vs. Bettelheim

2010-01-20T20:42:00.002-06:00

Although I would definitely say that Bettelheim's claims are a little extreme, I do think there is some important points that can be taken from his work. I think that children should engage in reading that allows them to use their imagination and to experience situations that are not all happy and perfect. However, I do not think that fairy tales are the only way that a child's imagination and knowledge of human predicaments can be fostered. Someone made the point in class that back when Bettelheim did most of his work that there was not the wide array of children's literature that there is today, and fairy tales may have been a one of the few genres available. That being said, today there are vasts amount of all kinds of children's literature addressing all sorts of difficult situations, and also tons that allow children to use their imagination. I think it is important as educators, parents etc. that we take the time and assess what children are reading and make considerations on specific content of books, making sure they are not surface level. As we discussed in class, Bettelheim kind of assumes that all humans take part in the exact same stages of develop, and that we respond to the same symbols and experiences in the same way. I think this is a huge generalization, as every human on this earth is completely unique from one another in their likes, dislikes and dispositions. I think to assume that the reading of fairy tales is the answer for all children to find meaning in life is absurd. Though I do think the literature that we are exposed to during our development plays a role, children should explore all sorts of literature and expose themselves to all types of stories to find out what they like the best, who they are, and find a sense of meaning through this.

On a completely different note, I think that Bettelheim and Darton's points are widely different; however, I don't particularly think that they are mutually exclusive. Though they each have a difference of opinion on the value of fairy tales, one for the psychological well being of a child and the other to gain a glimpse into an illiterate and disappeared culture, it makes me think that both of these ideas are important. The value of fairy tales comes from both its impression that it makes on the reader, though maybe not as extreme as Bettelheim claims, and also in the reflection of the culture from which it comes from. Though these two authors are not in agreement with each other, I think that in reading both of these essays, it becomes apparent that these two aspects of a fairy tale, its effect on the reader and its historical significance, should both be considered important.

Darnton vs. Bettelheim

2010-01-20T20:21:00.003-06:00

The more I read Darnton's article, the more convinced I am the Bettelheim has some truly crazy arguments. Although I understand his point that fairy tales can transcend the conscious mind and that children's books need to be more than entertaining, I find a few major flaws in the rest of his arguments. Firstly, Bettelheim seems to be too broad in what he is trying to argue (either that or I don't see much organization). For example, his article is titled "The Struggle for Meaning" and yet only briefly does he touch on how fairy tales can provide a child with a sense of meaning in his/her life. Rather, Bettelheim seems to focus more on how fairy tales can be used to teach children that the world is not fair and that they will always face difficult situations that can (and eventually will) be overcome. Also, Bettelheim appears to relate fairy tales too closely to reality. As another example, Bettelheim states that a fairy tale must "at one and the same time relate to all aspects of his personality"; I believe this to be an absurd and unrealistic claim. Many, if not most, fairy tales will deal with magic and other unrealistic situations that can in no way relate to a child's personality. Thus, I find it unacceptable to think that a child can learn a proper "way of life" or even meaning for living based on a fairy tale. Also, I can understand Darnton's perspective more because of his believable take on what a fairy tale really is. It is not often fancy literature; the tales are derived from common folk and thus they can be viewed as highly historical. Especially since the fairy/folk tales are mixtures of many different sources and stories, there is no way that one can break down the meaning of a fairy tale into the minutest details. This would be a false attempt to make a common story into a literary masterpiece. Thus, with Bettelheim's exaggeration of the reasons for fairy tales, I find Darnton's argument to be more convincing.

The Boys Who Went Forth to Learn What Fairy Tales Were

2010-01-20T19:51:00.000-06:00

The tension that one senses in Darnton’s article between his perspective on fairy tales and that of Bettelheim does not seem legitimate when one actually compares the two texts. Darnton writes as though he and Bettelheim are both answering a general prompt of “explain fairy tales,” when in fact the two articles answer fundamentally different questions. Bettelheim is excited about what a fairy tale can do (and perhaps why it can do those things), and his scope should not logically extend beyond those specific stories (and versions of those stories) he wishes to address. Yes, he overstates his case quite a few times with sweeping generalizations like “children…find folk fairy tales more satisfying than all other children’s stories” (really? every fairy tale?) and “the child finds this kind of meaning [tangible, pro-social results of right and wrong behavior] through fairy tales” (even when grandmothers stay eaten?). But a more down-to-earth approach to Bettelheim’s basic ideas reveals that they do indeed make some sense: children have some strange thoughts and fears, and some fairy tales allow those concepts to play out in an entertaining, engaging, but ultimately fictional manner. Where Darnton is right to criticize is when this fairly innocuous claim is further extended in efforts to draw out universal symbols from specific details, disregarding the fact that not all people respond the same way to the same story and that the stories themselves vary immensely in their details.
For whatever reason, Darnton uses this fault as an excuse to toss out the psychoanalytic approach entirely, when really he is interested in answering different questions altogether: what are these fairy tales, how did they come to be that way, and what might they say about the cultures that formed and modified them. This more historical method is valid, I believe, but valid in a way that does not negate Bettelheim’s ideas. Furthermore, there is a pitfall in the historical approach that Darnton does not address in his article (though he is careful to point out certain limitations like the inaccessibility of oral performance styles through text alone). Certainly one might find some trends in how a story varies from culture to culture, as Darnton does with the French “Tom Thumb” and German “Hansel and Gretel,” but it would be enormously difficult to prove what those trends might mean about the French and German people who spread the story. Is the French version filled with more “humor and domesticity” because that is what French peasants valued and were familiar with, or is it because they had seen enough of the “terror” of the German version in their own lives and felt no need to revisit it in their fiction? As with Bettelheim, I believe Darnton may need to scale back his ambitions a bit if he intends his personal historical method to be unassailable.

Bettle & Darn

2010-01-20T19:15:00.003-06:00

I was first introduced to Bettleheim in my Psychological Anthropology class in the fall of 2008 and I could not have been more annoyed and confused with his psychobabble adapted from Freudian theory. I am just being narrow minded but his argument seems flawed. His background as an educator and therapist for severely disturbed children jaded his work in my opinion. I don't know that these fairy tales are the best medium for children to make sense of their inner turmoil. Since these tales differ in various communities and since these tales have unrealistic/magical elements, it seems odd to me to use a specific version of a tale to make sense of prohibitions and taboos. Additionally, who is to say exposure to the nitty gritty of life leads to victory in the end? I'm not saying sugar coat everything in life because at some point, the child will come into contact with an issue (maybe not to the magnitude that is expressed in the fairy tales) but instead, maybe fairy tales have more practical use as a cultural artifact as Darnton suggests. Darnton acknowledges the pop culture aspect of fairy tales and how it can be used to probe into that set time. It is kind of like music to me. Back in the days, R&B music had more meaning; it was militant, it was making social commentary, it was a unifier but now, its all about sex, aggression but occasionally something more meaningful and respectful. What does that say about artists today or consumers who support their music? What does that mean about the people back then and what was important to them?...Is everyone thinking about the same music as me? Of course not, because there are different genres that took other things seriously and threw others to the wind. Darnton's use of fairy tales is similar to me; fairy tales aren't necessarily going to give you the answer but at the same time, it gives you somewhere to start some kind of analysis based on different regions, prevalent symbols and different story endings. Anyway, I thought Darnton's article was more compelling/believable, otherwise, I'm still struggling for meaning.

Intro

2010-01-18T14:49:00.002-06:00

Hey everyone. My name is Brett Floyd. I am a freshman from Clarksburg, West Virginia. I am a cellular biology major and hope to go to med school and eventually work in a research field. I always liked Grimm's Fairy Tales as a kid so I think this will be a very interesting class.

2010-01-18T12:59:00.001-06:00

Hey, I'm Nathan. I'm a senior biology major from Memphis hoping to teach somewhere after graduation.

Introduction

2010-01-15T22:12:00.000-06:00

Hey everyone! My name is Alex and I am from Brooklyn, New York. I am a junior majoring in Medicine, Health and Society and I hope to be a pediatric nurse in the future.