To Read Fairy Tales…

Well the semester has come and gone almost, and I have one allotted blog left. We’ve finished our readings, our classes will now be filled with our favorite films and frantically pulling together our last paper, saying goodbye to our first freshman semester, our only GRW. So I sat for a while thinking about what my last blog should be about. Usually I’m responding to a reading from the night before, or an essay by Bettelheim or Zipes, the real movers and shakers and controversial figures of the field. And that’s about where I stopped thinking about what I should blog about–I already knew. I didn’t have to go back and find another quote from one of our dozens of tales and essays, I had just said something that fascinated me. Here I am casually throwing around scholars’ names like Zipes and Bettelheim not even thinking about it and everyone knows what I’m talking about. Every single one of us knows who they are, we can all argue them, side with them, defend their views, discredit their views with the findings of some other scholar. We know the differences between Perrault and D’Aulnoy and Grimm, and we know the darker side of Disney (but love the movies anyway). We know these fairy tales inside and out, we know the leading scholars of the field, we understand Disney’s motives. I can definitely say that I learned this subject. Really learned it. I cared about the readings and wanted to read on during “The Bloody Chamber” just like I know a lot of us did–most of us didn’t want to put it down. And that’s awesome to me!

I actually saw and understood how the Grimms collected their tales. How they wished to preserve their culture as Germany struggled to form a solidified country, and how their stories reflect this; the religion, the patriarchal order, the oppression of women. Just knowing that most of the fairy tales my mom read to me from our Grimm anthology were told to the Grimms by their female neighbors was so cool to me! To see how these tales evolved, varied by author, culture, time periods was amazing.

That was another thing: this class showed me that it was ok to read fairy tales as an adult. I grew up thinking that fairy tales were something just for little kids, but this class showed me how historically and culturally revealing fairy tales are, how they are a viable source to trace societal evolution. Which was another awesome thing: Disney movies could be used as a critical and solid source to magnify the culture of the time period. Who knew right?

A few weeks ago I found this quote (on Tumblr of all places) that was quoting Albert Einstein: “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.” And I immediately, whole-heartedly agreed. Because that’s what this class was trying to teach us all along right? Fairy tales were meant to entertain and teach. To teach children the social do’s and don’ts of the culture, to tell girls to beware the big bad wolf and tell women to not go chasing their beauty as they age. They teach us that curiosity killed the cat (or in our case, Bluebeard’s wives) and that teamwork always wins out in the end. They teach us that women were oppressed yes, but now it’s propelling women forward, telling women that this is history and we can learn from these mistakes. It teaches us beauty is in the eye of the beholder and fairy godmothers can’t always help you escape. They teach us independence and manners and that Perrault’s silly rhyming morals don’t really mean much of anything.

And so I decided then and there, upon reading Einstein’s words, that there is now way that I’d ever let my children grow up one day in a world without fairy tales.

Destroying the Disney Magic

“[Snow White and the Seven Dwarves] follows the classic “sexist” narrative about the framing of women’s lives through a male discourse. Such male framing drives women to frustration and some women to the point of madness. It also pits women against women in competition for male approval (the mirror) of their beauty that is short-lived. No matter what they may do, women cannot chart their own lives without male manipulation and intervention, and in the Disney film, the prince plays even more of a framing roles since he is introduced at the beginning while Snow White is singing, “I’m Wishing for the One I Love To Find Me Today.” He will also appear at the end as the fulfillment of her dreams”  (Jack Zipes “Breaking the Disney Spell” CFT 348)

I found this particular passage one of the more interesting of the entire essay. It’s true, Snow White, and many other Disney films are sexist. The woman driven to madness by trying to impress men with their beauty would be the Evil Queen, the women in competition would be the Evil Queen and Snow White (although Snow White is unaware that she is participating in such a competition). And yes, beauty is short lived, which we discussed in class: the Evil Queen is seeing her beauty wash away with age which sparks her jealousy, and as Anne Sexton pointed out, who is to say Snow White won’t become the next Evil Queen as she ages? As the essay goes on, it is said that Walt Disney himself saw himself as the prince, who lurks in the background waiting for the right time to jump in and take all the credit, credit he didn’t wholly deserve. I was astonished to find out that Walt Disney didn’t give much credit to his animators in the beginning! This essay is starting to destroy my image of Disney and his company, which depresses me.

However, to go back to the sexist idea, I’m wondering how much of it was circumstantial? How much was it based in the Grimm tale, which was sexist because it was written and told in a patriarchal society in which the men were dominant? How much was based in the time period in which the film was produced? As Disney moves forth is it becoming less sexist (looking at recent movies with strong-headed heroines such as Tangled etc.) or is does it remain seeped in patriarchal ideas from its folklore origins? I have to say, I’m not sure, what do y’all think? I’d like to say that they’re becoming less sexist because the movies are straying farther from the folklore tales anyway (Tangled was very different from the folklore of “Rapunzel” I know).

What do you think? All I know is this essay was really set on destroying the Disney magic which made me very sad! Did anyone else feel this way?

To Grow Old Together

“Cinderella and the prince/lived,they say, happily ever after,/like two dolls in a museum case/never bothered by diapers or dust,/never arguing over the timing of an egg,/never telling the same story twice,/never getting a middle-aged spread,/their darling smiles pasted on for eternity./Regular Bobbsey Twins./That story.” –“Cinderella” by: Anne Sexton, 258, last stanza

I found Anne Sexton’s poetry very interesting and captivating almost in a way, however this last stanza of Cinderella jolted me out of my poetry-dream almost. The story of the rest of the poem is ultimately rather familiar: almost like the Grimm version in that there is a tree on Cinderella’s mother’s grave, a bird that gives her her dress, the step sisters who mutilate their feet and end up without eyes. This last stanza though almost seems like she’s mocking the happy ending. And the more I think about it, she was probably mocking it intentionally, this was probably a more satirical poem. The idea that people grow up together and have their happily ever after was almost laughable. It’s impossible for a couple to grow up and not argue, never repeat their stories, to smile “for eternity”. She compares this couple, Cinderella and Prince Charming, to two dolls. Sexton says their happily ever after is impossible and fake.

Do you guys agree? Did you get the impression she was writing satirically?

Love is Blind?

“No paint nor powder, no matter how thick or white, can mask that red mark on my forehead; I am glad he cannot see it – not for fear of his revulsion, since I know he sees me clearly with his heart – but, because it spares my shame” (“The Bloody Chamber” by: Angela Carter, page 41).

Out of this long fairy tale, it was not until the last paragraph that I found a quote I wanted to discuss here. There are so many symbols, so many similarities and differences and correlations between “The Bloody Chamber” and “Bluebeard” but this one really stuck out for me. This is the first narrator of this genre I think that is open about her shame, which I was sort of glad she admitted it. In “Bluebeard” the wife is saved, and then inherts his money and marries, and she never comments on if she learned anything from her brush with death. This way at least we know this woman feels shame and is sorry and has learned her lesson. But what should she feel sorry for–isn’t it extreme to kill your wife because she disobeyed your orders. Or is he just insane? Either way, the reader is ensured that the protagonist has learned her lesson, just like the author hopes you, the reader, does.

This mark of the red heart from the previous wife’s blood branded her as… As what exactly? Another woman he feel had wronged him? Another woman who let her curiosity get the best of her? Either way, her betrayal of her word (she had said she would not go into that chamber) was physically branded on her head, magically and purposefully in a permanent way. Was this way his way of ensuring everyone would know she was distrustful? Wasn’t she going to die right after thought (he thought so anyway)? So what was the point to him? This physical mark reminded me of The Scarlett Letter and her physical mark that let her community know she had had an affair (I never read the book, so this is knowledge is based on my general understanding–please correct me if I’m wrong!).

I think it’s interesting that the piano tuner, who quiet suddenly is her lover, and then her husband, is blind. Was it orchestrated this way so this ending paragraph could be included? Is the moral here really to love with one’s heart and not anything about curiosity killing the cat or going back on one’s word?

What does everyone think?

The Grip of Loyalty

“Faithful Heinrich had been so saddened by the transformation of his master into a frog that he had to have three hoops placed around his heart to keep it from bursting with pain and sorrow” (“The Frog King or Iron Heinrich” by: Brothers Grimm, CFT 50).

I think this was the best part of the story, at least the sweetest part! When Ashley did her Fairy Tale Show n’ Tell on the commercial for Vitamin Water and the frog prince, she briefly mentioned a servant with bands on his heart and I was immediately intrigued and went home and looked it up myself. I found this section of the story and immediately loved it. Revisiting it has been great since I had sort of forgotten it among the rest of my more pressing assignments. But I’m glad I found it again, because I think it’s a beautiful passage.

I don’t know why, but I find it particularly touching that Heinrich was so loyal that he had to literally band his heart to keep it from falling apart. I feel as if this is the most obvious moral of the story: loyalty is important, sticking up for what you believe in, keeping your word is important. I think Heinrich demonstrates the image of keeping your word more so than the image of the king teaching is daughter that same lesson.

What do y’all think? Does Heinrich have some importance to representing the moral, or is he just a side character added to appeal to the hearts of the Grimms’ readers?

The Fairest of Them All

“Snow White was so beautiful that the huntsman tok pity on her and said: ‘Just run away, you poor child’…The dwarfs told her: ‘If you keep house for us, cook, make the beds, wash, sew, knit, and keep everything neat and tidy, then you can stay with us and we’ll give you everything you need'” (“Snow White” Brothers Grimm, CFT 84-85).

I think the Grimm’s “Snow White” is so interesting: Snow White herself is so much less intelligent then we remember her being our childhood Disney movie, the Prince is much more random because he doesn’t meet her until he sees her dead, (and we’re missing the classic kiss scene),  the story is clearly aligned with its time period, and beauty is so important.

Like most of our class I believe, I was absolutely appalled by the two statements above. When I read them initially I was shocked that not only these horribly oppressive thoughts were written down, but written down in a positive manner–fairy tales after all were all about teaching children the manners and morals of that society. Having read more on the Brothers Grimm and their lifetime, I see that yes, making the females stay at home and do nothing but domestic chores is historically accurate. But how horribly oppressive is that?! It’s not surprising that women began their own literary salons and gossip sessions–wouldn’t you? I certainly would if all I was expected to do was nothing but house chores. Snow White just accepts the dwarf’s deal too which bothered me. I suppose the alternative was not inviting either: being out in the forest alone with no protection against wild animals or the elements. So if I was in Snow White’s position, I guess I’d do whatever it took to stay alive and safe. So maybe it’s not surprising that she just accepted this sexist ultimatum. But we the reader got no commentary that suggested that she was at all unhappy. Which was maybe the Grimms’ intention: it was showing girls that there was no reason to complain: the men would always take care of you if you remained cooking and cleaning like asked. Which of course as a women today, I find to be oppressive. However Snow White’s world parallels the patriarchal society the Grimms lived in.

Sheldon Cashdan brings up a really interesting point in her book The Witch Must Die. Cashdan and a friend of hers, Vivian, discuss  the story of “Snow White” and Vivian says: “‘Cleaning and cooking for the dwarfs all those years was a lot to give up for security. In the end, the dwarfs really didn’t protect her from anything did they?'” (Cashdan 50). Now I know immediately what our class will say to this: Snow White is really at fault for her misfortunes concerning the witch, since she was after all the one who opened the door three times to a stranger after the dwarfs repeatedly told her not to do so. So yes, Snow White should shoulder some of the blame here. But what Vivian says is true as well, after all her hard work to stay protected like promised, the dwarfs don’t really help her out all that much. Sure she’s protected from wild animals and the elements but she still dies 3 times. What do y’all think? Is Vivian pushing it too far? Or does she have a fair point?

Also the huntsman’s beauty comment the Grimms just casually slip in there stuck out to me. Just as Snow White doesn’t offer any insight into the dwarf’s ultimatum, she offers no insight to the huntsman’s statement either. He basically took pity on the girl because of her beauty (that’s at least how its written out to be). What kind of example is that setting for girls then? That they can (and will) get what they want based on their looks? Or perhaps I’m just reading too far into it?

What do y’all think?

Fairy Tales as History Lessons?

Like Darnton said folklore could, could fairy tales act as historical documents and teach the modern world about the social and mental world of the peasants of the 17th century? Or was Bettelheim right in taking just the latest version at surface value, pick apart the symbols and tie up the story with a happy ending?

The unreliability of fairy tales is a little alarming to me: these tales shape a shift and are contorted as the times progress and we cannot pin down and origin, an inventor, of the tales. But I think to completely ignore the historical element in these tales would be ignorant of the reader! Just like novels of today, these fairy tales were strongly impacted by their social environment and the political climate and the world surrounding them. Perrault especially embedded aspects of his community within his work, which make these stories historical and culturally rich. Darnton said specific facts are not required to be considered a historical document: it is not necessary to pin down to a date and a person the origin of a tale. I agree with him to a certain extent I guess, what’s important is that these tales represent the public’s opinion of their world at the time which is a historic account.

I don’t think it’s entirely fair though to completely disregard psychoanalysis like Fromm and Bettelheim though. They have a point–it’s only accessing the current tale however. But that’s the tales that children are reading today, and if it’s going to be read by children, the tale might have a symbolic meaning today that it didn’t have earlier. However I do agree with Darnton when he accuses Bettelheim of reading tales as if they were independent from history–you can’t do that either.

So I suppose while I sympathize with the psychoanalysts, I would have to side with Darnton on this one.

Third Times the Charm!

“The man went to fetch the third daughter, but she was was clever and cunning. After handing over the keys and egg, he went away, ad she put the egg in a safe place. She explored the house and entered the forbidden chamber. And what did she see!…When everything was in place, the pieces began to move and joined themselves together. The two girls opened their eyes and came back to life. Overjoyed they kissed and hugged each other” (CFT, 149-150) “Fitcher’s Bird” by: the Brothers Grimm

From the third line, “No one knew what he did with them, for they were never seen again”, I quickly assumed that this story was going to be exactly like Perrault’s “Bluebeard”. Turns out I was right–this story is essentially “Bluebeard” with one major difference: the woman protagonist. There were three daughters–three victims of the sorcerer (everything happens in threes for this weeks’ reading: 3 deaths for Snow White, 3 balls for Cinderella, 3 victims for the sorcerer). The first two are like Bluebeard’s wife: curious and then suffer the consequences–these two women actually die though while Bluebeard’s wife survived. She did not survive on her own wit though–it was thanks to her family, most specifically her sister and two brothers, that destoryed Bluebeard. The third wife, the youngest sister, she is clever and smart–she leaves the egg behind, so that when she opens the door, she is not worried about dropping it. She finds her sisters and oddly puts their parts together. Which, personally, I found to be kind of gross and disturbing, but it pays off in the end doesn’t it? Her sisters come back to life. This is where the magic element is really prominent in the tale; sure the egg is magical–the blood does not wash off–but this is really the magic element.

After she resurrects her sisters, she outwits her captor–gets him to bring her sisters home without him knowing because she is now completely in control of him because she passed his test (“He no longer had any power over her and had to do her bidding” pg. 150). She then tricks him into thinking the skull is her in the attic window while she sneakily escapes in disguise. This is where another similar element of “Bluebeard” erupts, it’s her family members “the brothers and relatives”, that lock the house and burn it down, effectively killing the sorcerer, just like Bluebeard was killed by his wife’s brothers (150).

This girl was so much smarter than the wife in “Bluebeard”, who was so passive and helpless. It was nice to reread this horribly disturbing story and see the female protagonist actually stand up for herself and save herself.

Which is better do you think: Bluebeard’s historically accurate portrayal of a docile woman or the more magical, even more implausible third sister? And, did anyone else notice that everything in these 3 stories was done in threes? Or was that just me?

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder

“No sooner had the princess pronounced these words than Riquet with the Tuft appeared to her eyes as the most handsome, strapping, and charming man she had ever seen. There are some who assert that it was not the fairy’s spell but love alone that caused this transforma­ tion. They say that the princess, having reflected on her lover’s perseverance, prudence, and all the good quali­ ties of his heart and mind, no longer saw the deformity of his body nor the ugliness of his features” (Perrault, 49).

This was a point I feel we touched on when we discussed Beauty and the Beast too. Did the beast actually transform into someone more handsome, did Riquet actually physically transform as well? Or did Belle and the Princess just open their hearts and minds and saw that through their developed relationship and admiration of their intelligence learn to see them as beautiful? The Beast was dumb as well as ugly, but he could hold conversation with Belle. And the Princess and Riquet held conversation for they were both intelligent and witty (eventually), so it is possible that each fell in love with their eventual husbands due to their conversations and the bond and relationship that developed? I feel like that’s a much better moral or theme than it’s alternative: the Beast and Riquet actually physically changed to become handsome–and it was only after that transformation (when both parties were both beautiful and smart) that they were able to get married to their girl.

If the alternative is the case, I think that’s pretty terrible message to send to children. People do not have to be astonishingly beautiful to find love. It’s sending a message to the children that you must fit society’s idea of beautiful and be a genius to find a partner (oh, and they have to be just like you too). That is not a good message to send to children–it’s pressuring them into being perfect, which humans cannot be.

So I hope it’s the first choice: beauty being in the eye of the beholder, in the person who loves them for who they are and their connection with them and their relationship’s bond (more so for Beauty and the Beast but…) . Truthfully when I read these for the first time, I thought of a physical transformation, but I think it’s safe to lay the blame onto Disney’s Beauty and the Beast for this one. The Beast in that movie was an actual animal beast, and I don’t think he was portrayed as an animal in Beaumont’s tale (since a clear description is never given). But since I was familiar with the Disney version first, I automatically associate the Beast with an animal, and therefore his physical transformation.

But we have no clear way of knowing do we? What do y’all think?

The White Cat: Part 2

“‘You will be released from your catlike form only by a prince who exactly resemebles the husband we have just eliminated’…’I already love you more than my life, my lord,'” (Mme. d’ Aulnoy, 379)

This part of the story was very odd to me. Why would the fairies condemn her to wait for a man who is exactly like her late husband? My first thought was to say: no, they should tell her to wait for man most unlike her husband. However I immediately realized that man is hardly so similar to another–each man is unique. This makes the odds of her ever being released from her cat for highly unlikely, which made so much more sense to me.

At this point, I was almost ready to just forget my momentary confusion and leave this comment behind, and then I read the next part: “I already love you more than my life, my lord”. How does he (or she for that matter) know that she loves him for him, and not for the fact that he resembles so closely her late husband? She says that she was “struck the moment [she] saw [him]” that she knew he was the one who could break the spell (379). So sure, they had 3 years together (with her in cat form) to talk and get to know each other, but who’s to say that she did not just appease him and manipulate him in such a way as to win his love and therefore her freedom? Who said she loved him for him at all, but instead just loved him as her key to freedom? She is inherently human and all humans are guilty of selfish desires and her first and foremost priority was to regain her human form. So, how do we, the readers, know for sure that she genuinely loved him?

It seems by the ending that we should accept her declaration of love as being true. Due to the fact that she was throughout the whole story generous, and was very kind at the end, mending the dispute between the King and his sons, we should just believe that she is in fact genuine. I however, am still doubtful–there seemed too much at stake for her here. Did the fairies then make her punishment so, knowing that she would meet our prince one day? How do we know she truly loved him? We don’t, and that mystery is what made me enjoy this tale. It took the whole tale to reach that point, but that mystic element has secured this tale my appreciation. I like it so much because it made me think, and that’s really what fairy tales want us to do right? They teach us to think for ourselves and learn to be kind and make good decisions–all of which we couldn’t do without thinking for ourselves.