|
Author
|
Comment
|
EdensEcho
Registered User
(11/25/02 6:34:11 pm)
|
A small request
Just after reading a few posts, it has become plain to me that there are a great deal of intelligent people on this board. I was wondering if some could offer a little help with my thesis?
This is for a research paper for my english class and I'm having trouble pulling it together.
My topic is: Fairy tales, specifically presenting them in their original for and delving into why they have gotten changed over the years.
My thesis so far: Fairy tales, despite going through many incarnations
have managed to entertain throughout the centuries. But what they
were originally about, and what they have been changed to over time
has managed to have a profound effect on our culture.
The bold part is the part I'm having trouble with. I want to tie it into our culture, without it sounding forced.
Also there was a line from my topic sheet that my teacher loved: "To show these tales, without the rose colored lenses that are Disney."
Is this making any sense?
meghan
I will be
feistyeven
with my
sugar spun wings
|
Marks
Unregistered User
(11/25/02 10:09:25 pm)
|
Yeah, it makes sense.
Fairy tales, thanks to not only Disney but the dumbing down of children's literature in the past, have become more like Nursery Tales. Thankfully there are some brilliant children's authors of late who are struggling to bring the intelligence level up a few notches; Dianne Wynne Jones, Phillip Pullman, Jane Yolen, and others (yes, Even that Rowling woman to some extent). These writers, and others, some of whom post here and some who don't, have been trying to write fairy tales not only for kids, but for their original adult audience as well, and attempting to break down niche market walls with stories everyone would want to read, including those who don't particularly like fantasy fiction or fairy tales.
I included J.K. Rowling because not only are the Potter books fun
to read (in that Roald Dahl sense), but that series started a unique
phenomena of something being almost as popular among adults as it
is with children, and with the exception of genre-oriented people
who already read kid lit and Daniel Pinkwater books, mainstream
adult readers weren't reading books for kids before this, except
TO their kids. Rowling gets a lot of flak, but what she did was
revolutionary, whether one chooses to like her or not. She is opening
the door for not only new writers, but those who weren't noticed
by middle America the first time around. All of Wynne Jones's books
are going back into print - something I've been waiting for for
a long time! ;)
You might consider this; if the old style fairy tale (by old I mean Disney, nursery tales, and warm, fuzzy stories where everyone ends up happily ever after) had an affect on our culture, was it a GOOD one? I think the need is there for both types, personally. I think too much hopelessness and depression is just as unrealistic as the flipside. Evil endings are just as realistic as happy ones. Life isn't always good, but it isn't always bad, either. A lot depends on one's personal experience or way of viewing the world. It also depends on what serves the story best. The ending of the film "Brazil" is incredibly depressing (hope you've seen it already!), but it's the entire point of the movie - the effort to make Terry Guilliam change it was typical of Hollywood's view of American audience intelligence and I'm glad he fought it and won. On the other hand, the ending of Aliens 3 (in fact the whole film) was mean-spirited and vile. The only reason it existed, it seems, was to dissapoint the audience. Like those splatter movies where the main character wins through two hours of some psycho trying to kill her, destroys him, and as the credits are about to roll, is killed by the unexplained and total nonesensical return of the killer. I hate that crap because it makes no sense. To me, that's the difference between an "good" ending and a terrible one - does it have a point?
Anyway, that's my rambling take on the subject. You might want to explore this site and Endicott Studio's site as well for more well thought out and researched information as they pretty much serve this subject and serve it well.
|
EdensEcho
Registered User
(11/26/02 7:38:02 am)
|
Re: Yeah, it makes sense.
Thank you for the affirmation as well as your insight. It has given me a different perspective on how I can write this.
meghan
I will be
feistyeven
with my
sugar spun wings
|
Lotti
Unregistered User
(11/26/02 11:41:57 am)
|
Effect working both ways
Hello Eden,
I am not so sure about the fairy tales affecting our culture bit but would see a lot stronger influence the other way round - for me the culture reflects very strongly in the way a fairy tale is told. So, I'd say the effect works both ways to say the least.
I have a nice book in German that shows the same tale developing over the ages - like Snowwhite, starting with the tale from Renaissance Italy (I think) where she was raped in her sleep and woke up not with the chaste kiss of her prince but when she gave birth to twins. Also, Cinderella, starting with a lively and a little frivolous tale from Italy, being changed to courtly France (Perrault) and then to homely Germany (Grimm).
What influences the tale then, is both the audience - adult only, young girls of the nobility, children - and the "lesson" intended by the narrator. The culture, in other words, amd what it perceives as "appropriate" for the intended audience. Hence, wordplay and double-meanings for the adult-tales, no-sex-bright-colours-cuddly-animals for the Disney versions.
For me, a fairy tale is a bit of a mirror for the culture and time it was written in.
Hope I haven't misunderstood you and sorry if I've been rambling on, Lotti
|
cpe
Unregistered User
(11/26/02 8:35:15 pm)
|
oral tradition and how story evolves
Dear Eden
Just to add to the good ideas that Lotti and others have written here about this subject: this is just my two cent's worth-- my personal experience is far more in tales told aloud and not written. I come from a 'non-literate' old world family who told/tell stories. I come from a long tradition of what some call the 'oral tradition.'
How the story develops throughout our family lines is very different than a good deal of what I have read about over the years-- perhaps because the stories are highly ideosyncratic and cannot be referred to over and over again in print, for they are not popularly published in the past. The stories that are carried often truly have no beginning in time, and no end so that one could, now that story is 'done.'The story goes on and on, like a river, changing, being added to, being taken from, roiling, replenishing. Often there are far more episodes to a story in oral tradtion than I have ever seen in print. In our family, the equiv of the Red Riding Hood story has many episodes, not just one. Cinder-girl also; The Child White as Snow, also.
In the family, story is seen by many as an ongoing living being that has a life of its own just as surely as any person. The cores of the story, the thematic cores which Stith Thompson and others have detailed so minutely and lovingly, remain infinite. But the material surrounding the nucleus, like a true living cell, is porous-- not firm, contained, or 'proper' in any way. A story does not hold a certain shape. It is malleable in the extreme-- it seems the nature of story and the nature of the creative drive in the psyche as well.
The spark of life within the story (I am just telling you how we see it) can leap any fireline laid against it for any reason. The story can be repeated word for word according to the temperament of the teller for years, or change dramatically in an instant while reflecting about what happened in the field that day --or to reflect old feuds from aeons before...and thence to return the way it was being told three weeks ago again. There are any number of influences; amongst most I know from my own family groups and those of other groups, such as my Indian friends, most of how stories are formed come from many sources, including the most misudnerstood by outer culture--- spiritual revelation.
One of the most recent phenomena I have written about is how during the last wars in Eastern Europe, story was cross-fertilized by refugees from different parts of Europe, who not only llived together in work, labor, slave labor and displaced person "camps," but who also shared a common language. The story grafting and changes and extensions and shapes that came from that and thence traveled to America and other parts of the world afterward, was profound.
In my humble experience, story most often changes or evolves in the heart of the teller first, and some tellers carry a personal psychology relating to such, but many others carry what might be deemed an archtypal kind of consciousness that is non-personal and very wide and deep. I remember some speculation in books that because oral traditioned families come from a tiny village in the middle of nowhere with no phones and no electricity, that their persepective on world and psyche must be accordingly small and narrow--or else irrational and/or a form of 'magical' thinking somehow. This is not so in my experience. The stories change, meander or develop in many, many ways through many, many means. Many. One way that is least spoken of in printed word (and for good reason, for those who follow the tradition protect it) is how the creative spirit influences and beckons the soul of the teller to speak in new and different ways than before, what in curanderismo is sometimes called the inspirato.
just another set of perspectives, pretty simple ones some have said....
cpe
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(11/26/02 8:50:07 pm)
|
Could you give some citations?
Cpe,
I am fascinated by your last entry. I would love to read more about it. Could you refer me to your work?
Jess
|
cpe
Unregistered User
(11/26/02 10:19:07 pm)
|
answer to Jess
dear Jess
try The Faithful Gardener: A Wise Tale About That Which Can Never Die; for text (and subtext for those who can red between the lines---smile).
And tell us where your work is too?
all best
cpe
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(11/26/02 11:51:26 pm)
|
Re: answer to Jess
cpe et all,
I loved your comments about the stories changing within your family, cpe. A literary example that came to mind immediately was Jane's novel, "Briar Rose," in which the traditional story has been changed by the grandmother in her tellings to reflect her experiences in the Holocaust. I see the stories change so often in people's minds. I often wonder how often people have actually heard a "mixed" story when they tell me the details of a tale instead of actually confusing the details themselves.
I was raised in a family in which only personal stories were told while all the others were read. I didn't witness fairy tales and folklore changing since I always heard or read the exact some versions for years. But the personal stories certainly change over time. Certainly time, distance, and the experience of telling the tale over and over again change the tale through the years. That is one reason why I love my journal. Certainly it is biased, too, but it has cleared up confusing details that became contested at times. Whether or not the details were reinstated in the tale doesn't matter, but they do emphasize the need for a story over the need for accuracy.
Another point rang true about the story changing in the heart of the storyteller first. I, too, tell a tale again and again and suddenly have a new spin or emphasis on it according to my own experiences. The Princess and the Pea never had anything to do with a domineering future mother-in-law until after some personal experiences. And when I threw in an aside on sudden inspiration about the issue during a telling, I got a bigger response from my audience than I ever had before. It touched several notes with the adults and my intention wasn't to perpetuate the interfering mother-in-law stereotype, although I fear that is what I accomplished. Ugh, just about as annoyingly convenient as the librarian stereotype, but that is an entirely different subject.
But I do relish those rare lightening moments when a story becomes new to me with a different insight or emphasis than what I had seen before. Especially when it comes in performance--as long as it doesn't befuddle my brains in the process.
Heidi
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 3:14:14 am)
|
A side thought
The first time I tried out a new telling--of the story "The Beduin's Gazelle" (which is about grieving and loss and healing)--I was doing my presentation in a church. I decided to tell the story interactively. I put my hand on a woman's arm and said, "Can you give me a pot in which a meal of mourning has never been cooked?"
The woman burst into tears, great heaving sobs. It turned out she'd recently lost a child.
In the end, the story WAS a healing experience for her, but I never dared tell the story interactively again. I just couldn't take it.
Jane
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 8:10:24 am)
|
My work is off-thread!
Cpe,
I am mostly a professional mother now (or at least so I tell my children). My work is rather eclectic, but if you are truely interested, my latest can be found in October's issue of the "Western North American Naturalist," TEMPERATURE RESPONSES AND HABITAT SHARING IN TWO SYMPATRIC SPECIES OF OKANAGANA.
Thanks.
Jess
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 9:16:16 am)
|
A copy of Faithful Gardener
Cpe -
I have tracked down a copy of your book and wait with anticipation to read it! Thanks!!!
Re storytelling: I use a device for many of my oral stories. What I find interesting is that the device remains the same, but the details surrounding it change over time. Some of the details have become "attached" to the device in that I use them consistently to tell the story; others are used sometimes, but not always; and still others are situationally based. I wonder if one were to analyze the content of fairytales by teller or recorder (i.e. Grimm's) whether the same could be said. Does recording the tale hurt the oral tradition in that the details become more firmly fixed to the device? We know that by recording tales, the recorded version does become, at least in some people's minds, the definitive version. Does that stagnate the "cultural impact" of the tale, or alternatively, the "impact of culture" on the tale?
What I seemed to have observed by reading works referred to on this board is that for a short time English language versions of tales were fairly set. Then, Disney came along and changed the cultural version of tales for many people. This was followed by a backlash of those wishing to be more true to the fairytale/folklore tradition. These people turned back to the tales in either an earlier recorded version, or tried to use the tales in recording/telling their thought of current cultural phenomenon (but as I have said earlier, and forgive me Judith, there is a certain property to these tales which one might call "universal).
One last note, re: my article referenced above, credit is due principally to my wonderful co-authors.
Jess
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(11/27/02 10:44:55 am)
|
Cultural impact
Meghan,
to go back to your original premise a little: Part of the reason fairy tales changed over time was due to a desire on the part of adults to "protect" children from stories that weren't originally fashioned for them. Jack Zipes and numerous others (including the Endicott Studio site authors) have written about or collected the tales as first collectively penned by women in the French salons of the 17th century, so it should be easy to make the case for the stories and their relationships to the women who wrote them down....which leads me to ponder what cultural or social circumstances have led to the current rejuvenation of interest in fairy tales (or maybe it just looks like one to me).
With the Brothers Grimm you can find changes, made as early as the second edition of their collected fairy tales, which were designed to bowdlerize them. That was probably the first prudish step toward the tepid versions we ended up with by the time Disney put them to use. So, yes, the tales were certainly cleaned up in relationship to the society. If I recall correctly, they were more bowdlerized in Germany in the 18th century than in many other countries, and that was directly attributable to what was considered appropriate for the children to know.
Greg
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 12:25:29 pm)
|
Tellers
Many years ago Sir Francis James Child, who collected what became known as the Child ballads, said of the changes tellers make, that the tellers are the blind beggar, the nursery maid, and the clerk. The blind beggar, of course, sings for his supper and therefore changes his tale to suit ther audience he hopes will give him money. The nursery maid, needing to put her young charges to bed without nightmares and wanting also to acculturate them into the manners and morals of their classs changes her stories to suit her masters. And the cerlk is the one writing them down, with an audience of the self in mind.
One might also add as tellers--priest (a different set of morals and manners perhaps) and the politician (ditto.)
Jane
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 1:12:40 pm)
|
Disneyblasting
Disney does to fairytales what every reteller does, he changes it to suit his audience. If you don't like it, tough. Enough people do to make Disney one of THE global cultural influences of the 20th century.
Disney also changed with the time: Snow White says her prayers before going to bed, and Rafiki meditates in the Lotus position. A rather accurate reflexion of the changing skyline of American spirituality.
And if you want adult content, try the Lion King. Enough there to satisfy any intelligent adult. (unless you want sex-- which is often not adult but adolescent)
Disney stripped the Little Mermaid of Andersen's religious theme and worldview, and exchanged the Mermaid's sacrifice and rebirth for an alternative: That of the king and the prince. This made the hero (Ariel) less heroic and weakened the story tremendously. But thats my opinion, and lets face it: our culture loves happy endings.
Disney's treatment of Beauty and the Beast (my favourite) is as far as I am concerned excellent. I still watch it everytime my kids play the video! I just wish the Beast had a name...
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 3:42:43 pm)
|
Disney redux
I just wish the Disney beast weren't patterned after classic abuser signs. But we (on Surlalune) have had this discussiom before.
Jane
(NOT a Disney fan at all.)
|
marinka
Registered User
(11/27/02 4:20:19 pm)
|
Re: The Faithful Gardener
What a coincidence! I just picked up this book on a particularly fruitful thrift store hunt last week.
Also scored The Green Man: Tales from the Mythic Forest, and 2 Lemony Snickets.
What luck have I got?
Anyhow, I look forward to reading your book and thank you for that interesting post.
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(11/27/02 10:34:45 pm)
|
Re: Disney redux--going off-topic
Have you seen the listing for this new book due out in March 2003?
Saving Beauty From the Beast: How to Protect Your Daughter from an Unhealthy Relationship
by E. Vicky/Kessner Crompton
www.amazon.com/exec/obido...lalufairyt
I wonder how much the book will deal with the abuse issue from the fairy tale since the title is using it. If it does, I certainly hope it distinguishes the traditional story from Disney's interpretation of it. There are moments in the film which make me extremely uncomfortable now after witnessing so many--too many--friends in abusive relationships. I still enjoy it as a musical and pretty much separate it from the tale I grew up with, but life's lessons have greatly diminished my enjoyment of it.
Yes, we have been there and written this already, but the new book is interesting to me. I will have to order it for the library.
Heidi
|
cpe
Unregistered User
(11/27/02 11:06:28 pm)
|
the name of the beast
>>> I just wish the Beast had a name... >>>
He does, his name is Guido. No wait, it', it's...Fred. No, wait, it's Buster. No, wait, Its Guillermo. No, wait, once I heard it was somthing like Delmar, no? wait, I think it was He-Who-Dances-Heavy, no wait, Jane, Little bell, yo-lin, what WAS his name???
evil cpe made me write this.
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(11/28/02 5:32:30 am)
|
In defence of the Beast
Sorry, I missed the previous Disney discussion, so please forgive me if I plough the same field again.
The fact that the beast is an abuser (a real beast) is the whole point of the story. He is not only ugly to look at, the fairy made him ugly because his soul was ugly. Belle exposes him for what he is. She does what he thinks is impossible. She sacrifices herself to save her father. The beast realises for the first time that there is an alternative to his own selfishness. And then Belle says, Step into the Light. Expose yourself. She forces him to confront his own selfish deeds. And instead of keeping her in a tower cell, he gives her a room.
The beast's gradual inward change is reflected in his outward appearance. At first he walks on all fours, like a beast. Then he starts walking like a man. He starts to wear clothes. Eventually Belle teaches him to dance.
The change is not only gradual, it is also motivated by the plot. His very first unselfish act is to save Belle from the wolves, a turning point in the movie.
In the end the Beast frees Belle, even if it means that he will die. He has changed completely and has sacrificed his own life for her happiness.
The last test he has to pass is Gaston: kill him or spare him. He passes this test.
Belle is a true hero. She not only saves the Beast's life and cosmetic appearance, she also saves his soul. For her the test is to admit she loves a beast, and she only has the courage to do so once he is dead.
Gaston is the Beast's alter ego. He is what the Beast would be if the fairy did not intervene. A beautiful beast.
Yes, the Beast is an abuser, at first. If you do not believe people can change, then you will not believe this fairy tale.
As for me, I believe in fairies.
|
Helen
Registered User
(11/28/02 9:23:03 am)
|
Disney ....
My problem with Disney doesn't lie, necessarily, with the fact that they make changes to original tales in their portrayals: it stems from the nature of the changes that they make, which are generally wholly illogical when considered in light of the fundamental meaning of the story, and somewhat offensive to my sensibilities (as a feminist, and I'm speaking solely as an individual here) to boot. The Grimms also edited, bowdlerized, and retold their tales ... but they kept the core meanings alive. By their seventh edition as opposed to their first, Rapunzel is asking the witch just why she's heavier to pull up the side of the tower than the prince, rather than asking if Mother Gothel might have any idea as to why her clothes no longer fit, which presents the princess, perhaps, as being slightly dimmer than one might hope, but which excised what the Grimms saw as objectionable sexual content, and kept the story true to the original message. They had at least some reason, and they made only the necessary changes. Disney, on the other hand, has the delicacy of a bull in a china shop, and no rhyme or reason whatsoever behind their decisions, other than (as far as I can tell) forcing female characters into "appropriate" roles.
From the very beginning, when Snow White mysteriously became a scullery maid rather than a princess (to increase the pathos of the situation? to create fellow-feeling in the majority of working-class viewers?), Disney has systematically undermined the positions of power that their female characters might have possessed in their original incarnations. Cinderella, who begins life as a rather independent figure, is saved by singing mice, in a situation that Jane defined beautifully in her brilliant book, "Touch Magic_, as "Poor Cinderella. Poor us." (39) But we had further yet to fall ... you really encapsulated my problems with "The Little Mermaid" in your post above. Situations like that make me wonder why Disney doesn't tag their movies with the "based on the story of" marker for the purposes of veracity. Finally, there's "Beauty and the Beast," which I'm still a bit ambivalent about.
I rather like the bits and pieces that Disney got from Robin McKinley's _Beauty_ (i.e., the bookish nature of the heroine). However, the moral of the story - that one person can change another - is something that I categorically disagree with. That's a myth that lies at the heart of many abusive relationships (and we've pretty much all agreed that this *is* an abusive relationship, so I won't go into the many, many things that Disney portrayed as being somehow acceptable behavior in a relationship). This is a huge contrast to the original story. Mme. Leprince de Beaumont was one of the first fairy tale authors to craft her tales specifically for children (making it even more ironic that Disney had to spice this one up by *adding* violence). Her tale of Beauty and the Beast did not involve any changes in the character of the Beast, who was already shown to be a good man, if somewhat picky about his garden; rather, the moral concerned Beauty's ability to perceive his primary virtue - kindness, rather than beauty or intelligence - and her realization that it was a rare and valuable characteristic. I find the original Beauty's position, which involved a reassessment of societal values, far more palatable than Belle's almost martyr-like embrace of a Beast who doesn't really display any of the qualities above. What puzzles me most is *why* Disney would make these changes - an abusive Beast and a more self-sacrificing Belle - to the story. My only explanation (and it depresses me) is that Disney must be harboring some idea that *this* is closer to reality ... this is what people can identify with in modern times.
|
Heidi
Anne Heiner
ezOP
(11/28/02 10:12:57 am)
|
Re: Disney ....
The movie came out when I was in college and living with five roommates. I was very excited about the movie for various reasons and missed the abusive overtones the first time I saw it. Then one of my roommates began dating an abusive man and reenacted so many moments that I had seen in the movie. She even became engaged to him, but fortunately wisened up when his verbal abuse started to hint at a physical threat--hitting walls, almost hitting her, etc. She ended up being one of the smarter friends I have had in this situation.
My mother saw the movie and hadn't read the tale itself in years. One day she stated that she hated "Beauty and the Beast" and when I asked why, hurt since it is my favorite tale, she explained that it was about women thinking falsely that they can change abusive men, usually just by loving one enough. Everything clicked in my head and I had to explain that I did NOT believe that I could change anyone and that the tale was about seeing inner beauty despite outward appearances--a lesson many of us have needed at times and which Helen described so beautifully above. The original beast is only a beast in appearance. And, oh, wouldn't that have been a much more wonderful message in a movie seen by millions of children around the globe without the idea that she has to "tame" his angry spirit, as well as physcially transform him, with her love?
I immediately reread Robin McKinley's "Beauty" and cleansed my palate.
And before we say that a movie cannot affect a girl or woman's outlook, I have used the movie many times in the past ten years to explain classic abuse patterns to friends who couldn't recognize the signs in their own relationships. And I have had ALL of them say, "Oh, if only I could love him enough to make him change like the Beast does. I guess I can't love him enough to do that." Or something very similar. This is a movie almost everyone has seen. It leaves an impression and not the one I would hope for in the naive romantics who might not learn the lesson before it is too late.
No, the movie is not responsible for women learning or thinking this, but it does reinforce the idea way too well.
Heidi,
to whom abuse is an important topic and who has been blessed to have a gentle-hearted father and husband, neither one abusive, thanks to a mother who taught her well
|
|
