Fairy Tales 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
In the Seven Ravens as well, the ravens react to finding their sister's ring in a cup by knowing that she is among them. They show a trait of cleverness which would not have been applicable to a dull-witted animal though.
In the The Frog King, though, a handsome prince is transformed into something that is the exact opposite of his natural self, and takes on qualities unlike that make him larger than a mere frog. For instance, he is easily able to persuade the King of his encounter with the princess. More strikingly, the frog, a gross animal that immediately disgusts the princess, transforms into a handsome prince, shocking one who would expect a prince to be something more noble.
In the transformation as well, The Frog Prince changes under conditions very different from the ones the Twelve Brothers and Seven Ravens do. The Prince is changed after an act of cruelty by a young woman, and little explanation is given why exactly. On the other hand, The Twelve Brothers and Seven Ravens are changed after a woman does a great deed of heroinism, which seems to be a more expected reason for a transformation to occur. These changes are interesting, and the discrepancies between them are interesting as well. It would be interesting to know if someone did a more in depth study on how fairy tale characters transform back to their former beings.
But why a kiss? Why not a hug or a handshake to break these spells? Kate, a character in the film French Kiss, says it best: "I mean, you can disconnect from everything but a kiss. A kiss is so intimate-- two people's lips together, their breath a little bit of their souls..." A kiss is the first step to proving fertility and the first leap into sex. Traditional fairytales attempt to assert family values and gender roles: women exist to marry men with good genes and to birth their babies. This explains why the princess in "The Frog Prince" throws the frog against the wall: "Since women have to consider the possibility of pregnancy and childbirth, their thinking and mating skills have tended to be more selective than those of men" (Zipes, "What Makes a Repulsive Frog So Appealing..."). A frog is disgusting and repulsive and most definitely does not have the kind of genes a beautiful princess would want to have in her future progeny, which is why it's not until she throws him up against a wall and he transforms into a handsome prince that she accepts him as a suitable mate and lover.
Sleeping Beauty and Snow White have the perfect domestic skills to be a good wife and mother, but it's not until they marry that these skills can really be utilized; they need suitable men in order to be truly natural in the traditional world order. Being kissed is the only way they can get suitable men and thus break out of their pastoral roles and fulfill their destinies to end up virtuous wives.
What I found interesting about the Zipes article and the “Frog Prince” stories is the argument from Bettelheim about the meaning behind the story and how Zipes refutes it. Both seem to take narrow-minded perspectives on the category of stories as a whole in that they presume that a few specific motifs that are not present in all versions of the story.
Bettleheim asserts that the princess is dealing with anxiety, anger, and hatred. Whereas, Zipes argues that she is “cunning and furious” because the frog is “inadequate and repulsive,” but there is another force (presumably the father) that makes her “accept the dark side” for which she is inevitably rewarded.
However, in one version in particular, the father is the one that makes a promise to the frog but has no say in forcing her to be with him. Instead, the frog drags her away, kicking and screaming. By the next morning, he’s a prince and they live happily ever after. Ok, so, maybe she’s upset about being taken away by a gross frog, but she doesn’t do anything about it and neither does her father.
And in a couple of other versions, the step-daughter or youngest daughter of three is compliant with the requests of the frog, even against the wishes of a stepmother.
So, I guess the point is that it is difficult to analyze the state of mind of the princess in a “Frog Prince” story if the motifs differ to such a degree that her attitude varies from version to version.
Disney, in both Cinderella and The Princess and the Frog, assigns a negative value to the idea of a prince playboy. In Cinderella, the king wants his son to start a family because being a handsome youthful playboy does not make him perfect. In The Princess and the Frog, Prince Naveen’s family cuts him off from the family’s funds so that he will give up his frivolous playboy ways and settle down. Both movies, therefore, strive to maintain and support conservative values of the domestic family by ending in the playboy prince marrying.
While I was first surprised by Zipes’ argument in “What Makes A Repulsive Frog So Appealing” because her transgression of slamming the frog against a wall and breaking promises was rewarded with a prince, Zipes makes valid points about the way these frog prince tales are primarily stories of courting and mating practices. They always end in marriage, making the basic function of the story up to this ending be bringing the two together.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Thus, I would venture further to guess that Propp would agree with Maria Tatar in that Cinderella and Donkeyskin stories may certainly be read as related; both stories fulfill the function of getting the daughter to run away from home seeking personal morality, although one uses the presence of an evil step-mother and the other, an erotic father figure. Still, it is interesting to question where Propp draws the line between a single function portrayed in various ways versus separate factors that thus render certain stories incomparable (or at least not to be read side-by-side). Further, it seems hard to follow his conviction that whatever is not found in multiple renditions of a single story is to be disregarded entirely, as it seems difficult to determine when “it becomes apparent that the new tales considered present no new functions” (Tatar, 389). If it is true that folklore is unique in its minimal agents (performer and listener), isn’t there something to be said for the creative ways in which individual rendering may vary (and further, accounting for those which resonate with audiences and are perpetuated, such as Cinderella)?