|
Author
|
Comment
|
Zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/14/02 2:32:15 pm)
|
Why Dwarves?
It seems that, in fairy tales through out the world, dwarves are always evil, mean, greedy, or trouble makers. From the earliest stories of Gog and Magog we have the image of fierce tiny men trying to dig through the mountains or the ground or whatever in order to plunder humans. Couldn't there wicked plunderers who were normal sized men and not dwarves. Or is always depicting them as tiny and wrinkled a type of Orientalism - a packaging and denouncing of 'the Other'?
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(12/14/02 5:34:11 pm)
|
????
Er--the seven dwarves were hardworking and took care of Snow White. And the "Seven Little Men in the Woods" (Grimms) were helpful.
But remember--you are talking about societies that regularly used dwarves and other physically and mentally challenged folks as jesters and fools. (Or as signs of the devil's hand in their births.) It's only in modern times that we have accepted--or begun to accept--differently abled folk as whole and wholly human.
Jane
|
Zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/16/02 6:13:49 am)
|
good point
Yeah, you're right. I guess I was thinking more of trolls than of dwarves per se. The main aspect of my question, however, is why evil or troublesome characters in fairy tales are rarely depicted as regular sized humans. Its interesting that trolls or dwarves or leprechauns or whatever they're called are usually greedy miserly tricky and unpleasant. Again, I might be over-generalizing since the seven dwarves in Snow White are perfectly nice hardworking and helpful folk. But you can't deny there's a theme of greed and mischief among tiny characters. Am I was off base here?
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(12/17/02 9:39:43 am)
|
Outsiders
I think you need to begin by thinking why fairy tales are so often about us vs. them. Our good folk against the terrible outsider. Those outsiders are often depicted as too big (troll), too small (fairies, elves, leprachauns), too powerful (ogres), amoral or immoral (fairies, Mr. Fox) etc.
Now think of other outsiders--gypsies, Jews, Muslims, blacks, etc. How are they treated in the society of the folktale? As often they are either named outright as The Other, and the One To Be Watched, or they are diguised. Tom Tit Tot is a black imp. Rumplestiltskin is small, a moneylender, with an unprounceable name. The wicked vizier is often a Moor. Etc.
Jane
|
Zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/21/02 3:46:21 am)
|
The Outsiders
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm talking about!
I find its remarkable how 'outsiders' who probably differ socially or politically are often described as physically abnormal when it comes to storytelling. It still happens today. There's so much Orientalism in fairy tales. Have you read that book? Its pretty enlightening though somewhat bitter. For psychological purposes, 'outsiders' have to be described as physically different so that the 'insiders' can sit more comfortably since the strangers becomes easier to define and segregate.
Anway, its interesting that people seen by western cultures as outsiders - Jews, Muslims, Blacks - have outsiders of there own. I was reading a medieval book of traveles written by a Moor, and to him, the folks beyond India, like present day Russia and China, were described almost exactly like Leprechauns! short, freckled, pointed ears, sharp teeth! I suddenly felt like I was reading an English fairy tale! But it was 14th century muslim! Considering that there were a lot of raiders coming from north and east asia into the Muslim empire, it made sense to describe them so abnormally to underline their danger. And they did look different, slanted eyes and all, so whats with a little exaggeration? Funny too how outsiders almost always come from the East. People who are already living in the east have to look further east for their outsiders. What an interesting phenomenon!
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(12/21/02 7:24:02 am)
|
Re: The Outsiders
I don't think it's so surprising that the evil "Other" is depicted in many stories as physically different, exagerated, and, according to the social standards of the storyteller, ugly. We'd like to believe we could recognize evil and danger by its very look. That we would know to avoid marrying Bluebeard, etc. I'm not justifying the depiction, just thinking about the psychological or social purpose for it. We'd like to believe that evil is not among us or inside us, but something apart. The Armless Maiden type tales are much less unsettling when the girl is in jeopardy from the Devil or from a bad marriage to a troll. When her own father threatens her, evil is suddenly something that happens in the home, coming from a person who could be your neighbor, someone you've said hello to on the street everyday. We would like to think our neighbors don't have the capacity for such evil, or that we'd easily recognize evil on the street and know to not say hello.
Laura Mc
|
Zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/21/02 9:10:21 am)
|
yup
Yeah, that's true. Which is why such depictions still exist in real life and aren't just part of fairy tales.
Like you said, we'de prefer to think that we could recognize evil when we see it. Even though we really don't.
What strikes me, though, is when exaggerated physical features are ascribed to folk who aren't really lethal, just different. Sort of like the star of david on Jews. Ofcourse, Blacks have a bigger problem because their 'strange' skin color is not an imposed feature but a reality. No wonder they were treated so horribly. And they were hardly ever lethal. Mostly they were victims! This is when fairytale-ish descriptions become dangerous.
I guess my point is that 'evil' is too broad. Economics and politics always have a role to play. Like they say, Money Talks, and it can also tell stories upon stories to justify its cause.
I wonder which came first, the imaginary monster or the machievellian story teller.
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(12/21/02 10:58:32 am)
|
tribes
"I wonder which came first, the imaginary monster or the machievellian story teller."
I bet it's simply tribal. Us against Them. Storyteller as keeper of the kingdom. Would explain such seemingly (to modern eyes) amoral tales as Rumplestiltskin (who, after all, is the only one who does not lie and keeps his word?) and Puss in Boots (all right to steal a castle from a troll/dragon/ogre.)
We are the Good Guys.
They are the Bad Guys.
I could say something political now but will refrain.
Jane
|
zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/22/02 5:11:56 am)
|
Ah, Jane, Don't Refrain.
Hey, that rhymed!
I say go for the political comments. It adds an interesting dimension to fairy tale studies! To humanities. C'mon, go for it.
|
bielie
Unregistered User
(12/23/02 9:51:20 am)
|
Politics
"Us vs Them" is a good tool for scaring a population into doing what the ruler wants to be done. Nothing unites like fear. Nothing mobilises like fear. And if "them" are somehow dehumanised (like Communists, or Jews, or Americans) or faceless (like Terrorists), the effect is even better. Trust me and follow me, give me the necessary powers, and I will save us from Them. (But in fact all I want is controll over you.)
In history shamans used the evil spirits, or other tribes as "Them". Religious leaders used witches. That may be why Trolls are fair game in many Norse fairy tales.
Disney's Beauty and the Beast has a nice take on this theme.
Of course reality is a bit more complex than this...
|
zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/24/02 3:42:38 pm)
|
Unity through fear
You're right, it is totally the 'us' vs 'them' mentality. Its such a difficult mentality to melt away too. And its not right that rulers use over-simplified terms to persuade an audience behind an idea. It is definitely clever, and it works, but where is the justice?
I beg to differ on the 'terrorists being faceless' bit. Not faceless at all. Rather, caricatured. Dehumanized and reduced, but definitely not faceless.
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(12/25/02 12:36:39 pm)
|
Re: tribes, and Rumplestiltskin
Re "Rumplestiltskin (who, after all, is the only one who does not lie and keeps his word?)"
I was surprised a few years ago to read C. S. Lewis's summary of The Old Objective Morality Code(tm, ta-tam!), which he presented as an Appendix to his book /The Abolition of Man/.
Keeping Lewis's headings and adding my capsule labels, it came out to this.
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)
I was surprised to see things like mercy, care of children, respect for family ties, etc given more space than things like property, truth, and promise-keeping. Under the whole code, R would lose more points for lack of mercy, taking advantage of a captive who was already in trouble, trying to part a child from its parent, etc, than he would gain for truth and promise-keeping.
Rosemary
|
swood
Registered User
(12/27/02 6:43:53 am)
|
Hmm?
Rosemary,
I think that is an excellent system under which to discuss relative morality. However, the value given any one of those tenets (indeed the tenets themselves) vary by culture. I've heard that in some cultures "saving face" by far out weighs "truth telling," which creates some interesting instances of unreliable narration.
At the heart of so many of these tales is cultural clash. Rumplestilskin is demonized, suggesting that any one of those values (particularly mercy, which has a high value in most fairy tales) would out weigh his perchant for truth telling.
At the same time, lying causes most of the problems in the tale. The miller's daughter would have never gotten into her mess if it weren't for her father's "exaggeration."
Comments anyone?
Sarah
|
zanobia
Unregistered User
(12/27/02 3:13:27 pm)
|
Avoiding Lies vs. Saving Face
Thats an interesting polarity. It's sort of like the freedom vs. security spectrum. In societies where there's a lot of control, freedom of expression is subsequently limited, hence its better to sugar-coat anything before you say it. Also, saving-face is a sign of respect - sometimes fear - towards the elderly or the more powerful.
Of course if you do it out of love, then its not an issue. Likewise, being bluntly honest out of love is no problem either. I guess it is all about intentions.
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(12/27/02 8:02:38 pm)
|
Re: Avoiding Lies vs. Saving Face
In the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, there is no generic "Thou shalt not lie" parallel to "not steal" and "not kill." There is only "not bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor." Lewis cites this under "Justice in Courts, &ct", beside "traduced the slave to him who is set over him."
Several of Lewis's examples under "Law of Good Faith and Veracity" are pretty generic. But there is also a weighting of "good faith", "no trickery, nor swore false oaths", "faithful to superiors and to keep promises", "treachery." I see an element of mutual good faith; or of in-group. :-)
Rosemeay
|
cpe
Unregistered User
(12/28/02 1:47:28 am)
|
normal sized villians
Just a little two cent's worth. But, in ft there are many 'normal' sized humans who are viscious; evil queens who kill little children or cook them and serve them to their siblings, or as the Jew in the Thorn Bush (grimms) encouraging the murder of jews, or the fishermna's wife who depletes him til near death, or , or , or.... there are SO many.
I think Jane's idea that it is easy to project eeriness and weirdness and evil on what one fears is a psychologically sound one. I was just writing tonight about Victor Hugo's Hunchback and how freely people felt to beat and bloody him for to them he was sub-human instead of a soul made by Hands greater.
con cariño,
cpe
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(12/28/02 7:33:48 pm)
|
Intention
I think you had a good point about intention. R's intention was to coerce a mother to give up her baby, and take the baby from the palace to his hut in the forest. I wonder if any culture would approve of this, other than those that think women's feelings of no account, and devalue the bonding of infant and mother. He suggests deceiving the king by spinning the gold himself. He truly says he can spin gold, and he does it, as a means to the deception, which is a means to the coercion. The deception is self-defense for the woman, but not for R. At the end R is shown dying in a fury, rather than shown honoring his promise by choice.
I wish I knew more about the history of the code Lewis describes. I think I've heard speculation that the code was revised for the profit of Scrooge. :-) The parts that made poor people show up for work and pay their debts and tell truth were kept, but the parts about caring for all children and elders, helping the sick and poor, etc were relabeled as sentiment, selfishness, etc. If there was such a larger code in the past, someone now might say it was the feminine virtues that were de-valued and left out (family, children), and the 'masculine' virtues (like paying debts to corporations) left in.
Rosemary
|
cpe
Unregistered User
(12/28/02 10:23:12 pm)
|
adoption
>>>>>R's intention was to coerce a mother to give up her baby, and take the baby from the palace to his hut in the forest. I wonder if any culture would approve of this, other than those that think women's feelings of no account, and devalue the bonding of infant and mother.>>>>>>>>>
you have described a part of the psychological process of coercion to separate mothers from their children, whether through selling away "slaves," or forced surrender of children for adoption (while debasing, devaluing and/or villifying the unmarried mother.) Interesting.
all best
cpe
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(12/29/02 12:02:50 am)
|
Re: adoption
[[[[ you have described a part of the psychological process of coercion to separate mothers from their children, /// forced surrender of children for adoption (while debasing, devaluing and/or villifying the unmarried mother.) ]]]]
Wow, I never thought of that. It is the same moral equation tho. "How immoral and unethical can you be, wanting to keep your baby after you signed the papers and PROMISED to give it up."
An unmarried woman needs food and shelter during the pregnancy, so she has to sign whatever is offered. Then she is pressured to honor that contract as tho it had been a free choice, a legitimate bargain....
Rosemary
|
Jane Yolen
Unregistered User
(12/29/02 4:10:51 am)
|
My take
And of course my take on the R story is different: Rumplestiltskin saves the woman who is in a prison of her own making. He helps her get a kingdom. She is clearly an unfit mother and willing to promise anything, including an unborn, unconceived child, as a means to her own ends.
His taking the child for some unspeakable (and unnamed) blood rites is the old Jewish Passover Plot lie, still believed in parts of Europe and the Middle East--that Jews used the blood of babies to make matzoh.
Jane
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(12/29/02 1:16:06 pm)
|
Takes
I expect there are enough takes for an anthology. :-) I’ve had six before breakfast today.
Sort of a Rashomon thing, Ring and the Book? Different characters telling their own versions?
R as pre-emptive social engineer? If she had refused to promise the hypothetical future baby, she would have passed his test, and he would have considered her a fit mother? The only solid fact I saw in Manheim’s Grimm about her character, was that she did marry the abusive king who had threatened to kill her!
My muse is muttering about Kind/Unkind sisters. Father makes same boast about three daughters. They are put in separate cells. The Smart Sister had tried to stop the situation (without getting her father in trouble), tried to run away. When R appears, the smart sister doesn’t want the gold spun, she wants to escape. When the only choice is gold or death, she takes the gold. (And makes a ladder out of it, which is too soft to escape on....) When R wants her to promise a future baby, she is outraged, but again the only choice is death. So she makes him put it in writing: “to give me your first child if you get to be queen” per Manheim. That gives her plenty of outs; she doesn’t want to marry this threatening king anyway. My muse says she runs away, marries someone else to prevent the king wanting to marry her, accidentally becomes queen anyway (maybe her husband turns out to be a prince in disguise from a different country, and IS she mad at him when she finds out!).
Somebody would suggest capturing R, shutting him up in a dungeon, giving him no food until he promises to give the baby up as soon as he gets it. That would parallel his offer of ‘Your baby or your life.’
In the meantime, the Scheming Sister has become queen and forgotten the promise and become pregnant....
And the Middle Case Sister has had no choice but to go along at each step. In Manheim the girl is not shown as having any choices: her father made the boast, the king said “Spin or die.” And she’s not smart. Maybe she does faint or wring her hands instead of becoming pregnant....
Hm, this is shaping up in something like Jane’s take. If the Smart Sister doesn’t want to have a baby either (at least not till the promise thing is settled), then there’s a case for her and her husband to join with Rumpletstiltskin to get the Scheming Sister’s baby out of a potentially abusive palace.... Hm. Maybe the test of unfitness is, not that Scheming MADE the promise, but that she is willing to KEEP the promise.... Maybe Smart got the baby back from R and then Scheming didn’t want it?
Personally, I don’t like either a baby-eating R or a saintly social engineer. For me the Grimms’s story works because I give the alien some benefit of the doubt. He’s mysterious, complex. He wanted a living thing to love, he had pity and offered the out of guessing the name. His lifestyle is odd, so is his method of hari-kari (or of departing this plane for elsewhere?). He did a good job of spinning – tho if he had had not, the girl would have been killed, so he would have no chance for the baby. His attempt at coercion would be very cruel and evil by most standards I know, but perhaps his standards are different, or his race thinks human females aren’t sentient.... It almost adds up....
Rosemary
|
|
