|
Author
|
Comment
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(4/6/05 11:14 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
>>All of the reasons that Veronica raises are on the list of reasons that I could never really enjoy that version ... and why I was so relieved to encounter Jane's essay on the "American Cinderella." I don't think that I've ever heard it better said then the simple "Poor Cinderella. Poor us." And I still remember how vindicated I felt when I discovered the more flawed, and infinitely more real-to-me depiction of the Cat Cinderella ...
Regardless of the initial priviledge, so often overlooked in modern updates, Cinderella is one of the very few stories in which we see a complete shift in social class ...<<
Well, taking it out of the "female" perception for a second,
consider probably the best-known male Cinderella-story
variant--Joseph and His Brothers:
The story could've been an international-variant source straight down the line--
Poor good/smart/virtuous Joseph, picked on and eventually backstabbed by his jealous nasty step-brothers, finds himself "orphaned", forced to work as a slave, and even framed and imprisoned...
Gets magical-intervention as a reward for not giving up his good, responsible faith, in the form of a free ticket to the Pharoah's dream-interpretation ball, as a present from his Fairy God-Jehovah, and defeats the competition to get his own private dance with the Pharoah and go from rags to riches...
Two interesting distinctions from the standard "bad female role model" Cinderella accusations:
- The character isn't aspiring to appearance, or marriage, or any outward mercenary shows of social-climbing--He just doesn't want to be a slave anymore.
- For all those who wished Cindy would "get some payback time" against her tormenting sisters once she was on the throne, our hero, in fact, gets exactly that chance: Now in a royal position of power, he sees his step-brothers unwittingly in front of him starving and repentant, and toys briefly with the idea of a little "poetic justice", but sees the way the brothers stick up for their youngest, and all is family again through the power of forgiveness...
Obviously what makes one of these stories a Sunday-school lesson,
and the other not, is that one is intentionally meant to
convey the idea of not abandoning one's strength of faith in right
and wrong even in the worst of situations--
Or was it the whole "pretty dress" thing that put us off
in the first place?
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(4/7/05 1:52 am)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
Derek, I'm female. I don't see why I should pretend I'm not when reading and analyzing stories--that's not some kind of deviation from an objective norm. Masculinist "bias" and interpretations have dominated analysis and reading for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and have called themselves "objectivity." My readings are grounded in the texts under discussion. You still haven't explained what you mean by "female bias," and from your posts I can only ascribe it to your personal dislike of interpretations that consider gender to be a category of analysis. That makes the bias yours, not mine.
As to Joseph, I can't pretend to as great a familiarity with the tale as with Cinderella and my copy of the Bible is not with me, although one difference that suggests itself just from your points is that Joseph considers revenge and decides against it, whereas the thought of retribution never seems to enter Cinderella's pretty, empty little head--she's not making a moral choice, she's just vapid. But I believe a more important point is this: that story has not enjoyed the blockbuster popularity of Disney's Cinderella. Little boys are not dressing up as Joseph for Halloween. Little boys have historically had many models for their behavior which have emphasized aggression, activity, and ambition. So the fact that they had one (if they were religious) not-that-popular story which also suggested they shouldn't take revenge, even though it's in the same book which involves slaughter left, right, and center doesn't impress me much, especially because it doesn't address any of the points I raised about Disney's Cinderella.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 4/7/05 5:11 am
|
Black
Sheep
Registered User
(4/7/05 5:45 am)
|
Perrault and Disney Cinderellas
Derek appears to be attempting to argue that these two versions of the Cinderella tale are told as if their moral values are absolute (within the context of the stories... obviously no tale can be ripped untimely from it's historical and cultural context to pretend to absolute moral values in relationship to the wider world) particularly in his interpretation of the stories' moral value judgements on female "goodness". This is wrong. These tales aren't absolutist they are relativist both in their relative relationship to external historical and cultural influences and their own internal "moral" relativism (I'm more interested in ethics than morals but I'm prepared to discuss Derek's personal interpretation on his chosen terms).
Derek's interpretation attempts to argue that these two versions of Cinderella have an essentialist presentation of sex/gender which equates female submissiveness with female goodness as a moral absolute. He also suggests that this female-submissiveness-as-moral-goodness is rewarded by the fairy godmother who he characterises as an "independent moral arbiter" . It is obvious, however, that the fairy godmother is both female and non-submissive. In fact the fairy godmother is the opposite of submissive. She personally dominates the course of the narrative including all the other characters both male and female. So according to Derek's absolutist female-submissiveness-as-moral-goodness interpretation his "independent moral arbiter" the non-submissive fairy godmother must be morally a bad and immoral "independent moral arbiter" because she fails to conform to the pattern of female-submissiveness-as-moral-goodness for which Derek claims she's hypocritically and arbitrarily rewarding Cinderella. In fact this moral absolutist interpretation puts the non-submissive-and-therefore-morally-bad fairy godmother who enforces her arbitrary value judgement of female-submissiveness-as-moral-good on Cinderella in the same category of bad characters as the non-submissive-and-therefore-morally-bad stepmother who enforces submissiveness on Cinderella. This interpretation creates several insoluble moral paradoxes. The only way to resolve them are to give up the attempt to impose a moral absolutist interpretation on these two stories and admit that they clearly flaunt their internal moral relativism.
In a morally relativist interpretation of Derek's ideas then female-submissiveness-as-moral-goodness could be presented as a suitable model exclusively for the Cinderella character without it necessarily also being a suitable model for anyone else, including the fairy godmother (and of course the readers!), although this would possibly require that the step-sisters are also arbitrarily included in the subset of females for whom female-submissiveness-is-morally-good.
But I have to say that Derek's attempts at a morality based interpretation of these two Cinderella stories doesn't work for me even after the gaping holes in its absolutist stance have been patched over.
To recap... in Derek's moral absolutist interpretation his "independent moral arbiter" is revealed as an immoral and hypocritical character trying to impose arbitrary "moral" value judgements on another character for no apparent reason.
So what I want to know is: when is the presentation ceremony for
my Sur La Lune honorary degree in Fairy Tale Moral Philosophy?
Derek said: "An even smarter person would follow up with at least a good reference Lang translation"
No Derek my reference to the original trumps any reference to a translation so if you intended a smarts competition then I won already.
|
Black
Sheep
Registered User
(4/7/05 6:13 am)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
I see that Derek is trying to construct fictional false-arguments-by-Other-people-straw-dogs, again, so that he can hit them with his thoroughly ground axe... again. Has anyone else noticed how he keeps claiming that Other people hold This opinion or That opinion without ever giving any evidence that these straw dogs exist anywhere outside his own imagination?
Derek's latest unevidenced straw dogs appear in his above post after this line:
"Two interesting distinctions from the standard "bad female role model" Cinderella accusations:"
Derek again: "Obviously what makes one of these stories a Sunday-school lesson, and the other not, is that one is intentionally meant to convey the idea of not abandoning one's strength of faith in right and wrong even in the worst of situations--
Or was it the whole "pretty dress" thing that put us off in the first place?"
No Derek, what makes the Bible a source of sunday school stories is the fact that it is part of a religion while Perrault and Disney Cinderella stories are not (at the moment... religions change...) but you are correct that what Christians think of as the Old Testament is full of stories about what you would call an "independent moral arbiter", the Deity (not an English masculine God but a Hebrew masculine&feminine&neuter&plural&singular Deity) Yahweh who doesn't conform to Its/Their own commandment not to kill although It/They have the flimsy excuse that It/They cunningly said something like thou shalt not kill instead of we shall not kill.
Now lets get back on topic and discuss Cinderella stories...
Edited by: Black Sheep at: 4/7/05 6:16 am
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(4/7/05 7:38 am)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
Treading in dangerous territory here, but I think that Derek's parallel between the fairy godmother and Yahweh is pretty interesting. When studying the Torah, there is no question that Yahweh is all powerful. Yet Moses argues with God: there is the sense that humans' ideas can influence God's judgments and actions. God intervenes at moments of extreme need, and tries to chose the most deserving people to bestow blessings upon. Now I know that that's a gross over-generalization, but there is a parallell between "I wish I had a fairy godmother to make my life better" and praying to God, "Please make my life better." One is clearly rooted in fantasy, the other in religion, but the emotions they trigger run along similar lines. To be in a world where fairy godmothers do exist (notice the word god in godmother) would mean believing in supernatural forces that wield magic--not a far cry from believing that prayers can grant wishes.
Best,
Alice
|
Terri
Windling
Registered User
(4/7/05 9:52 am)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
Reena, I have to admit I think it's a pity that you're starting
with Perrault's version of the tale, because he made so many alterations
in the story (and in the character of its heroine) compared to prior
oral versions, or Basile's "Cat Cinderella," written and
published prior to Perrault's "Cinderella" (and which
Perraulot certainly would have been familiar with). To me, to discuss
Perrault's version adequately requires placing it in historical
context. There's been a lot of good scholarly work on this subject,
such as Out of the Woods: The Origins of the Literary Fairy
Tale in Italy and France, edited by Nancy L. Canepa.
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(4/7/05 10:38 am)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
>>Treading in dangerous territory here, but I think that Derek's parallel between the fairy godmother and Yahweh is pretty interesting. When studying the Torah, there is no question that Yahweh is all powerful. Yet Moses argues with God: there is the sense that humans' ideas can influence God's judgments and actions.
To be in a world where fairy godmothers do exist (notice the word god in godmother) would mean believing in supernatural forces that wield magic--not a far cry from believing that prayers can grant wishes.<<
Pretty much, only, whoa, I'm not quite clear on why BS was so hysterically
convinced I was referring to the French self-appointed "independently
moral arbitrating" Fairies as a bad thing--Within
in the context of fairytales, always considered them a good
thing, as it underlines a basic point to the tale that someone,
somewhere (and remember the French's translation of their stories'
"fairies" as "Fates") will see a sense of justice
restored the world...Somebody has to pass out the diamonds to the
good and toads to the bad.
To say that Joseph's deity was acting in the same faith-rewarding
manner as a Fairy Godmother wasn't negating the religious belief,
but, as Tolkien hints...maybe vice versa?
Obviously, in a sacred Hebrew text, one just couldn't go around including stories of Little Red Riding Hood just for pop cultural value, and even culturally-embroidered favorite yarns such as Noah's Ark or How Joseph Made Good In Egypt had to have lessons pertinent to a healthy working relationship with one's faith--Their stories had to be "useful", you know...
But doesn't turn the exact same thing happening to a poor girl
into just a mere makeover or wishful lottery fantasy.
|
La
Reine Noire
Registered User
(4/7/05 12:24 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the tale
Now, aside from some obvious problems of having Leonardo Da
Vinci wandering around 17th century France and the Mona Lisa being
rolled up in a tube, I think this movie is very appealing.
Oddly enough, the things that you point out as being obvious problems are in fact historically based.
Leonardo da Vinci spent the last three years of his life as one
of the artists in the court of François I, King of France. He came
to Amboise in 1516 and died there in 1519. I don't know if this
story is true, but it is alleged that he did in fact have the Mona
Lisa with him.
But back on topic.
I too was surprised not to find Ever After discussed under
this topic. For all the reasons already stated by redtriskell,
I happen to be very fond of this film. The Cinderella character
is not conventionally pretty, nor are her sisters in any way physically
ugly. Personality-wise, one of them is thoroughly unpleasant...but
even so, I could occasionally find myself sympathising with her,
if only on account of her mother!
The Prince was another reason. He's short-sighted, selfish, and arrogant, and he makes mistakes.
I don't recall precisely who said it, but I would venture to say
that part of the enduring popularity of the Cinderella
story is the emphasis on changing one's destiny. Whether this is
through one's own actions or through the intercession of the deus
ex machina fairy godmother is almost immaterial. Perrault's version
dates from 17th-century France, the very height of absolute monarchy.
Even though it was written for salons and aristocracy, we are still
looking at a group of people whose lives were circumscribed and
dictated by the will of the ruler.
Just my thoughts, and apparently rambling ones at that.
~Kavita
|
Black
Sheep
Registered User
(4/7/05 12:45 pm)
|
Moderators and Derek
I would like to draw the attention of the moderators toDerekJ's most recent post as I believe its unacceptable and that Derek owes me a sincere apology for his bizarre characterisation of me as "hysterical".
I've posted this separately as it's meta.
|
Black
Sheep
Registered User
(4/7/05 1:05 pm)
|
Re: Re: Cinderella: The importance and popularity of the ta
Derek said: "Pretty much, only, whoa, I'm not quite clear on why BS was so hysterically convinced I was referring to the French self-appointed "independently moral arbitrating" Fairies as a bad thing--Within in the context of fairytales, always considered them a good thing, as it underlines a basic point to the tale that someone, somewhere (and remember the French's translation of their stories' "fairies" as "Fates") will see a sense of justice restored the world...Somebody has to pass out the diamonds to the good and toads to the bad."
On the contrary Derek I made it clear in my analysis that you were attempting to characterise your idea of "independent moral arbiter" as a "good" thing but that your arguments for that "goodness" are not supportable (as when you claimed the story of Bearskin making a pact with the Christian Devil indicated his "self-aware moral straightforwardness" which it clearly doesn't). If you didn't understand what I said then read it again don't invent a fallacious reading and try to set it up as a straw dog. Please feel free however to either discuss my post accurately or post an argument which supports your claim for your ideas of "goodness".
|
cmoore0013
Unregistered User
(4/7/05 3:52 pm)
|
Cinderella
I have yet to see a film or television version of the Grimm Brother's German tale(the best version, IMO). Most films are based on Paurraut's French version, which is a little sad, because it portrays it's heroine as a ditzy, dreamy slave. I have actually never read a text where it specifically says that the sisters were ugly. They were of course ugly on the inside, but newer film, storybook, and television version portraythem as just ugly in and out.
I thought Ever After was a wonderful version. Probably the best out of all the film versions. I though that Drew Barrymore played a very likable heroine and her character was thankfully not written as a ditzy airhead. This girl was smart and clever. I found the stepmother and sister Margareitte to be horrible. There were many occasions where I wanted Danielle to slap the hell out of them. The other sister, I found to be very sweet and barely ever shows true hostility to Danielle and even when she does, it's out of peer pressure from her mother and sister.
I personally do not think that anyone is really pure evil. They do thinks to help themselves. They are really just selfish. Sin is selfishness. The mother and sisters always act out of their desire to be better and their lust for attention.
Prince Henry in Ever After was not as selfish as one would believe. I actually found him to be one of the more developed prince characters in film history. He was never hostile or cruel to anyone, IMO. He obviously wasn't interested in the evil Margareitte, even though she was beautiful. That doesn't make him cruel or evil, now does it?
I'm just a little bit sick of crazed people saying all these bad things about the main characters of these stories. Stuff like "Snow White was stupid"(well mbaye that's a little bit true, but she was 7 years old), "Cinderella is a submissive ditz"(What the hell else is she supposed to do. She has nowhere to run away to), "Sleeping Beauty is passive"(Duh, that's the pont of the curse. She can't really do anything about it and neither can anyone else)
Since we don't get much backgroud on thse characters, we don't know if they were originally evil, rebellious, wild, crazy, or tom boyish. I mean, who really knows what Sleeping Beauty did in her first 15 years? She could have done any number of amazing things.
Cinderella could have helped out the community or climbed trees, helped her friends, gone to school, orbeen very smart.
All these stories are usually abut bad things happeneing to basically good or normal(if not regal) people.
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(4/7/05 4:59 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella
Check yourself with the "crazed people" talk, cmoore. And I too can live without the loaded term "hysterical," Derek, given the word's history. Insulting people purely because they disagree with you is obnoxious. I manage to make my arguments without slagging off those who've made different ones, even ones that piss me off. It's not that hard. And I note that none of the many "crazed," "hysterical" people have resorted to personal insults and name-calling. That appears to be the province of the calm, objective readers among us. It's juvenile, so cool it.
As the many different tales and movies show, there are a variety of ways to portray Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. They have not been and are not always portrayed as passive, stupid, or submissive. Different tales can add or not add different background information. I analyze what's present in a particular version. If Cinderella can't think of any options besides vapid obedience, that is not some inarguable rule set down by the Story Gods that cannot be questioned by mortal readers (within the genre of the fairy tale, she could easily have run away to the woods and found a house of cats if that's what the storyteller so desired, and even in real life, kids run away all the time without having anywhere to go but the street--it's up to the teller). Of course the character's behavior makes sense with respect to the internal logic of the story--otherwise it would be nonsense. But those internal rules are as open to critique as anything else.
Edited by: Veronica Schanoes at: 4/7/05 6:01 pm
|
Erica
Carlson
Registered User
(4/7/05 7:34 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella
“Most films are based on Paurraut's French version, which is a little sad, because it portrays it's heroine as a ditzy, dreamy slave.”
“I'm just a little bit sick of crazed people saying all these bad things about the main characters of these stories. Stuff like ‘Snow White was stupid’(well mbaye that's a little bit true, but she was 7 years old), ‘Cinderella is a submissive ditz’…”
I found your post a bit inconsistent, cmoore. So it’s fine for you to criticize character portrayals, but not for anyone else? Or is it a certain kind of criticism that bothers you?
Erica
|
avalondeb
Registered User
(4/8/05 8:51 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella
You know, maybe I'm from waaaaaaay left field, but have you ever thought of Cinderella as the VILLIAN?!?!?
Case in point:
In one version of the story, she gets the three dresses from praying to a hazel tree that sprang up from her dead mother's grave. Weren't hazel trees worshiped by pagans at one time? That would make Cinderella a pagan, especially since the tree grants her wishes and literally drops the dresses at her feet. Not to start any controversy, but weren't pagans considered in a negative light during the time period fairy tales were taking shape?
Also, the glass slipper. Why didn't it fit anyone else? I always thought of it as something that changed shape. I mean, come one, not one other woman in the entire kingdom was the same shoe size as Cinderella? Since this "tree" version of the story doesn't have a fairy godmother, who was changing the shape of the shoe? Cinderella herself perhaps?
Another point, the prince sees her and falls immediately in love with her. I think that in the context of the times, wouldn't a women who ensnared a man so easily be "fey"? Case in point is Keats's "La Belle Dames Sans Merci". The knight describes her power to make him love her as magic. Again, who is wielding this magic? Cinderella?
Royalty and preserving the royal line was very important at the time. Think about the Princess and the Pea. The big deal was that the girl caught in the rain would have no chance with the prince unless she could prove her royal birth.
All the other troubled girls in the other fairy tales were all PRINCESSES!! Not Cinderella, think about it, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, the Princess and the Pea, the Frog Prince, Snow White, etc. they were all princesses! When the prince marries Cinderella, it is a morganatic marriage, none of the children could inherit the crown. That means the end of the royal line! The prince wasn't in his right mind, why? 'Cause Cinderella had him bespelled!
I'm not talking about a Fractured Fairy Tale, but that you could take Cinderella in an entirely different light. She could be the "bad girl" or the villian scheming her way to the top.
Afterall, although it was very sad to be consigned as a servant in your own household, she was used to better things. Since she was totally in the power of her step-mother, wouldn't her step-mother demoting her to a servant in her own household be a better fate than being sold as an indentured servant or simply thrown out in the streets?
I don't know, I always thought that there was sometime a little fishy about the whole sweet poor non-royal Cinderella who basically sleeps her way to the top.
Just my two cents.....
|
kristiw
Unregistered User
(4/8/05 10:46 pm)
|
Cinderella
Sheri S. Tepper's "Beauty" takes that idea of the vicious,
scheming Cinderella and runs with it.
|
Crceres
Registered User
(4/8/05 10:53 pm)
|
Re: Cinderella
As does a version in Tanith Lee's short story collection "Red as Blood." In fact, that's a pretty good summary of Lee's premise.
Yay, someone else who has read Tepper's "Beauty"!
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(4/9/05 2:57 am)
|
Re: Cinderella
Rapunzel wasn't a princess. Neither was Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks, or Gretel. Neither of the girls in "Diamonds and Toads" were princesses. Katie Crackernuts wasn't a princess either, I don't think.
It's an interesting re-interpretation, and I do think that pagan motifs and elements survive in fairy tales, but it seems to ignore the fact that the story is sympathetic to Cinderella throughout. Love at first sight is a common fairy-tale trope--Snow White's prince, for instance, falls for her at the sight of her corpse. I'd always understood that the reason the glass slipper fits only Cindy was that she had very small, dainty feet (another reason I personally dislike her). There's another version--Cap o'Rushes, maybe?--in which it's simply a matter of shoes, especially hand-made shoes as they all were back then, molding themselves around your feet so that they fit you best. I do believe that the earliest known Cinderella variant is Chinese, which would suggest small feet. As to succession--I don't know if that works. If the ball is of all the women in the kingdom so that the prince can find a bride, then none of the women in the kingdom are going to be princesses unless they're his sisters, and unless this story is taking place in ancient Egypt, sisters are off-limits. So it seems that within the confines of this story, marrying a non-princess is the whole idea.
Of course, if Cinderella really was a scheming Pagan who slept her way to the top, my respect and affection for her would increase exponentially!
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(4/9/05 8:18 am)
|
Re: Cinderella
>>It's an interesting re-interpretation<<
Really? Looked like a string of cheap standup jokes (which cmoore
already complained about), to me.
But, if we're mining it for actual discussion fodder:
>>I'd always understood that the reason the glass slipper fits only Cindy was that she had very small, dainty feet (another reason I personally dislike her). <<
Me, I was waiting for someone to bring up the whole French Perrault "verre"="ermine"/"vair"="glass" translation mistake that was picked up by the ages, and generally accepted afterwards that glass looked better and served the "no one else fits/accept no substitutes" metaphor more effectively in the end--
But, looks like someone has to do the work around here...
|
Black
Sheep
Registered User
(4/9/05 8:39 am)
|
Re: Cinderella
I see from the above post that DerekJ appears to intend to continue posting on Sur La Lune without taking responsibility for his unacceptable behaviour in posting an insulting ad hominem remark and without giving the moderators and board members any reaasurance that he won't do it again.
Derek also, of course, still owes me a sincere personal apology.
|
Helen
J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(4/9/05 8:57 am)
|
Re: Cinderella
"Really? Looked like a string of cheap standup jokes (which cmoore already complained about), to me."
Okay, I'm sorry, but ... are you kidding? Your style of argumentation really is getting to be disrespectful to the point of unacceptability. So far, none of the people who've disagreed with you have descended into the realms of outright hostility or mockery: try to address them with the same courtesy. Seriously. And consider responding to Black Sheep and Veronica (and, at this point, Avalondeb as well), because, otherwise, you really are going to dig yourself into an unfortunate Pit of Rudeness, from which no man returns.
I always enjoyed the difference of perspective in "When the
Clock Strikes" (the Tanith Lee short story that Crceres mentions,
in which Cinderella actually calls, not upon the services of a fairy
godmother, but upon those of the Devil), but I can't actually apply
it all too seriously ... to me, it always seemed like a tongue-in-cheek
play on the idea that of course a successful woman would
have to result to trickery, and that, of course magic was
evil ... but, curiously, like Veronica, I found myself liking the
anti-heroine that much more for her non-feminine applications. A
Cinderella whose main motivation is pure revenge? Pardon me for
my lack of eloquence, but ... hee. It's just such a delightful
subversion of her established character!
Regarding the vair/verre descrepency: well, yes, it is an interesting shift, interpretation-wise (particularly if one is interested in addressing the membranous qualities of the shoe as opposed to the earthier ones surrounding fur, or, as in "Yeh-hsien," the materialistic or purity issues surrounding gold), but I really don't quite see how the idea of glass relates to the unique nature of the fit ...
"But, looks like someone has to do the work around here... "
Then ... do we have any nominations for who that someone
should be?
|
|
