The Case Against Fairytales
by Arielle Schussler on Mar, 13 2013Let’s face it, fairytales have become quite the staple in our society. Not only do the Disney Princesses continue to reign supreme in the preschool to elementary school crowd, but we have currently seen quite the boost in fairytale inspired cinema – whether it be live action remakes of classics such as Snow White and the Huntsman, Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Jack the Giant Slayer, ABC’s Once Upon A Time, and NBC’s Grimm… just to name a few. To be perfectly honest, it seems like none of us can withstand the nostalgic allure of fairytales. But perhaps that is due to a misrepresentation in the rose-tinted hues of these beloved classics, as upon further examination, these stories darken considerably. The question we arrive at is this, should we continue exposing our children (and ourselves) to these tales? To a certain extent, given fairytales’ explicit themes, absolutist nature, and use of scare tactics… I would argue no.
Truth be told, fairytales are somewhat infamous for their explicit sexual and violent subject matters. As Maria Tatar, a Professor of German Literature at Harvard University, states in her book The Hard Facts of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales, “sex and violence: these are major thematic concerns of tales in the Grimm’s collection… [they] frequently take the perverse form of incest and child abuse…” Still don’t remember anything too disturbing? How about in Little Red Riding Hood when a very naked Little Red gets into bed with the wolf? Or in the end of Cinderella, when two doves peck out the eyes of the evil step-sisters during the wedding? Chances are that you have never heard of any of these candid details due to the extensive censorship fairytales had to go through in order to join the Disney oeuvre. This is not to say that Disney completely cleaned up all of the creepiness. Remember in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves when the evil queen wants Snow White’s heart? True, it may not be as bad as the original where the queen wants the heart so she could devour it, but this does not take away the frightening idea that someone wants the heart of a little girl in a box. Truth be told, that movie frightened me so profoundly as a child, I had to ask my mother to hide the VHS case to avoid seeing the frightening witch posed on the cover.
I wonder who could possibly be the bad guy in this scenario. Cute kids or that ugly creepy looking thing..
Another major issue with reading fairytales to children is the fairytales’ tendency towards an absolutist view of good and evil. You flip open a fairytale and you can pretty much figure out who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy”. In Hansel and Gretel, the good guys are the children and the bad guys are the step-mother and the witch. In Jack and the Beanstalk, good guy is Jack, bad guy is the giant. So what is the harm in black and white labels of good and evil? Why does it make fairytales undesirable to read, especially to children?
To put it quite frankly, it can hinder the development of empathy. How can a child feel empathy towards an antagonist when all the child is exposed to is the side of the protagonist? There are no redeemable qualities in any of these fairytale villains, no indication of their humanity, which in turn makes it very difficult for the child to put him or herself in the villains’ shoes… especially when villains are characterized as “ugly.” This inability to be empathetic towards other characters besides the protagonist can crossover to a child’s life, where instead of an evil witch, there is an evil bully or an evil teacher. These absolutes of “evil” are promoted by the structures of fairytales, where there is always good and evil, and are upheld by the child’s own one point perspective.
Additionally, these absolutes of good and evil can promote a form of victim mentality. Instead of seeking to understand what the child did to cause the teacher to be disciplinary or what he or she did to trigger the bully’s response, the child would see these individuals as “out to get them” and the child as an innocent victim of circumstance. Now although this may be the case sometimes, there are also other times when the teacher may punish a student due to his or her talkative nature and the “bully” may be angered by not being invited to some social event. The point is that not only do fairytales appeal to a child’s self-serving and biased perspectives through creating single layered heroes and villains, but they also promote self-serving and biased perspectives outside of the storybook. And what kind of people do these children become when the grow older? I rest my case.
*If I ever get over this whole “death” thing… I promise never to accept food from strangers ever again… unless there is a strong man around to save me!*
The use of scare tactics in fairytales also renders them undesirable as literature. One of the most prominent arguments in favor of fairytales is that they teach children morals. However, fairytales are not really seen tales of morality, but rather, as Maria Tatar explains in her other book, Off with Their Heads! Fairytales and the Culture of Childhood, “cautionary tales.” She describes cautionary tales as “usually aiming to deter children from being too inquisitive about the world they inhabit and deviating in any way from behavioral norms” and furthermore, by “using intimidation, cautionary tales persuade children to obey laws set down by parental authority, celebrating docility and conformity while discouraging curiosity and willfulness.” For instance, in Little Red Riding Hood, Little Red reflects on her terrifying experience with the wolf and thinks to herself, “as long as I live, I will never by myself leave the path, to run into the woods, when my mother has forbidden me to do so.” So basically, Little Red attributes her encounter with the wolf as punishment for disobeying her mother. Getting eaten alive was punishment for disobeying her mother.
Stories like Little Red Riding Hood do not teach children morals. Instead, they scare them into behaving. Like Tatar explains, cautionary tales “masquerade as educational tales but are in reality sadistic stories aimed at controlling behavior.” There is usually an element of punishment in each fairytale to deter the reader from engaging in unfavorable activities. Snow White falls victim to a rib crushing corset and a poison comb when she exhibits qualities of vanity. The Little Mermaid loses her voice and tail as she lusts after the prince. The use of scare tactics in order to control the behavior of children is not necessarily the best way to teach a child morality. Personally, I believe that morality is acquired through understanding why something is right or wrong to do, not by scaring someone into doing “the right thing.” The essence of morality relies on its choice, whether one decides to do right or wrong. Someone is not particularly morally sound if he or she is doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or solely on the idea of self- preservation. Therefore, conditioning children to respond to situations favorably through implementation of fear is not the greatest way to teach children morality. All it really teaches children is how to be afraid.
One main argument in favor of fairytales is that they psychologically allow a child to resolve inner conflicts between the positive and negative
“So the prince doesn’t love you. Just promise me you won’t do anything stupid like kill yourself and then have your creepy ghost-self stalk him.”
forces of the self. As Sheldon Cashdan, a Professor of Psychology at University of Massachusetts at Amherst writes in his book The Witch Must Die – The Hidden Meaning of Fairytales, “children, in listening to a fairytale, project parts of themselves into various characters in the story, using them as psychological repositories for competing elements in the self.” He gives the example of Snow White, where the evil queen represents vanity, Snow White represents the part of the child trying to overcome this unwanted attribute, and the defeat of the evil queen represents the victory of the positive forces of the self over the negative ones. Without a doubt, this idea sounds impressive but is probably not very plausible. For the most part, when a child hears Snow White, he is probably not thinking about how the conflicts in the story accurately depict his inner turmoil due to his dissociation with certain qualities of his self. He is more likely to think “ow, ow, ow, those heated iron slippers must really hurt!” or something to that effect.
As mentioned earlier, another argument that supports the reading of fairytales to children is that they contain morals. Morals like obey your elders (Little Red Riding Hood) and do not talk to strangers (Snow White). Although the teaching of morals to children in a way that would be of interest to them seems like an effective method, scaring children into it is not the way to go about things. In other words, the idea of including morals is well- meaning and appropriate for children but the way that they are presented through scare tactics makes fairytales an inappropriate medium for teaching children morality.
While I have outlined what I take to be a pretty convincing case against fairytales, this is not to say that I am immune to their charms. I tune in every Sunday night to watch Once Upon A Time and Disney’s Beauty and the Beast remains one of my favorite movies. But if I had to make suggestions for (Grimm) fairytale alternatives, these would be on my list: The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, The Velveteen Rabbit by Margery Williams, Winnie the Pooh stories by A.A. Miline, and in terms of cinema, anything Hayao Miyazaki just for the empowered female main characters. But that is another blog post.
Sheldon Cashdan, The Witch Must Die- The Hidden Meaning of Fairytales
Maria Tartar, The Hard Facts of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales
Maria Tartar, Off with Their Heads! Fairytales and the Culture of Childhood
Trending Articles:
-
Cool!! Thanks this really helped me for an essay I’m doing! I’ll definitely site you! Hey do you think this is a good thesis?, Over exaggeration is a poor way to teach children morals because it either sets them up for disappointment, by being overly optimistic, or leads them into paranoia, by being overly gruesome.
Thanks again!
Hayden -
pray for the kids .think carefully what message is imparted in the books .make right choices and understand things yourself even if possible put your self in childs shoes before you give them book choices
read the holly scripture for best moral prospective and teachings.
these are some advice for us adults….do we really know the purpose behind theses fairytales and how they are interpreted.so please read authentic books and sincere intended one.
thank you -
interesting to read about these thoughts of child psychology and certain aims behind some books etc
I would say that morality is very sensitive subject and needs to be understood for ourselves adults in order to impart anything to kids.i would say if we have faith in good then we should passs on the good teachings to our kids in the most affective way they will benefit from it
I will still read on about this esp the books mentioned here some I don’t really know well .and if there are any good and true books out ther please proof read yourself and put yourself in kids shoes and see what messages u r giving to these innocent humans of our future
lov them sincerely don’t forget to pray for them too.!!! -
(Accidentally clicked post comment, bear with me please.)
Anyway. Fifth. If you’re concerned about empathy, may I suggest Hans Christian Andersen? As a small child I felt immense empathy for the steadfast tin soldier, but also happy that his love lived on. I remember as a small child feeling intensely bad for the little match girl, but also happy that she was in heaven with her beloved grandmother and away from her evil abusive dad. I was sad for the ugly duckling but overjoyed at his triumph.As for sexual abuse concerns what about children who suffer such abuse? These so called “bad” stories could prove to such a child that they are not alone. Why take that away from them? It’s rather cruel if you ask me.
Kids learn from fear all the time. They learn that if they cross the road they could get killed. They learn that if they run away from their guardian at the shops that they could be abducted. They learn that if
they put their naked hand over something hot that it will burn them. They learn that if they’re really bad, a police person will arrest them. Of course fear shouldn’t be used to teach them everything, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. Fear is sometimes a legitimate teaching tool and goes back to our hunter gatherer days. Fear was a tool to keep people alive. It’s a biological natural response to stimulI.Kids love to be scared. If they didn’t authors like Roald Dahl would have never sold a book and he’s regarded as one of the best. They wouldn’t participate in Halloween or go on theme park rides or go to haunted houses. It’s fun to be scared sometimes.
Kids are curious by nature and that doesn’t change if you read them fairytales. If anything they ask more questions when you read them to the little monsters.
Fairytales are an important part of all our cultures and an important part of literary history. They introduce children to the concepts of danger, they offer them justice and all in a safe fantasy realm.
Personally, I think denying a child fairytales is a grave disservice and does not do them any favors. They need to learn that our world isn’t safe, they need to learn to be wary and hthey need to learn their history.
-
Okay you bring up some interesting points but I respectfully disagree. Firstly fear is a natural, normal human emotion. Kids need to experience this emotion in order to help develop healthy coping techniques. If you sheild a child from fear, how are they supposed to cope with fear as adults?
Instead of coddling the ankle biter discuss it with them. Help them figure out that fear is a natrual response, how they can cope with it in a healthy manner and help them understand what is actually scaring them. Analyzing fear and understanding it is actually far more comforting than a million mum hugs.
Secondly, black and white morality is common in young kid’s books because that’s what they understand the best, particularly boys. Absolutes are just how many young children view the world. It’s why you won’t find many three dimensional characters be they villain or hero until the middle grades, when children will be able to understand the complexities of grey areas better. Obviously some children will be able to understand those complexities at different times. So it really depends on the child.Thirdly most kids love violence and will often view violence in fairytales as just silly nonsense. They’re more sophisticated then we give them credit for. They will most likely be able to distinguish reality from fiction.
I mean look at kid’s playground games/songs. London Bridge is falling down is about a Viking seige on England. Ring around a Rosy details the black plague. Three Blind Mice has mice chopped up by a butchers knife. Kids laugh at these songs because even they know that it’s just silly nonsense nowadays.Fourth, most fairytales deliver justice, which will make most kids jump for joy. They long for justice, they understand the concepts of good and bad and most kids will expect the bad guys to be punished. My 6 year old nephew cheers when the wicked witch is pushed into the oven. He says things like, “people shouldn’t cook kids” and that story is very silly. See? Even a 6 year old knows that it’s make believe and not a freaking guide for life!
Fifth.
-
Thank you so much for furthering the discussion! As a testament to the thoughtfulness of your response, I would like to reply to your points and concerns.
First, I would like to give a quick anecdote concerning the placement of fairy tales in the /academic/ sense. I took a Children’s Literature class as part of my undergraduate curriculum and on the very first day of class, the professor made it a point to emphasize that fairy tales are NOT considered Children’s Literature. Fairy tales are usually either geo-cultural tales (as the Grimm’s Stories are tales gathered amongst the Germanic people) or stories told in at the height of French literary saloons as a sort of double-entendre literary foreplay. While the genealogy of fairy tales by no means cements them into these categories, the original purposes of these stories is reflected in their contents. As such, if one were to study Children’s Literature, an exploration into fairy tales would be considered (by most) an exercise in futility.
Now, I hope to discuss each of your points.
1) I do discuss fear in fairy tales.. but not in terms of railing against of its presence IN fairy tales by any means. My argument was that most people try to assert that fairy tales teach morality as a way of arguing that fairy tales are an appropriate form of entertainment for children. MY counter-argument is that the way that fairy tales “teach morality” (if they do at all) is through the use of fear. Any Ethics Professor can tell you that while fear is a natural human emotion, it probably should not be at the basis of any grand moral scheme… as it signifies no moral development beyond a perhaps type of Hedonism (if we are going to be charitable to fear-based morality at all). Furthermore, the implementation of fear, as it cannot be for the development of a thorough moral structure, can only be understood as a device for behavioral conditioning… something akin to threats or a form of deterrence.
A good way of understanding that point is something along the lines of this hypothetical:
Suppose Individual A refuses to ever commit murder on the basis that it is wrong for one to take another’s life… given such and such moral outlook.
Suppose Individual B refuses to ever commit murder on the basis that he is afraid of the possible consequences (i.e., jail time, execution, etc.)
Would you say that both of these individuals have the same level of moral development? Or that Individual B has any form of morality at all, for that matter?If one were to argue that fairytales teach morality, it could only be the kind of morality demonstrated in Individual B’s cognitive process… which most would claim not really demonstrative of any kind of morality. It just demonstrates behavioral conditioning… “don’t do this or you will be severely punished!” As such, if one was to use the argument for morality as a means of demonstrating that fairy tales are good for children to read… they would be mistaken.
This of course, is not to denounce the use of fear in general… especially when fear is (as you pointed out) so natural. However, the use of fear in fairy tales is not to confront children with it… but as I said in the original blog, “to scare them into behaving.”
2) I think you kind of proved my point in the “black-white” argument. Yes, this is how children view the world. To further barricade them with these stories is to further perpetuate this kind of thinking. The problem is that most children use this time period to understand the world and as such, anything they encounter becomes ingrained in their own behavioral tendencies… and thus, children in turn internalize such binary structures and perpetuate them well into adulthood (as we can see in our own societies where binaries run rampant). If we are going to give children stories, shouldn’t they be tools to better understand the world rather than cement what they think they already know?
3) I don’t think most children love violence. Perhaps some boys did as children (as I am going to guess you are male by some of your claims) but by no means does that necessitate that MOST kids do. In fact, that is probably why we have the ratings we do in movies. Imagine showing a child a movie with violence… most people would find that extremely inappropriate. So why are we barricading children with similarly violent stories?
In terms of the songs and rhymes you cited, I doubt most elementary school children know what they are really about. They sing and rhyme because these songs and rhymes have been integrated into their culture… not because they are cognitively aware of/ have accepted their premises.
4) Any person acquainted with the concept of “Justice” to its fullest extent couldn’t possibly pin the definition down any more than someone can properly define what is “Beauty” (as both utilize their own definitions IN their definitions i.e., Justice is doing what is just… Beauty is what is beautiful and so on). The claim is not that fairy tales explicitly claim a guide to life… but rather instill and ingrain a /way/ of understanding life.. one that is particularly problematic for children to internalize. To say that fairy tales deliver justice is doing a disservice to a real understanding of justice… as I can hardly imagine that birds pecking out the eyes of mean sisters could ever in any legal or common understanding constitute “justice.” What it really constitutes is revenge… which is something else entirely and cannot be confused with justice.
5) I love Hans Christian Andersen (way more than Grimm Tales)… but again, not for children. Most of his stories are personal metaphors of his own experiences, something to be understood as an abstract autobiography. Not as a form of entertaining children. That being said, I loved his stories as a child… but they were painful to hear. The Little Mermaid, contrary to what Disney had told me, committed suicide. I could hardly wrap my mind around suicide at such an age… and then to be further told that this was a story I was supposed to enjoy as a form of entertainment upset me to no end.
6) The sexuality in stories comes from their history in Literary Saloons and being geo-cultural tales. None of the sexuality in fairy tales is supposed to be understood in terms of “abuse” but rather an amusing double-entendre kind of way… like, “Oh… I know what you are talking about,” winkwinknudgenudge. Since fairy tales were originally a form of /adult/ entertainment, those adult themes have withstood much of time and are still present in the text, perhaps less explicitly than they have in the past. However, this goes to further demonstrate that if the point of fairy tales is to entertain… the intended audience is clearly not children. Again, none of the sexuality present in fairy tales is of an abusive nature… just an entertaining one. As such… clearly not for children.
7) There are a great many things one can learn from fear… just not morality. Please see 1) again… as I have discussed that pretty extensively already.
Closing remarks- fairy tales were not originally intended as stories for children… and that is reflected in their contents. There are arguments FOR fairy tales as a proper form of entertainment (teaches morality…. introduces concepts of danger and fear… so on so on and so forth) but I think that those arguments do not hold. The genealogy and contents of the fairy tales themselves contradict using them as a platform for entertaining or teaching children. To say that they do seems to only serve to someone’s agenda… as they do not claim to do either of those things inherently.
-
Sorry for the late reply, I expected it to email me but alas it didn’t transpire.
That is fair enough. I do know that Fairy Tales were adult stuff, originally. However, we have adopted them as children’s fare and if you’ve ever known an elderly German or British person, they do use them to teach kids things or at least like to scare the crap out of kids with them. lol!
1) Well, at least there’s one parent out there not just complaining about scary things and then hiding their kids from them. Very good to hear a parent being a parent!
The thing with Parents is they have kind of always used fear to control kids. That probably evolved from our hunter gatherer days like I said. And we continue to do so. Like warning kids that if they disobey that they will be punished (grounded, no more Xbox priviledges etc.) They’re told that if they break the law the police will get them and lock them up, for example.
You could make the argument that Fear is used to condition and control all of us. Obey the law and live without bars.
So then, are all law abiding citizens people with High Moral Fibre or are they just afraid to be locked up?
Is that way of child rearing ultimately detrimental? I honestly don’t know as I am not a psychologist. I do agree with you that fear probably shouldn’t be used to teach Morality.
Although that does seem to be the constant theme with most religions. You could argue that a God Fearing Christian only does good things to get into Heaven and avoids doing bad things because they fear Hell and do not wish to go there. Are all God Fearing Christians genuinely good people with high Moral Fibre or are they all simply trying to appease their Diety? Conversely one could argue that our morality originally evolved from….well Evolution. If we all went around killing each other then we would not have lasted long as a species. Thus it makes sense that we as a species shun those that do and find the act abhorent. (Obviously, one should not use the Theory of Evolution as a philosophy or guide to life regardless.)
What is morality anyway? Is it malleable? Unchangeable? Does it come from a divine Creator? Or our basic suvival instincts? Or even just our humanity/sentience/intellect? Is is some combination of those concepts? That in itself leads to a very complicated and interesting debate. But I am not ethics professor. So I leave the door open to others more knowledgable.
2) I don’t think that these stories will necessarily barricade a child into only viewing the world like a Sith. To talk to a child you must go to their level and learning has to go at their pace. Otherwise you risk pushing them too far or not far enough. Yes, stories should be used to teach and enrich their understanding. However, you cannot just throw information at a child and expect them to understand it all at once. You don’t tell a child at the age of 3 that stealing is wrong and then proceed to list every single instance where it might actually be acceptable. That would only confuse the child. Children will process things at their own rate and you can help them progess, obviously, but you also have to engage them. This is why we have all sorts of different media aimed at kids. Most kids aged 5 and under will probably watch Sesame Street or Play School with glee. But sooner or later they will inevitably crave more of a challenge. They could move straight onto shows like Animals of Farthing Woods. (A British TV show filled with death, a blood fued and animals eating one and other. This was geared towards kids aged 6 and up, unlike the books, which were written for middle graders, oddly enough. It was awesome, but I was always into the dark stuff.) Some kids might find that a bit too dark and confronting and instead seek out something a little more easy to digest. Like Rupert or the Never Ending Story. Some (like I did) might jump straight to fare like the Lord of the Rings or Friday the 13th. It all depends on the child.
Look at stuff like Roald Dahl, for example. His children’s books are all filled with black and white morality, one dimensional characters and grotesque but silly violence. But despite this, his writing is often praised as engaging and entertaining. Dahl engaged kids at their level and often his books are from the perspective of a child. We even read them for English class in grade 3 and 4! I learned a lot about literature, comprehending/deconstructing stories and using my imagination. I would call that furthering my understanding/learning. When we reached grade 5 we moved on to more challenging chapter books with characters with more layers and grey areas in the dilemas faced. My point is that, yes, we should all try to enrich a child’s understanding/learning. But you have to go at their pace. You have to gradually introduce them to grey concepts and multi layered dilemas. Build upon those as you go. But you can’t expect them to just learn that at once or straight off the bat. And since Fairy Tales (or the Beatrix Potter Tales, Mother Goose etc) are quite often the first thing a child learns to read, it has to be at their level to engage them. If it’s too confronting or confusing they will probably give up out of frustration and seek out something easier for them to comprehend. So it makes sense that they’re often used just to introduce the concepts of good and evil. They don’t have deep complex characters facing multi faceted dilemas. And that’s perfectly okay. When a child is ready to comprehend grey areas better you can move on to more challenging fare.3) I apologize for my previous wording. That should say some kids love violence, not most. My apologies. I am actually a girl. But I have always loved boy things, so yeah. lol
We are a violent species. Always have been always will be (most likely.) Violence is actually quite common in children’s literature and movies/TV shows not just Nursery Rhymes. Stuff like, again, Roald Dahl books or Jamie Rixx (Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids. That stuff is epic! Loved that as a kid!) The Nancy Drew Mysteries has the ever present threat of death and The Wizard of Oz books all have violence in them, to name but a few. Even the toned down classic Wizard of Oz movie has violence in it. I mean, Dorothy crushes a Witch to death with a house! The Looney Tunes and the Muppets (although they were just as much for the adults) have always featured heavy slapstick, violence and have always been quite popular amongst the kids. As have superheroes like Superman or Batman beating the ever loving hell out of evil doers. Boy cartoons are often very violent. Even when they’re toned down for TV (read butchered dubs of anime.) Stuff like Dragon Ball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, Digimon, Transformers (the multiple TV shows, I refuse to even look at the movie franchise) Ren and Stimpy etc. Lol can you tell I’m a 90s kid?
Heck, even Disney can get quite violent. I mean, I think they have the record for most deaths/crying scenes amongst any other animation stuido!
Their climaxes are usually big and bombastic with the evil villain coming to blows with the good guy/s.
Kids probably like that stuff because it shows the bad guys being punished and the good guys winning. That’s something kids can comprehend because it makes sense in their world view. But it’s all at kiddie level, not the stuff you see in M or M15 rated movies. (In case you’re American, I mean R rated movies. Our rating system tends to be more lenient.)
The good guys fighting the bad guys is also exciting and gives us hope that the good guy will win. Kids generally love that kind of thing. That’s why little boys (and sometimes us girls)like to have pretend sword fights and play cops and robbers. You need conflict at some level to make things interesting and engaging. Even Elmo faces conflicts!
Fear gives us a sense of adrenaline. It’s exciting and fun. Kids like to be scared to a certain extent I think. That’s why amusement parks are always fun for the kiddies, that’s why they like to dress up as monsters for halloween, that’s why some will watch Courage the Cowardly Dog excitedly from behind the couch(sofa) or perhaps sneak a peek at a horror film or subtly try to watch something a bit beyond their level. Kids like to be challenged but will do so at their own pace. We will always have cutesy fluffy things for kids, like Barney the Dinosaur or Dora the Explorer. That’s all well and good, but I think kids would be bored if that was the only thing they got to experience. I think they need something different, maybe a little darker, a little challenging or a little scary every once in a while. It’s intriguing and fun as long as it’s reasonable or in moderation. It’s a refreshing change of pace to the cutesy learning stuff.4) I mean justice in the most extreme and iteral sense. Most Fairy Tales have bad being punished and good being rewarded. That’s as old as time itself, that is the justice I’m talking about. Yes most times it is often very violent and grotesque in the original texts. But we often censor the hell out of that anyway.
5) Yay! A fellow Hans Christian Andersen fan and someone who favors him over the Grimms! I’m not alone! My favorite tale, even from when I was a child, is The Steadfast/Hardy Tin Soldier. I watched a cartoon version when I was a kid, not knowing the original story. The cartoon intrigued me because it was very dark. Not content wise, but like it seemed to take place at night. Because it was all shadowy and the atmosphere was tense and suspenseful. So I’m watching it, as a 6 year old kid, waiting for the Ballerina and the soldier to hook up. Only to be thrown a curve ball. So I watch, horrified but intently interested, as they both slowly burn to death in each other’s arms. *sniff*
It was…………the best thing in the world! Well, to me at the time at least. The ending was challenging to me, it made me examine it multiple times. I felt all these feelings that I never felt before after the story, because I was so used to “and they lived happily ever after.” It made me examine my feelings and why I had them. It made me question the story and myself. I think that is tantimount to enriching one’s understanding and learning. Of course his stories aren’t for kids, but it’s not like they can’t read them anyway. Maybe except for the Red Shoes or the Little Mermaid or The Shadow. They read things at their understanding and once they grow up they can appreciate the multiple layers.6) Being a 90s kid, I can’t really sympathize with your reasoning much. Double entondres were everywhere when I was growing up. Don’t believe me? Watch an episde of Animaniacs or Rocko’s Modern Life! Or even the Tick or the early Spongebob! Heck since I’m a quarter British it was almost required viewing to watch a Monty Python Movie lol. I loved Life of Brian as a kid and I’m quite sure I did not understand even half of it. Hell, my cousins and I went even further and watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show and adored it as little kids. I’m fairly certain 90% of that movie alone went over our heads. And to bring up Roald Dahl again, because if you can’t tell already I’m a huge Dahl fan, his books often had sprinklings of adult jokes. Not to be inappropriate but because he knew adults would be reading his books to their kids and gave them something they could enjoy while the pups wouldn’t be any the wiser. *shrugs* Fairy Tales might have been the first to do that, but it’s practically become a staple. Or at least was when I was a wee littlin’. I don’t think it’s harmful if the child doesn’t even know what it means. And it’s always pretty fun learning about the layers you missed as a kid. Excepting outright explicit talks about sex or pornography I fail to see the harm in a few adult jokes thrown into children’s media.
7) I do acknowledge that. But again, I don’t think that necessarily negates the importance of keeping alive a pretty benign and now diluted tradition.
I’m fairly certain that most people don’t actually read the original tales to their kids. Instead they usually present a more child friendly fluffy version and then let them explore the more grizzly aspects when they’re ready. Well, unless they’re traditionalists, I guess. Or German or British. lol. So again, I fail to see why they’re so harmful.
-
-
Comments