Fairy Tales
Neal Riemer
in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
will likely cycle around? Anyhow, as you may have guessed I loved them,
and can vividly remember many of them. I especially remember a book of
french fairy tales that were narrated and always ended up with the
narrator getting kicked out of the castle or something like that. I also
remember a section where soldiers were telling the tales to each other.
Anyways, I believe the fairy tale is a lovely form of strorytelling and
shpould not be forgotten. although, I certainly wouldn't want today's
crop of writers messing with them (well, maybe not *all* of today's
writers, but you know what I mean).
Any other lovers of this beautiful story form?
--
Neal Riemer
mori...@netcom.com
Wendy E. Betts
Neal Riemer <mori...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I find it somewhat strange that I hardly ever see fairy tales mentioned
>in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
>to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
>will likely cycle around? Anyhow, as you may have guessed I loved them,
Oh for crying out loud. What will next be laid at "PC"'s door? Sorry,
don't mean to get testy, but the facile labelling of behavior as
motivated by a desire to be PC really drives me up the wall. Take a
look at the "little black sambo" thread and I think you can rest
assured that no one is being silent on fairy tales for that reason.
The group is only a few weeks old, after all.
I also don't think fairy tales are out of favor, although a trend
towards "fractured" fairy tales is certainly becoming evident. But new
fairy tales and retellings of old ones are published all the time. What
I wonder is if they're becoming less popular with people who are into
stories and more popular with people who are into *illustration*
because often they seem to be focused more on the elaborate
illustrations than the story itself. You see a lot of retellings by
the illustrators themselves, which are often bland and essentially
pointless - except to provide something for them to illustrate. I
wouldn't be surprised if this trend is hurting the popularity of fairy
tales with people who are interested in *reading*.
--
Wendy E. Betts, Editor "The WEB: Celebrating Children's Literature"
*for more information about The WEB, finger w...@deeptht.armory.com*
"Personally I just let fashion go...if I wash behind my ears and don't
slouch, that's about as far as I care to go." _Freddy the Pied Piper_
Neal Riemer
Return-Path: <fair...@phantom.com>
Received: from mailhost.phantom.com by netcom9.netcom.com (8.6.8.1/Netcom)
id QAA18477; Sat, 10 Sep 1994 16:19:25 -0700
From: fair...@phantom.com
Received: from mindvox (mindvox.phantom.com) by mailhost.phantom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA09744; Sat, 10 Sep 94 11:36:27 EDT
Received: by mindvox (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA17229; Sat, 10 Sep 94 11:13:59 EDT
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 11:13:59 EDT
Message-Id: <9409101513.AA17229@mindvox>
To: mori...@netcom.com (Neal Riemer)
Subject: Re: Fairy Tales
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.childrens
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Status: RO
In article <moriartyC...@netcom.com> you wrote:
: I find it somewhat strange that I hardly ever see fairy tales mentioned
: in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
: to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
: will likely cycle around?
THis is a very YOUNG group, being only on the NET for a few weeks. Give
it time, and all the good things about children's books will come. :)
: Any other lovers of this beautiful story form?
Here. Fairy Tales and Folklord. I also like "literary fairy tale."
Especially the ones by Oscar Wilde. Any thoughts on these? I can't post
onto usenet because a server problem, so please if possible, pass this on
for me to the rec.arts.books.childrens group. :)
Or, we can e-mail the fairy tale discussions.
--
Neal Riemer
mori...@netcom.com
Charles A Smith
>In article <moriartyC...@netcom.com> you wrote:
>: I find it somewhat strange that I hardly ever see fairy tales mentioned
>: in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
>: to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
>: will likely cycle around?
>THis is a very YOUNG group, being only on the NET for a few weeks. Give
>it time, and all the good things about children's books will come. :)
>: Any other lovers of this beautiful story form?
>Here. Fairy Tales and Folklord. I also like "literary fairy tale."
>Especially the ones by Oscar Wilde. Any thoughts on these? I can't post
>onto usenet because a server problem, so please if possible, pass this on
>for me to the rec.arts.books.childrens group. :)
Me too! Just got back from doing a storytelling program at our local mall.
Told The Crystal Ball and What the Dragon Really Looks Like (fairy tales)
and Miss Maggie (an Appalacia story). If you want a good read about the
importance of these types of stories, get Jane Yolen's Touch Magic. In
addition to this analysis, read any of her collected stories. The Girl
Who Cried Flowers is a good one. Check out another good book if your
library has it: From Wonder To Wisdom: Using Stories to Help Children
Grow.
There are many new authors now writing original fairy tales to compliment
the traditional stories. One of my favorites to read dramatically is
Zilpha Keatley Snyder's The Changing Maze. The rhythm of her language and
the strength of her imagery is magnificent.
I would like others who appreciate this story form to share their observations
as well. There are those "out there" who would break the heart of these stories,
strip them of their energy by suppressing the *tough* magic in them. I will bet
we see some of them here.
Chuck Smith
cas...@ksuvm.ksu.edu
>--
> Neal Riemer
> mori...@netcom.com
Matthew Crosby
>in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
>to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
I don't see fairy tales as being particularily out of favour. They just haven't
come up in this group much. If you want to discuss something about them,
be my guest.
Going back to the PC argument, I'm curious why you think this. Practically
all fairy tales where bowdlerisezed by the Victorians, long before this
mythical "PC movement", and if anything fairy tales these days seem to
be moving back towards the original. (Which, are, btw, VERY NASTY. People
tend not to realise that the sugary-sweet-disgusting-disney versions of
these tend to leave out all the nasty bits)
Bonita Kale
In a previous article, w...@armory.com (Wendy E. Betts) says:
>fairy tales and retellings of old ones are published all the time. What
>I wonder is if they're becoming less popular with people who are into
>stories and more popular with people who are into *illustration*
>because often they seem to be focused more on the elaborate
>illustrations than the story itself. You see a lot of retellings by
>the illustrators themselves, which are often bland and essentially
>pointless - except to provide something for them to illustrate. I
>wouldn't be surprised if this trend is hurting the popularity of fairy
>tales with people who are interested in *reading*.
Tally ho! This is one of my hobby horses--so many lovely picture
books printed with dull or silly words. I can understand that the
illustrator wants the entire royalty, but the books are really
hurt by this trend. Not everyone can do both pictures and text,
but a lot of illustrators think they can.
Bonita
Paula Karen Wirth
: : I find it somewhat strange that I hardly ever see fairy tales mentioned
: : to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
: : will likely cycle around?
I couldn't get enough when I was a kid... I read every book that the
libraries I went to had, and would beg my mom to buy every one I saw in
the bookstores... That, and Mythology were my addictions at that age...
Seemed to really inspire my imagination...
--
Paula K. Wirth
Basking in ceaseless childhood at
2323 Dorrington, Houston TX 77030 (713) 677-7455
Save the world. Kill your TV and teach someone to read.
Janet M. Lafler
Neal Riemer <mori...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>I find it somewhat strange that I hardly ever see fairy tales mentioned
>>in this group. Would this be because many fairy tales could be considered
>>to be non-PC? Or are they simply passing out of favor in a trend that
>>will likely cycle around? Anyhow, as you may have guessed I loved them,
Wendy E. Betts (w...@armory.com) responded:
>Oh for crying out loud. What will next be laid at "PC"'s door? Sorry,
>don't mean to get testy, but the facile labelling of behavior as
>motivated by a desire to be PC really drives me up the wall.
Wendy, you're right, we *must* have a psychic link. My response
to Neal's comment was exactly the same, but I was so irritated that I
couldn't brought myself to reply.
Heh.
My first thought on entering the meat of this thread is to suggest that
fairy tales aren't really children's literature. They're folktales, and
were not specifically "written" for children. I wonder if they came to
be identified as "children's" tales as realistic fiction became the fashion
for adult literature in the 19th century and fantasy was relegated to
children?
>I also don't think fairy tales are out of favor, although a trend
>towards "fractured" fairy tales is certainly becoming evident. But new
>fairy tales and retellings of old ones are published all the time.
I tend to think that "fractured" fairy tales are pretty uninteresting
unless they're really well done. They're becoming so commonplace that
they've lost a lot of their punch, and subversion of the conventions of
the old tales is creating a whole new set of cliches. A lot of writers
who write "fractured" fairy tales don't seem to have anything in mind
except making fun of the old conventions. After it's been done a few
times, this ceases to be funny in and of itself, and the poverty of the
tale becomes apparent. Good satire doesn't consist simply of ridiculing
its object, but of illuminating it or using it to *say* something new
and/or interesting.
What is truly fascinating to me about fairy tales (and most folktales)
is their starkness, and the fact that the symbolism is right there on
the surface of the story. They are structural tales, told in bold colors,
bare of detail. They are warnings, expressions of deep-seated fears and
anxieties, expressions of hope, prescriptions for success. They are moral
tales, in which the good are rewarded and the evil punished. I've never
seen the point of most fairy-tale "retellings" because to me the elabora-
tion of the tale, the filling in of psychologically realistic detail, the
introduction of complexity and ambiguity obscure what, to me, is the
essence of the story.
/Janet
--
Send mail to: ja...@netcom.com
"To be pretty one really ought to look interested."
Andy Perry
Lafler) wrote:
> What is truly fascinating to me about fairy tales (and most folktales)
> is their starkness, and the fact that the symbolism is right there on
> the surface of the story. They are structural tales, told in bold colors,
> bare of detail. They are warnings, expressions of deep-seated fears and
> anxieties, expressions of hope, prescriptions for success. They are moral
> tales, in which the good are rewarded and the evil punished. I've never
> seen the point of most fairy-tale "retellings" because to me the elabora-
> tion of the tale, the filling in of psychologically realistic detail, the
> introduction of complexity and ambiguity obscure what, to me, is the
> essence of the story.
Actually, one of the really interesting things about the Grimms' tales,
for example, is their incredible diversity. Check out Ralph Manheim's
translations, and you'll see what I mean. They were so intent on
collecting the tales direct from the tellers, that is, on the ethnographic
project, that they did nothing to standardize the format or context of the
tales. So some have narrators while most don't. Some have morals which
are uttered as part of the tale. Tone is radically different from tale to
tale.
Which doesn't mean I disagree with your point about psychological realism
being an inappropriate embellishment. Imagine a modern retelling of The
Mouse, the Bird, and the Sausage...
--
Andy Perry We search before and after;
Brown University We pine for what is not.
Dept of English Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@Brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st00...@Brownvm.bitnet -- P. Shelley via Rumpole
Wendy E. Betts
Janet M. Lafler <ja...@netcom.com> wrote:
>What is truly fascinating to me about fairy tales (and most folktales)
>is their starkness, and the fact that the symbolism is right there on
>the surface of the story. They are structural tales, told in bold colors,
>bare of detail. They are warnings, expressions of deep-seated fears and
>anxieties, expressions of hope, prescriptions for success. They are moral
>tales, in which the good are rewarded and the evil punished. I've never
>seen the point of most fairy-tale "retellings" because to me the elabora-
>tion of the tale, the filling in of psychologically realistic detail, the
>introduction of complexity and ambiguity obscure what, to me, is the
>essence of the story.
I saw a terrific example of this point being utterly missed a while
back...it was in _Chinye_ an African version of the "good sister is
rewarded/greedy sister is punished" tale (one of my favs...don't tell
my sister! ;-) ). The first half was quite well told, but the second
half was reduced to a few sentences, completely obliterating the
structure of the story - in other words, obliterating the entire
symbolic value. I'm almost certain it was the editor trying to force
the author to keep it to a certain number of pages, I can't believe a
storyteller could be that obtuse.
Susan C. Mitchell
: Going back to the PC argument, I'm curious why you think this. Practically
: all fairy tales where bowdlerisezed by the Victorians, long before this
: mythical "PC movement", and if anything fairy tales these days seem to
: be moving back towards the original. (Which, are, btw, VERY NASTY. People
: tend not to realise that the sugary-sweet-disgusting-disney versions of
: these tend to leave out all the nasty bits)
Word on rec.arts.disney is that they've got their eye on "Rapunzel." I'd
really love to see them use the *original* text -- the one that even the
Brothers Grimm only printed once, and then revised. (The scene is where
the witch finds out that Rapunzel has been entertaining someone else in
her tower. Rapunzel's question, revised: "Grandmother, why are you so
much harder to pull up than my handsome prince?" Rapunzel's *original*
question: "Grandmother, why have my clothes grown so tight? They used
to fit me perfectly, what's happened?")
And, too, we who *read* remember the rather nasty fate of Cinderella's
stepsisters ...
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
===========================================================================
"It is not the writer's task to answer questions but to question
answers. To be impertinent, insolent, and, if necessary, subversive."
-- Edward Abbey
Janet M. Lafler
>Actually, one of the really interesting things about the Grimms' tales,
>for example, is their incredible diversity. Check out Ralph Manheim's
>translations, and you'll see what I mean. They were so intent on
>collecting the tales direct from the tellers, that is, on the ethnographic
>project, that they did nothing to standardize the format or context of the
>tales. So some have narrators while most don't. Some have morals which
>are uttered as part of the tale. Tone is radically different from tale to
>tale.
Yes. I wonder why it is that most of the Grimms' tales which are really
well known now are the prince-and-princess tales. Some of my favorites
are the ones in which various inanimate objects (needles, dishes, etc.)
have adventures.
On the other hand, it's amazing to see all the endless permutations of
particular "fairy tale" elements again and again. The three brothers
(or sisters), the helpful animal, the magical object, the princess marriage
contest, the cryptic but ultimately useful advice, the animal who turns out
to be a person under an enchantment, etc. I belong to a group that gets
together once a week to read stories aloud. One of the members has read
a lot of Grimms' tales. After a while, whenever he opened his book to read,
we'd all tease him with questions like "Are there three brothers in this
story? Is one of them named Hans? Any talking animals?" But we still
enjoyed the stories.
>Which doesn't mean I disagree with your point about psychological realism
>being an inappropriate embellishment. Imagine a modern retelling of The
>Mouse, the Bird, and the Sausage...
Indeed.
Janet M. Lafler
>Word on rec.arts.disney is that they've got their eye on "Rapunzel." I'd
>really love to see them use the *original* text -- the one that even the
>Brothers Grimm only printed once, and then revised. (The scene is where
>the witch finds out that Rapunzel has been entertaining someone else in
>her tower. Rapunzel's question, revised: "Grandmother, why are you so
>much harder to pull up than my handsome prince?" Rapunzel's *original*
>question: "Grandmother, why have my clothes grown so tight? They used
>to fit me perfectly, what's happened?")
As I remember it, in the original Rapunzel bears twins. And the prince
gets his eyes gouged out by thorns (though he's miraculously cured later).
Somehow I doubt that Disney will use that version....
Gabrielle Hodson
>I also don't think fairy tales are out of favor, although a trend
>towards "fractured" fairy tales is certainly becoming evident. But new
>fairy tales and retellings of old ones are published all the time. What
>I wonder is if they're becoming less popular with people who are into
>stories and more popular with people who are into *illustration*
>because often they seem to be focused more on the elaborate
>illustrations than the story itself. You see a lot of retellings by
>the illustrators themselves, which are often bland and essentially
>pointless - except to provide something for them to illustrate. I
>wouldn't be surprised if this trend is hurting the popularity of fairy
>tales with people who are interested in *reading*.
>--
There are certainly many facile picture books of fairytales, particulary
collections, but there are also fantastic picture book retellings. Ideally,
the pictures do not distract from the story but are an integral part of the
narrative technique of the author.
A good picture book is not an illustrated line of text, but a text that
relates the story through a synthesis of diverse means of narration. I dont
see this kind of picture book as anti *reading* but as a reading challenge
which requires a different reader involvement than a straight verbal text.
Sorry if this is a bit of pontification, but Im a bit obsessed about the
topic as Im currently avoiding finishing an essay on the structures and
narrative techniques of picture books.
Any Anthony Browne fans out there?
--
Gabrielle g...@muffin.apana.org.au
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
Wendy E. Betts
Gabrielle Hodson <g...@muffin.apana.org.au> wrote:
>w...@armory.com (Wendy E. Betts) writes:
>
>>I also don't think fairy tales are out of favor, although a trend
>>towards "fractured" fairy tales is certainly becoming evident. But new
>>fairy tales and retellings of old ones are published all the time. What
>>I wonder is if they're becoming less popular with people who are into
>>stories and more popular with people who are into *illustration*
>>because often they seem to be focused more on the elaborate
>>illustrations than the story itself. You see a lot of retellings by
>>the illustrators themselves, which are often bland and essentially
>>pointless - except to provide something for them to illustrate. I
>>wouldn't be surprised if this trend is hurting the popularity of fairy
>>tales with people who are interested in *reading*.
>There are certainly many facile picture books of fairytales, particulary
>collections, but there are also fantastic picture book retellings. Ideally,
>the pictures do not distract from the story but are an integral part of the
>narrative technique of the author.
>A good picture book is not an illustrated line of text, but a text that
>relates the story through a synthesis of diverse means of narration. I dont
>see this kind of picture book as anti *reading* but as a reading challenge
>which requires a different reader involvement than a straight verbal text.
Well yes, that was sort of my point. The fairy tales I'm seeing a lot of
are devoted to the illustrations at the expense of the words. Ideally
you do have a synthesis between text and pictures in a picture book -
but I'm seeing fewer and fewer of these types of fairy tale picture
books and more and more that are merely for the glory of the
illustrator. My point is that those books may be doing damage to the
fairy tale form by turning off readers who are looking for good books, not
just pretty pictures.
Andy Perry
>In article <35m7bj$s...@nic.scruz.net>, w...@armory.com (Wendy E. Betts) wrote:
> >A good picture book is not an illustrated line of text, but a text that
> >relates the story through a synthesis of diverse means of narration. I dont
> >see this kind of picture book as anti *reading* but as a reading challenge
> >which requires a different reader involvement than a straight verbal text.
>
> Well yes, that was sort of my point. The fairy tales I'm seeing a lot of
> are devoted to the illustrations at the expense of the words. Ideally
> you do have a synthesis between text and pictures in a picture book -
> but I'm seeing fewer and fewer of these types of fairy tale picture
> books and more and more that are merely for the glory of the
> illustrator. My point is that those books may be doing damage to the
> fairy tale form by turning off readers who are looking for good books, not
> just pretty pictures.
If I could jump in here, I think you're misreading Gabrielle's point.
She's saying that pictures require just as much "reading" as words, and
that pictures can narrate. That is, they can tell a story, not merely
illustrate (which is to say, adorn) selected moments of a story whose
"telling" is entirely verbal. I'm with her, although the statement in the
abstract might obscure lots of complex issues about why it is that
"children's books" are illustrated more often that "adults' books" and
general cultural constructions of the activity or passivity of various
kinds of reading/consumption.
Did I mention that narrative theory is my field?
Donna Woodka
>> >relates the story through a synthesis of diverse means of narration. I dont
>> >see this kind of picture book as anti *reading* but as a reading challenge
>> >which requires a different reader involvement than a straight verbal text.
A good reader develops the skill to form a picture in their own minds of
what they are reading. Illustrated children's stories help children
develop their visualization skills. Another way to develop them is to read
to the child and let them visualize what is being read. I think you need
both the visual and auditory stimulation to develop good reading skills -
so you need more than one type of book. Picture books are easier to "hook"
younger kids on since they can "read" them on their own, but almost all
kids enjoy being read to as well.
>> illustrator. My point is that those books may be doing damage to the
>> fairy tale form by turning off readers who are looking for good books, not
>> just pretty pictures.
There are many good books that are composed *only* of pictures. :^)
And I *love* a beautifully illustrated book - it makes reading the same old
story that much more interesting as a parent. You can also talk to the
child about what is in the pictures, involving them even more in the story.
That is certainly part of the fun with a Dr. Seuss book, for instance.
>If I could jump in here, I think you're misreading Gabrielle's point.
>She's saying that pictures require just as much "reading" as words, and
>that pictures can narrate. That is, they can tell a story, not merely
>illustrate (which is to say, adorn) selected moments of a story whose
>"telling" is entirely verbal. I'm with her, although the statement in the
>abstract might obscure lots of complex issues about why it is that
>"children's books" are illustrated more often that "adults' books" and
>general cultural constructions of the activity or passivity of various
>kinds of reading/consumption.
Kids books are illustrated more often because they don't visualize as well
as readers as adults do. But lots of adult books are illustrated - I have
an entire shelf full of Doonesbury, Breathed, and other "illustrated" books...
Wendy E. Betts
Donna Woodka <woo...@pauline.uucp> wrote:
>
>>> illustrator. My point is that those books may be doing damage to the
>>> fairy tale form by turning off readers who are looking for good books, not
>>> just pretty pictures.
>
>There are many good books that are composed *only* of pictures. :^)
>And I *love* a beautifully illustrated book - it makes reading the same old
>story that much more interesting as a parent. You can also talk to the
>child about what is in the pictures, involving them even more in the story.
>That is certainly part of the fun with a Dr. Seuss book, for instance.
>>If I could jump in here, I think you're misreading Gabrielle's point.
>>She's saying that pictures require just as much "reading" as words, and
>>that pictures can narrate. That is, they can tell a story, not merely
>>illustrate (which is to say, adorn) selected moments of a story whose
>>"telling" is entirely verbal. I'm with her, although the statement in the
I think you are both missing *my* point. I'm not questioning the value
of pictures in picture books. As a reviewer, I know the synthesis of
words and pictures is very important. What I'm talking about are books
which ignore that fact and place no importance in the words. They
settle for dull retellings that do nothing for the story, as if nothing
mattered but the pictures. This is not the same as a wordless book,
which is designed to tell the story alone.
No matter how pretty the pictures, a book with a dull text is not a
good picture book. That is all I'm saying...if I haven't made it clear
by now, I give up.
Andy Perry
Woodka) wrote:
> >If I could jump in here, I think you're misreading Gabrielle's point.
> >She's saying that pictures require just as much "reading" as words, and
> >that pictures can narrate. That is, they can tell a story, not merely
> >illustrate (which is to say, adorn) selected moments of a story whose
> >"telling" is entirely verbal. I'm with her, although the statement in the
> >abstract might obscure lots of complex issues about why it is that
> >"children's books" are illustrated more often that "adults' books" and
> >general cultural constructions of the activity or passivity of various
> >kinds of reading/consumption.
>
> Kids books are illustrated more often because they don't visualize as well
> as readers as adults do. But lots of adult books are illustrated - I have
> an entire shelf full of Doonesbury, Breathed, and other "illustrated" books...
We're rapidly leaving the realm of topics appropriate to this newsgroup
(not to mention this thread!), but I can't resist. Why assume that the
visual realm is the privileged realm for understanding stories? Are all
books primarily pictorial, with some "painting" their pictures with words?
MREDINGER
One of the things about them is that people tend to think in terms of
the "real fairy tale." I've done a lot of work on "Cinderella" and I
would be hard put to give you the ur version. We think of the European
versions from Grimm and Perrault, however there are variants from all
over the world, perhaps less familiar to us in the U.S. I love it when
people create their own variants, make these stories their own.
I think we get on shaky ground when we insist on certain true versions
of these tales. For example, "Cinderalla" tales do not always have
slipper tests, nor do they neccessarily have fairy godmothers. Cinderella
can even be male!
Monica Edinger
mred...@aol.com
edi...@nltl.columbia.edu