Blog 2

[shoaib.a.rashid]

Grimm's “All Fur” is a variation of the Cinderella story in which the King wants to marry the daughter because of his wife's dying wishes that he only marry a woman with hair as golden as her's and who is as beautiful as she was. No one can be found to meet this requirement save for the King's daughter who fits the bill by virtue of being the daughter of the deceased Queen. In Tatar's The Classic Fairy Tales, Tatar describes the incestuous motif in Cinderella stories. She describes two styles of narratives. The first style involves the mother/stepmother persecuting Cinderella and the father being absent from the plot. The second style has the mother absent from the plot and the father pursuing Cinderella with less than fatherly intentions. Tatar even suggests that the father's erotic pursual of the daughter in the second style causes the mother's jealousy and persecution in the first style.

“All Fur” is the second style of Cinderella story and has very open incestuous desires as the King, though he is following his wife's orders, does not hesitate when he figures out his daughter fits the description. Indeed, he does not even consider for a moment the implications of this decision.

In my opinion the cloak of a thousand furs could represent societal protection against incest via taboos. A taboo is perpetuated by the willingness of the members of a society to not condone the behavior. The cloak was made from the fur of every animal in the kingdom which is like the part that every member of a society plays by upholding taboos. The daughter puts on the cloak of thousand furs and flees the castle, literally going into the outside world and metaphorically going into the protection of societal taboos by putting on the cloak. Later on when the daughter is living in a new castle, a new home, she still wears the cloak to protect her identity. This literally protects her from the advances of others but if we take the castle to be her new home then once again the cloak can metaphorically be the daughter using taboo to protect her from her new “family”. Interestingly, the daughter sheds her cloak to meet the new king. Perhaps this may be from the daughters own desires for the new king, a stand in for her father. This interpretation gives an even more disturbing ending than usual for the Grimm Brothers.

[lucas.s.kunsman]

I disagree with Shoaib's interpretation of the meaning of the cloak of furs.  To me, the cloak is both All Fur's acknowledgement and shame of the incest taboo.  She recognizes it as taboo, and hides in the cloak in shame.  I feel like the Grimm's reading supports this in her excursions to the ball; she is always returning to her servitude and hidden appearance despite the new king's wonder and bedazzlement with her.

Perhaps because her father fell in love with her for her beauty is why she returns to be All Fur after each excursion; she doesn't want to be loved purely for her beauty, and so she returns and makes the bread soup.  But then why, when she is shown love for both her beauty and her culinary expertise, must she in the end be forced to remove the cloak rather than take it off of her own volition?  I do believe that it is because she is ashamed of the taboo, regardless of the new king's feelings toward her.

[madison.m.miller]

I would like to offer a different interpretation than both Lucas and Shoaib. I do not believe that the cloak is meant to represent protection, as its creation was ordered as an "impossible" task to protect All Fur from her father. However, the impossibility of this task is its protection and that fails as the garment is actually created. Again, in the new kings castle when she tries to hide herself with the cloak after the third ball she goes to, the cloak deceives her and reveals her brilliant dress underneath. I believe that the cloak is more than protection, it is the symbol for Germany itself. 

The father king represents France, the conquering country, who wants to wrongly "marry" or conquer the princess who symbolizes Germany. The princess tries to keep the inevitable from happening by making the King (France) "take a piece from every creature in the kingdom" or conquer every different "kingdom" of Germany. She believes it will never happen, yet it does and the cloak is presented to her. She wears this cloak as a sign of her shame, like Lucas said, but no amount of shame in being conquered or soot she puts on her face can hide the true beauty or brilliance of who All Fur is, and in the end she is revealed as being the stunning princess who is raised up to her rightful place, much like the Grimm brothers believe Germany is wrongfully tossed aside in the kitchen (so to speak) in the French kingdom yet her true identity will soon be revealed and acknowledged and then raised to her proper place among the world's elite as the King's, or France's, equal. 

[Clay Alspaugh]

I believe that Lucas has provided the most adequate interpretation on the cloak of furs in stating that All Fur’s desire is to be loved for more than just her beauty. I will further his argument, as I believe that the fur cloak allows the estranged princess to provide a commentary on the practice of marriage and the feminine role in the household.

 

Originally, the cloak of fur was intended to be an abstract idea that the princess’s father could never physically obtain. It was a mechanism to prevent the social taboo of incest. After the King completes the seemingly impossible task of constructing such a cloak as a means of satisfying his physical desires, All Fur flees from her home with the cloak. When All Fur becomes a member of the new King’s court, the cloak then becomes a mechanism that allows All Fur to define herself and practice social norms to an extent that she sees fit.

 

After the first ball, the princess could easily have revealed herself to the King as All Fur and found immediate marriage and riches, but she did not. As Lucas stated, All Fur wanted to prove to the king that a woman is to be loved for more than just her beauty. Thus, she used the fur as a mechanism to hide herself from a solely physical relationship until she adequately expressed her household skills to the King.

 

Furthermore, I believe that the middle/lower class in Germany saw the wife as a household servant, and All Fur used the cloak as a means of representing the oppressed German household woman who is coveted for nothing more than her abilities as a servant. While wearing the cloak, All Fur is treated poorly and forced to live like an animal- dirty, confined an emotionally unappreciated. Her time spent within the cloak allows her to hone her culinary skill and her ingenuity. As All Fur, she was able to trick the cook and attract the King’s attention. The cloak is a mechanism that expresses the sentiment of the household woman at the time and demonstrates that a woman’s likelihood goes beyond just beauty and servitude- i.e. dexterity and intellect.

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:41:21 PM UTC-6, shoaib.a.rashid wrote:

[tndoss1]

Wonderful analysis and ideas as to what the coat of 1000 furs represents in this fairy tale. A suggestion for your next few blogs would be (if you currently aren't doing it) is to elaborate on your arguments with brief examples from the text (Grimm, Tatar, etc.). In essence we are looking for you to provide some evidence for whatever your opinion or analysis will be.