For me, Bettleheim's characterization of fairy tales was very interesting, yet slightly unsettling. He writes, "More can be learned from [fairy tales] about the inner problems of human beings, and of the right solutions to their predicaments in any society, than from any other type of story within a child's comprehension." After reading the fairy tales of this week, I'm not sure that these stories are the best building blocks of a child's early development (example: cutting off the children's heads to save the life of the king's most faithful servant, Johannes). However, he points out what a great tool fairy tales can be to create a basic foundation for children to learn basic morals, though I think most of us would agree that learning from experience is far more effective than simply reminding children of the horrible consequences of not behaving a certain way from tales. Did anyone else catch Bettleheim's mention that fairy tales help children overcome "oedipal dilemmas"? Awkward... I wonder how widespread he thought these dilemmas are.
I, too, preferred Darnton's historical perspective on tales versus Bettleheim's romanticized, overly positive view on the effect of fairy tales. The over-psychoanalysis of the Red Riding Hood story was amusing, but as a (potential) English major I would agree that people will find meaning out of anything. I love how Darnton characterizes a historical view of fairy tales as a mixture of "anthropology and folklore": literature is one of the best ways we can see what lives were like for the group of people and culture of the time these fairy tales came about. The details that each time period chose to include, remove or change can reveal so much about the peoples from which they came.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you referenced Darnton when he says he is learning about anthropology and folklore. In all genres of reading, not just fairy tales, this is a huge element that shows us what life and people were like in various times and cultures.
ReplyDeleteThe last line of your post reminded me of something I thought during Wednesday's class: we continually mention that the parts excluded or included in X story at X time can tell us about a group of people at X time. But what about the parts that have been unfailingly included over time? It seems lime those story elements could tell us even more, because we get as sense of what characteristics of society have been constant.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought, and probably not a well-explained one.
*it seems like
ReplyDelete