When she wrote of Warner's argument on the evolution of Cinderella's story (psychological realism, difficult to accept, censoring occurs when fairy tale coincides with experience, and so on), Tartar came to the conclusion that these story edits likely occurred "as the tale made its way from an oral culture to a literary tradition" (Tartar, 104). And that idea, boys and girls, got me thinking. If it's true that people really began editing stories in earnest only once the literary tradition began, then what exactly made them start? Is there some fundamental difference in hearing about a father who lusts after his daughter and reading about a father who lusts after his daughter? Pushing the point further - is there a difference between hearing the story and seeing it on a 30 ft x 70 ft screen?
I'll take the initiative to answer, "Yes. There is a difference."
In shifting from an oral to written (and then filmed) culture, I'm hypothesizing that the "ugly" parts of fairy tales became difficult to document simply because those very "ugly" bits would be the most difficult to accept. One can spin a spoken story whichever way one wants, but a written story has a finality to it that the oral story does not. So it is written, so it must be. (The same goes for film.)
Now, attempting to tie this epic aside back to this week's prompt, Tartar insists a number of times that censorship of the stories is "not surprising," and I do agree that is a good point. However, it seems that the admittance of censorship's unsurprising nature goes directly against her main argument. On the other hand, I say that Tartar is completely right in her counterargument: why indeed would anyone want to anthologize an incestual tale? And particularly for audiences uninterested in its historical capital? Wouldn't we rather contain the evil stepmothers to a realm in which mice can talk and birds can sew?
I think you make a very valid point in addressing the difference between telling a story about a father lusting after his daughter and reading or watching one. This notable difference is validated through your response and i completely agree.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the difference between the written and the oral is a lack of personality in the tales. At least for me, if i heard a story (no matter how fantastical) from someone around a campfire that included incest, I would think...wow someone in this world knows someone that has had an incestual relationship. I realize that the story is still a story, but i can't help but ascribe a personal touch to a story told orally. Written and filmed tales are sometimes extremely personal, but i still feel a detachment from the material. There is no right way to interpret this difference, so i can't really account for the reason why people would want to anthologize an oral tale involving incest.
ReplyDelete