Because I had never heard of Donkeyskin before this week, it seemed a strange juxtaposition to learn about a skinned donkey, incest, and Cinderella in the same week. But Tatar proves that the two stories complement each other, not because they are alike in plot but they "conveniently [dovetail] to produce an intrigue that corresponds to the oedipal fantasies of girls." She explains that in fairy tales, wicked stepmothers are inwardly very jealous of beautiful daughters that may attract their husbands and want to kill them. Both Cinderella and Donkeyskin suppress oedipal components: either "love for the father or hatred of the mother." Yet only the former tale has endured in popularity today, because the idea of an unnatural, evil stepmother is much easier to put into a children's story than an erotic love from a father to a daughter..
Along with observing the oedipal aspects of these two tales, I think they are an interesting comparison also because the heroines are so vastly different. From the Ashliman site I read an adaptation of the Cinderella story titled "Fair, Brown, and Trembling" from Ireland. At first I thought that these were three attributes of the Irish Cinderella, but they're really the names of all three daughters! It's kind of like the old joke with the panda who eats shoots and leaves. Unlike the Cinderella included in the Grimms book, virtually all details regarding family life or stepmother/stepsister cruelty are removed. This diminishes the suffering the reader has to read about, but also removes virtually all reason to really sympathize with such a flat, unchanging Cinderella.
Throughout the tale Trembling remains a completely passive character. She follows the henwife's instructions down to the last detail, relies on her help to provide beautiful dresses and horses, gets pushed in the sea by her sister and even swallowed up by a whale. Her passivity and total inaction directly contrast the heroine of Donkeyskin! Tatar describes this princess as "mobile, active, and resourceful... inventive, energetic, and enterprising." She comes up with a clever scheme to escape the creepy advances of her dad, survive disguised in the forest, and win over the prince.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure if this is true:
ReplyDelete"But Tatar proves that the two stories complement each other, not because they are alike in plot but they "conveniently [dovetail] to produce an intrigue that corresponds to the oedipal fantasies of girls.""
In my opinion one of her mayor points in her argumentation is that both stories are so similar. The oedipal fantasies are just another part of these similarities. But without similarities like the ring and the shoe, both girls going to a ball three times, their transoformations from ugly to beautiful, and so on, nobody would really consider that these two stories should be read together.
I agree that there were definitely details in the plot that were very similar and tied the two together (alliteration!). I was just saying that upon first reading I didn't understand the connection, so at least for me it wasn't that obvious of how similar they are. I think that the difference in villains of the two tales were so different that it made the comparison a stretch for me.
ReplyDelete