3 ms·

I agree with the overall idea of the article, but it is important to recognize that our modern assumptions make us think there is a particular version of a fair

by troupe 2y ago

I agree with the overall idea of the article, but it is important to recognize that our modern assumptions make us think there is a particular version of a fairy tale that is the "correct" or "original" version. Stories handed down orally are likely changed in each telling to better fit their audience, so in that sense, the way fairy tales were told almost always included some type of sanitization or embellishment depending on who was listening.

noodleman 2y ago
This is actually an interesting point. There's a tendency to assume that the core of a story is the same, even if the way it's told is different. I wonder how many generations of retellings it takes for us to notice significant differences.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  I think stories about King Arthur would be a good comparison. They fit a similar cultural niche, but we have lots of different versions that were written down over the centuries.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > I wonder how many generations of retellings it takes for us to notice significant differences. That's not really a sensible question. Compare the 17th-century European story of Cinderella to the 9th-century Chinese story of Ye Xian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Xian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Xian The story stayed nearly identical for a period of many centuries. Significant differences could have been introduced at any point, but they weren't.
roywiggins 2y ago
Even the Grimms' original versions weren't meant for children at the time!
jonahx 2y ago
You're technically correct, ofc, but I feel this is a red herring. Sure, all fairy tales have oral origins, and with Grimm you even various translations over the years. Nevertheless, me, my parents, and their parents were all reading basically the same thing, and often the exact same book. That is, the books have been around over 150 years and have become canon in their own right. It is the sanitization of those books that people are objecting to. So you can't just say "hey these things come from an ever-evolving oral tradition and this is just one more evolution". That doesn't accurately describe what is happening.
- relaxing 2y ago
  I’m missing the point where that’s not happening. Is it that a book is not oral transmission?
  - jonahx 2y ago
    Correct it is a book. The analogy to what's going on now is not "oral evolution" but the OG bowdlerization of Shakespeare by Bowdler himself, and we (rightly) see that today as ridiculous.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > So you can't just say "hey these things come from an ever-evolving oral tradition and this is just one more evolution". That doesn't accurately describe what is happening. On the other hand, why should people stop doing what they've done for cenuries because some guy wrote something down at some point? Part of what keeps stories relevant is that parents adapt them to the current context. Stopping their evolution is the best way to kill their transmission. Whether the transmission is oral or written is kind of irrelevant.
- magicalist 2y ago
  Saying "my book is the canon because I've had it a long time" is a type of censorship itself. Having more than one version of a story is not the type of sanitization this article is talking about.
- schneems 2y ago
taberiand 2y ago
I don't think it's a question of the correct version, just a question of the most appropriate for what our children need. The article also mentions modern series and YA novels that have in some ways even bleaker themes, and I think there's nothing wrong with a feel good Disney story either. I think there is a tendency for parents to excessively avoid letting their children be afraid, instead of providing a safe place to experience fear, and these older stories didn't shy away from those themes and so can be useful for bringing some of that safe fear back for children.
slg 2y ago
You don't have to go back that far to fairy tales and oral traditions for this to be true. For example, when people complain about the recent edits to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the canon version that people tend to want to return to is an edit from the 1970s. People rarely advocate for going all the way back to the original version in which the Oompa-Loompas were more directly African pygmy slaves.

by troupe 2y ago

noodleman 2y ago

This is actually an interesting point. There's a tendency to assume that the core of a story is the same, even if the way it's told is different. I wonder how many generations of retellings it takes for us to notice significant differences.

crooked-v 2y ago
I think stories about King Arthur would be a good comparison. They fit a similar cultural niche, but we have lots of different versions that were written down over the centuries.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> I wonder how many generations of retellings it takes for us to notice significant differences. That's not really a sensible question. Compare the 17th-century European story of Cinderella to the 9th-century Chinese story of Ye Xian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Xian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Xian The story stayed nearly identical for a period of many centuries. Significant differences could have been introduced at any point, but they weren't.

roywiggins 2y ago

Even the Grimms' original versions weren't meant for children at the time!

jonahx 2y ago

You're technically correct, ofc, but I feel this is a red herring. Sure, all fairy tales have oral origins, and with Grimm you even various translations over the years. Nevertheless, me, my parents, and their parents were all reading basically the same thing, and often the exact same book. That is, the books have been around over 150 years and have become canon in their own right. It is the sanitization of those books that people are objecting to. So you can't just say "hey these things come from an ever-evolving oral tradition and this is just one more evolution". That doesn't accurately describe what is happening.

relaxing 2y ago
I’m missing the point where that’s not happening. Is it that a book is not oral transmission?
- jonahx 2y ago
  Correct it is a book. The analogy to what's going on now is not "oral evolution" but the OG bowdlerization of Shakespeare by Bowdler himself, and we (rightly) see that today as ridiculous.
pyrale 2y ago
> So you can't just say "hey these things come from an ever-evolving oral tradition and this is just one more evolution". That doesn't accurately describe what is happening. On the other hand, why should people stop doing what they've done for cenuries because some guy wrote something down at some point? Part of what keeps stories relevant is that parents adapt them to the current context. Stopping their evolution is the best way to kill their transmission. Whether the transmission is oral or written is kind of irrelevant.
magicalist 2y ago
Saying "my book is the canon because I've had it a long time" is a type of censorship itself. Having more than one version of a story is not the type of sanitization this article is talking about.
schneems 2y ago

taberiand 2y ago

I don't think it's a question of the correct version, just a question of the most appropriate for what our children need. The article also mentions modern series and YA novels that have in some ways even bleaker themes, and I think there's nothing wrong with a feel good Disney story either. I think there is a tendency for parents to excessively avoid letting their children be afraid, instead of providing a safe place to experience fear, and these older stories didn't shy away from those themes and so can be useful for bringing some of that safe fear back for children.

slg 2y ago

You don't have to go back that far to fairy tales and oral traditions for this to be true. For example, when people complain about the recent edits to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the canon version that people tend to want to return to is an edit from the 1970s. People rarely advocate for going all the way back to the original version in which the Oompa-Loompas were more directly African pygmy slaves.