4 ms·
The thing is, though, that there's no such thing as an "original" when we're talking about folkloric fairy tales. People give way too much deference to the firs
by bunderbunder 2y ago
The thing is, though, that there's no such thing as an "original" when we're talking about folkloric fairy tales. People give way too much deference to the first person who happened to get his own version of a story into print, typically imposing their own middle- or upper-class sensibilities onto it in the process. Those versions deserve respect as literary and scholarly works, but they neither require nor merit actual deference. Rich people using public domain stories as a vehicle for for-profit moralizing in the 18th or 19th centuries is not inherently more laudable than rich people using public domain stories as a vehicle for for-profit moralizing in the 20th or 21st centuries.
- cm11 2y agoAgree there’s no or few “original” stories, and also that that’s not exactly something to bemoan. The quibble I’m making is that the longevity, whether intended by the tellers or not, tends to stick to the story in such a way as to lend not-necessarily-earned historical validity. The story is “time-tested” in an evolutionary sense not “time-tested” as a truth. That is, the story changed to survive, it didn’t hold up against time. Many of the stories take on the latter shine of certainty and legacy—as key selling points. Making it more entertaining to contemporary audiences is fine or normal or whatever.