Cinderella

“Cinderella has been reinvented by so many different cultures that it is hardly

surprising to find that she is sometimes cruel and vindictive, at other times

compassionate and kind” (Tatar 102). It’s hard to take those words to heart

because for so long, the image of Cinderella, at least in American culture, has

been of a content beautiful blonde wearing a gorgeous ball gown dancing the night

away with Prince Charming. That description is the iconic one presented by Walt

Disney in the 1950 film Cinderella. However, after reading the different versions

of Cinderella’s tale, I must agree with Tatar in that she has been reinvented and

her tale does vary from culture to culture. For example, in some versions the plot

is formed around the struggle between Cinderella, the heroine, and her evil

stepmother and stepsisters, but in other versions the struggle is between

Cinderella and her father full of desire and lust. In any case as similar or

different as all the versions are, they have all helped taken part in shaping what

we now consider a heroine or an ideal princess.

The Classic fairy tales book mentions that the plots of Cinderella are driven by

two different things, depending on the tale. The first, and most commonly

associated with Cinderella, is the jealousy of Cinderella’s stepmother and

stepsisters and there uncanny need to put her to domestic work. The second, which

came as a completely new idea to me, is the idea of Cinderella’s father desiring

her to become his wife because she is the most beautiful, wise, and accomplished

of all women. The plot driven by jealousy makes the tale of Cinderella mirror the

plot in the tales of Snow White. However, I felt as though the focus of

Cinderella, at least in the versions we read for class, was less on the ongoing

competition between Cinderella and her stepmother and more on Cinderella making a

life for herself away from her familiar home. I think the same could be said about

the struggle between Cinderella and her father, with the exception that while

enjoying her new life away from home she still wants to check back in with her

father ad see that he is alive and well.

In the differing version there are different items that represent what we know

as the iconic glass slipper and the fairy godmother figure. In “Yeh-hsien” the

bones of a fish have the magical powers that help Yeh-hsien to get all that she

wanted. Charles Perrault’s “Donkeyskin” there is actually a fairy figure that

helps the princess and this time it was the ring that she baked into the cake that

was what all the maidens attempted to make fit them. In “Lin Lan” the bones of a

yellow cow and a magical giving tree to get her what she wants. The Brothers Grimm

version is the basis for the iconic glass slipper that is well-known today and

also the basis for the Disney film. Although differing from culture to culture the

tale of Cinderella remains an everlasting tale of a young maiden finding her place

in the world.

Snow White...Deserving of Being Iconic?

Growing up as a child I watched Disney films ranging from Pinocchio to the Lion King, including the iconic classic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I didn’t realize it until a few days ago when I saw the film for the first time in probably ten years, but Snow White seems like a very plain character. There isn’t much to her. Also in the film version she is far more annoying than I remember. Don’t get me wrong I do think that Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a classic and should be seen by all, but I don’t think the character of Snow White should reign supreme on the top of any best character lists.

The film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was based of the Brothers Grimm tale of Snow White and throughout the film there are clear correlations. However, there were points in the film where there were attempts to follow the Brothers Grimm version, but were presented in a way that came off as just confusing or strange. One such point would be early on in the film when Snow White is in the forest and just barely escapes the knife of the huntsman and the evil forest. She is naïve and ignorant to what all is going on, preoccupied with picking pretty flowers. In the Brothers Grimm version it has age seven that Snow White becomes a real threat to the queen, her evil stepmother, but in the film she is definitely older than seven. However, in the film her actions and reactions are seemingly innocent that she comes across as childlike. Was everything ranging from her voice to picking flowers to talking to animals just Walt Disney’s attempt to make a young adult seem like a young child?

The character of Snow White portrayed in the film is seemingly flat, but was she just that way in the film version? No. In the Brothers Grimm version it is more about the development of the stepmother into the evil queen than the peasant princess turning into a real princess. In “Lasair Gheug, the King of Ireland’s Daughter” Lasair (Snow White) is a character with no concept of standing up for herself. She is constantly letting her stepmother and the malicious old woman place murder at her doorstep and she doesn’t even attempt to tell her father that she didn’t kill anyone or anything. Personally, I think that “The Young Slave” version is the only one that I’ve read that gives the character of Snow White some substance. Lisa, after being abused and becoming a complete stranger to her uncle is clever in her means of getting a doll, rock, and knife. She looms the threat of her uncle being engulfed if he doesn’t return with her gifts. She is the Snow White that has feeling and emotion, so much so that she almost kills herself. In different versions of Snow White there are different characters, settings, and situations, but in most it is the characters other than Snow White that propel the story and yet she remains the iconic figure. Should she really be one though?

Freud and Dreams

This week the readings for class were about rhetoric and poetry, Freud and psychoanalytical criticism, and subjectivity. The Cullen chapter on rhetoric, poetics, and poetry examined literary techniques and how they were used. The one thing that stood out to me was that, in regards to the extravagance of lyric, “exaggeration is key”. I would have to agree. I mean let’s think about it, everyday we exaggerate the truth. We want to make ourselves look or sound better because if not is anyone really going to care? Without exaggeration you have those stories that go on and on and on, only to find out that nothing exciting happened, but then suddenly the story teller found twenty bucks and the story got a little better. Therefore I do agree with Cullen’s point and think that it is a valid one. The subjectivity chapter in The Theory Toolbox was overly repetitive and dragged on. The Beginning Theory chapter on psychoanalytical criticism and the infamous Freud was, in my personal opinion, the most interesting of this week’s readings.

Now normally when I have to read about Freud I find it incredibly strange and sex driven, but in this week’s readings there was a new topic that I had not yet come across and it peaked my interest. The concept of dream work, “the process by which real events or desires are transformed into dream images” made me stop and think…ah interesting. This was most likely due in part to the fact that just an hour or so before my roommate spent a few minutes telling me about yet another one of her inconceivable dreams. Seriously though dreams aren’t supposed to last a half an hour, but that’s how long it takes her to tell. Don’t get me wrong, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I’ve had super unrealistic dreams too, the difference is that they lasted for thirty seconds tops. I don’t know, but Freud’s theory makes me beg some questions.

“Dreams, just like literature, do not usually make explicit statements. Both tend to communicate obliquely or indirectly, avoiding direct or open statement, and representing meanings through concrete embodiments of time, place, or person” (Barry 94). Okay, the first problem I have with this is the word usually. To me the word “usually” means that there is a ton of room for anything to happen and in this case that my dreams or anyone’s for that matter could be making explicit statements. I’d like to think that I know what my subconscious is trying to tell me, but it is far from clear. The other problem I have with that statement is that the concrete embodiments in my dreams are people, places, and times I don’t want to remember. However, if I agree with Freud’s dream work theory then I have to accept the fact that those are real things from my life, right? I agree with the possibility that dreams are formed from real events and can maybe accept that they sometimes represent desires, but I don’t agree with or better yet understand condensation. Normally I don’t have vast amounts of people in my dreams, but when I do they certainly aren’t all united representing the same idea. Going back to my roommate and her dreams, I don’t know how a guy pushing her down the hallway, me driving a car, and some girl smoking have anything to do with each other. After reading about Freud and then going back through my roommate’s dream in my head I could see how they were based of real people and real things that have happened at least in some sense.

Overall I think that Freud’s dream work theory is at least half right. I do believe that dreams are based off real life events and people, as much as we may not want to accept that. However, the condensation aspect is still tricky to me. I really do see how there is a correlation between dreams and literature because there are endless meanings and interpretations that be formed after both and therefore no clear cut answers.