As I see it, the key difference between these two articles has to do with what they perceive their subject matter to be. While reading Bettelheim, it appears that the author is much more concerned with the stories we tell our children and how that relates to their psychological make up. While this may be an interesting topic, it is clear that he really isn't talking about fairy tales at all. He is interested in the popular versions of Red Riding Hood and why this story is better for young children than other stories parents may read, but in this analysis he doesn't really get to the root of what fairy tales are, rather what their modern transformation into children's stories can do for our kids. Darnton, on the other hand, sees this gap in Bettelheim's argument. There's nothing particularly wrong with Bettelheim's analysis of the effects of good stories on children, but the fact is that this argument really doesn't have anything to do with fairy tales at all, just children's stories, many of which may be derived from sources like the Grimms and Mother Goose. In Darnton's article, he focuses more on the anthropological importance and development of fairy tales: who told them, why they are what they are, how they were perceived by the audience, et cetera. This is a much better template to understanding these tales and their unique place in the history of oral and written literature. Darnton sees fairy tales as what they really are and tries to understand them in that light rather than going down Bettelheim's road of placing other meanings on a particularly recent incarnation of these stories. In the end, Darnton's view provides a much richer and more accurate way of seeing fairy tales both within and out of their historical contexts. Fairy tales are evolving, vague, unique, enriching, sometimes unsettling, and thoughtful pieces of history, not merely bedtime stories to keep our kids from growing up crazy.
-Benton Payne
PS-
I'm Benton Payne (first name is Marshall, though I don't go by it)
I'm a Film Studies / History Major and I'm always looking for different ways to perceive the art of storytelling
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I read the two essays, I really didn't compare them in the way th at Darnton is saying what Bettelheim is lacking. This is a good, true point, and gave me another way to think about the two essays together.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the subject matter on the two essays were completely different. I do agree with your analysis, and I also think that the answer to the blog question depends on how you read the question - Darnton makes a good point on how the original fairy tales were definitely not initially thought of as entertainment for children, but I think Bettelheim makes a good point of showing that fairy tales (even though they may be more recent versions) can be more than children's entertainment in the sense that they can be important to children's development and education.
ReplyDeleteI likewise agree, that the essays are effective in different ways because one argues for more of a positive interpretation of the tales as being "morally educating", and the other, Darnton, argues for more of a negative interpretation....saying that the tales all connote themes such as rape, sodomy, incest, and cannibalism. which distinguish them from being simply child's entertainment and more of adult stories.
ReplyDeleteBoth are valid arguments though, and I am glad that both were on the reading list for the same night, as they balance each other out and enable us to keep an open perspective early on in the class.
I fully agree! I think that both arguments are valid but the Darnton essay is more extensive.
ReplyDelete