I have another bone to pick with Beedle the Bard and Rowling's assertions about it...

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

So, it just so happens that I am currently in the middle of taking a class on storytelling at my college. As its name suggests, a lot of what we do in that class consists of, well, telling each other stories--with a particular emphasis on folktales and fairy tales. And the more I learn, the more blatantly laughable Rowling's assertion that her made-up folktales are better because the heroines are more active in seeking their fortune becomes.

See, a lot of real-world folktales involve heroines that are perfectly capable of seeking their own fortunes and doing what they want. This almost certainly did not reflect the reality, of course; and it is true that in a good many famous stories the heroines end up married (or whatever); but by this point in the class I've read stories about (for example) a cook who finds a way to outwit her master; a princess who cuts the head off a magical man to gain her freedom from him; and another princess who, after being kicked out of her home, figures out a way to support both herself and her man when he's sick, and not only heals him but makes them both rich. Hell, the story I'm preparing to tell right at this point in time is about a little girl who rescues herself from a monster without any sort of help from a man.

So, all told, not only is Rowling's assertion that Beedle the Bard deserves praise because it features more independent and capable heroines than real folktales arrogant, patronizing, and yet ANOTHER instance of devaluing the real world; it just plain has no base in reality, and seriously makes me wonder if Rowling has ever encountered any folktales at all beyond the basics like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty! Good to find new reasons to hate that book, I guess!

Comments

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, good point! I'm not sure I know all the stories you're learning to tell, but I certainly know several, from many different traditions, that feature smart and proactive girls/women. The Potter books, on the other hand, strike me as deeply sexist. I wouldn't argue, personally, that Rowling didn't/doesn't know the literature. She seems to me to be extremely familiar with 19th century British lit, in particular. But I would argue that she tends to throw undigested tropes into her story, and doesn't think about them much. The Potter books are just a mish mash, really.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

A lot of people know fairy tales and other children's stories only through the Disney versions, and until relatively recently (about the 1990s), Disney films usually changed female characters to make them weaker than they were in the original versions. One that has always annoyed me (though it is not a traditional fairy tale) was Alice in Wonderland. The film includes a scene in which Alice breaks down and cries about being alone in this strange world--something that never happens in the book. And at the end of the film, Alice shrinks back down again and runs from the living cards in terror, while in the book she grows to giant size and simply sweeps them away. It's possible JKR is thinking about Disnified stories instead of the real thing.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That makes a lot of sense! After all, we know these books were influenced by at least one TV show (The Worst Witch ), as well as by other books.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - no story can exist in a vacuum - but Rowling didn't seem to think out the implications of things at all.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

She obviously never read "Women Who Run With the Wolves" - a great book specifically about Myths and Legends (and fairy tales) dealing with women. A very empowering book, if you have not read it already. Covers many cultures.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

This almost certainly did not reflect the reality, of course; and it is true that in a good many famous stories the heroines end up married (or whatever);

Indeed, good thing the "real-world" situation in the Potterverse is so different... wait.