Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lush
To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.
|
Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.
Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but
magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a
real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.
Quote:
|
Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.
|
I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is
bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.
Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of
Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).
(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)