I found both articles to be equally convincing in and of themselves. However, I’m not sure that they were really arguing on the same topic. Bettelheim’s article seems to assert that fairy tales are more beneficial to children in that they “confront the child squarely with the basic human predicaments,” unlike other types of stories. He is arguing that they teach the child something about real life problems and how to approach them, but maybe not in an entirely literal sense.
Darnton’s article seems more focused on the fact that fairy tales have changed over the years, and this makes it difficult to evaluate the state of mind of people at the time the stories began circulating. Darnton points out one of Bettleheim’s analyses of “The Little Red Riding Hood” in which he relates the story to the working out and resolution of the girl’s Oedipal fantasies. Darnton mentions that Bettleheim is using a more current version of the tale, which in my opinion is irrelevant. I don’t think that Bettleheim’s point was to use the analysis in a historical context, but rather, discuss what it says to readers now. While it does seem a bit of a stretch to say that the story relates to her Oedipal complex, I don’t feel that Darnton and Bettleheim are really arguing against each other. Darnton is focused on maintaining the historical integrity of the tales, and Bettleheim is concerned with the tales’ current relevance in teaching children.
Katie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observation that Darnton and Bettelheim have a different focus in regards to the way they view fairy tales. Each article has its own merits in terms of the historical approach for Darnton and the psychological approach for Bettelheim. However, I think Darnton makes a great point when he criticizes Bettelheim's interpretation of the Little Red Riding Hood tale. Even though Bettelheim's main focus was not to examine the story from a historically accurate point of view, it is important that we understand the historical aspects of the tales so that we don't make the mistake of attributing meaning and symbols to them that just aren't there. Bettelheim imposes symbols on the story for the sake of his own research and Darnton was justified in calling him out on it.