What I researched and why: My favorite thing about reading the different versions (and interpretations) of “Little Red Riding Hood” was seeing how each version both emphasized and left out certain things, namely what the particular teller thought should be emphasized, and what he/she thought should be left out. What is strengthened and cut out of each version lets us know what was important to the teller, the author, or the times in which they lived, what they thought to be good and what they thought to be bad. It also shows us that notions of “goodness” and “badness” change, as all of the versions have different ideas about morality. I wanted to find a modern version that didn’t deviate in an outrageous way from the original storyline, but that presented yet another different idea about what is good and what is bad.
What I found: A writer named James Finn Garner wrote a book called Politically Correct Bedtime Stories: Modern tales for our life and times which contains a politically correct version of Little Red Riding Hood.
My interpretation: I thought that this story was incredibly clever and funny. I know that it is meant to be taken as a joke, but just like the other versions of the story that we have read, this version has its own particular idea about what is good and what is not. It has its own morality, namely, political correctness to the extreme. In this version, Little Red Riding Hood is not the “prettiest” girl in the village (as she is in Perrault’s version), nor is she “sweet” (as she is in the Grimms’s tale), she is merely a “young person” who is not at all innocent, but rather “confident…in her own budding sexuality” (she is so well-informed that she is familiar with “Freudian imagery”). The wolf is not evil but rather an “outcast” with a “unique worldview.” The grandmother is not old and weak but “mature” and “fully capable.” And it is the “woodchopper-person”—the one who is usually the ideal savior, the “most attractive figure…because he rescues the good and punishes the bad” (Bettelheim 177)— who is violently dispatched at the end, which fits into the particular morality of this story. The “woodchopper-person,” after all, represents the patronizing and all-powerful patriarchal figure, an ideal that is passé and offensive to some people, and therefore not politically correct, and therefore, according to this story, not good.
What I think this adds to our discussion: We discussed New Historicism in class on Thursday, and I think that this story, which exhibits our current culture’s concern with political correctness, emphasizes a need to study tales in light of their particular contexts, to trace how morals in stories have changed according to the times in which they were written. Just as we learned that Perrault’s story emphasizes the virtues of the French court culture (the unchaste girl is eaten up), and the Grimms’s tale emphasizes the 19th century virtue of obedience in children (the little girl disobeys, is eaten, is saved, and vows never to disobey mother again), this modern story emphasizes certain virtues that exist in our present time, like political correctness. Today, very generally speaking, progressiveness and open-mindedness are viewed as good, while things that are backward or rigidly traditional are viewed as bad. This is why when Little Red, her grandmother, and the wolf set up “an alternative household based on mutual respect” while the man who “assumes” he needs to save the day is vanquished is, according to the morals of this story, a good, happy ending. Even though what is bad is different in these different versions of the tale, what the versions have in common is the violence with which the “badness” is dealt with—these stories seem to teach us that “badness,” no matter what it is, needs to be done away with completely, needs to be devoured, killed. But with the extent to which historical perspectives show us how much ideas of “goodness” and “badness” change over time, it is just interesting to think about why these three stories, separated by centuries and vastly different ideals, all felt the need to represent the triumph over evil by stamping out the “evil” so violently and completely.
5 comments:
I too found this version of the story extremely entertaining... especially when Little Red justifies her comments about her "Grandmother's" (the wolf's) appearance. But upon further reflecation, I found myself imagining this story turning up in an actual children's book in a bookstore sometime soon - because, as we discussed in class, being politically correct has become one of the most important goals in how we educate our children. We want them to be accepting, non-judgemental, and non-violent. But I must ask: By doing this, are we also teaching them to be apathetic?
I really enjoyed this version of Little Red Riding Hood and found it really funny. I guess it just seems funny because you wouldn't expect a young girl to talk back to a wolf or dangerous man in the woods about his sexist remarks. It really interests me though about why that seems so odd. It seems that through these fairy tales, gender roles are being taught and women are represented as inferior in them. In all of the versions of Little Red Riding Hood that we read, she was the victim and the man represented both the danger and the savior, or the wolf and the woodsman. This version of the tale is refreshing to me because finally it is a tale where a woman fights back and takes care of herself and tells the woodsman to go away because she can finish this business by herself. I'm not sure I would actually recommend this for a child, there are certainly pros and cons to it. A pro for it could be that it would teach young girls to stick up for themselves, but also the con would be that they would be missing out on something that could possibly reflect the history of our culture and why it is shaped the way it is today.
I think this version of LLRH is particularly interesting after having discussed boyhood and boys in trouble. Political correctness may be a factor in that. I don't think I would ever give a little boy this story because it might make him feel guilty etc. which would not be healthy before he would be able to understand how the privilege he gains from his sex works. Little girls might have fun with this version, but certainly not little boys who see only sexism and being shot down in their future based on this story.
If this book the blog referrs to is what I think it is, I believe I had it as a child! It sounds very familiar to me and I vageuly remember the title, but not any of the stories. It is quite amusing to read because it seems so outrageous to us but I think there are some significant messages to take away from it. Fairy tales and the stories we tell our children are deep rooted in their minds and they remember the morals for life. If at a young age, we put a more politically correct and positive spin on them would that really be causing any harm?
While very entertaining, I have to admit that I actually find this version of the story somewhat disturbing. I mean, in a way we are trading one form of violence for another. I mean, Political Correctness is great and everything, but this story is only really relatable for women and girls. I mean, any guys reading this would most likely be put off by the whole thing because the only male human in the story ends up getting his head cut off. There's no mention that the woodcutter just wanted to help, instead he's just attacked for being sexist and speciesist. Although this is a comedy story, I do think that it says a great deal for the double standards we have regarding gender. Women are to be empowered and to save the day, while men need to back of and let us do it. It's actually a little disconcerting when you think about it.
Post a Comment