Camille Rankine, “Inheritance”

#extradirty

⁂
Jules of Nature
KIROKAZE

Product Placement

oozey mess
cherry valley forever

@theartofmadeline
tumblr dot com
Xuebing Du
sheepfilms
Peter Solarz

pixel skylines
Today's Document
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Game of Thrones Daily

JVL
styofa doing anything

ellievsbear

if i look back, i am lost
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Germany
seen from Australia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Austria

seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia

seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Argentina
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
@captainsassmaam
Camille Rankine, “Inheritance”
I’m tired of hearing people say “Disney’s Cinderella is sanitized. In the original tale, the stepsisters cut off parts of their feet to make the slipper fit and get their eyes pecked out by birds in the end.”
I understand this mistake. I’m sure a lot of people buy copies of the complete Grimm’s Fairy Tales, see their tale of Aschenputtel translated as “Cinderella”, and assume what they’re reading is the “original” version of the tale. Or else they see Into the Woods and make the same assumption, because Sondheim and Lapine chose to base their Cinderella plot line on the Grimms’ Aschenputtel instead of on the more familiar version. It’s an understandable mistake. But I’m still tired of seeing it.
The Brothers Grimm didn’t originate the story of Cinderella. Their version, where there is no fairy godmother, the heroine gets her elegant clothes from a tree on her mother’s grave, and where yes, the stepsisters do cut off parts of their feet and get their eyes pecked out in the end, is not the “original.” Nor did Disney create the familiar version with the fairy godmother, the pumpkin coach, and the lack of any foot-cutting or eye-pecking.
If you really want the “original” version of the story, you’d have to go back to the 1st century Greco-Egyptian legend of Rhodopis. That tale is just this: “A Greek courtesan is bathing one day, when an eagle snatches up her sandal and carries it to the Pharaoh of Egypt. The Pharaoh searches for the owner of the sandal, finds her and makes her his queen.”
Or, if you want the first version of the entire plot, with a stepdaughter reduced to servitude by her stepmother, a special event that she’s forbidden to attend, fine clothes and shoes given to her by magic so she can attend, and her royal future husband finding her shoe after she loses it while running away, then it’s the Chinese tale of Ye Xian you’re looking for. In that version, she gets her clothes from the bones of a fish that was her only friend until her stepmother caught it and ate it.
But if you want the Cinderella story that Disney’s film was directly based on, then the version you want is the version by the French author Charles Perrault. His Cendrillon is the Cinderella story that became the best known in the Western world. His version features the fairy godmother, the pumpkin turned into a coach, mice into horses, etc, and no blood or grisly punishments for anyone. It was published in 1697. The Brothers Grimm’s Aschenputtel, with the tree on the grave, the foot-cutting, etc. was first published in 1812.
The Grimms’ grisly-edged version might feel older and more primitive while Perrault’s pretty version feels like a sanitized retelling, but such isn’t the case. They’re just two different countries’ variations on the tale, French and German, and Perrault’s is older. Nor is the Disney film sanitized. It’s based on Perrault.
Op is now my most favourite person in the world and I want their knowledge.
My favourite fairy tales were rumplestiltskin and the pied piper, and I want to know how they began.
I don’t know about Rumplestiltskin, but the Pied Piper is REALLY weird because a reference to it appears in the real town of Hamelin’s historical record (a written mention and a now lost stained-glass window, apparently) and nobody’s sure what exactly happened
When talking folktales, there is NO SUCH THING AS THE “ORIGINAL.” There just isn’t. We can talk about the “oldest recorded version,” we can talk about the “most widespread,” we can talk about “most influential,” but none of those mean “original.” Folklore doesn’t work like that: it’s not like the game of telephone, where there’s a correct singular version and everything else is a bastardized descendant. It’s more like–multiple versions spring up at different times and places and travel and crossbreed with each other.
When people started writing down fairy tales, we also have to consider who, when, and for what audience. Perrault was writing in France, in 1697; he was part of a group of (mostly female) writers known as the “salon writers,” who were engaged in one of the key intellectual debates of the day: which is better, ancient Greece and Rome, or modern France? Perrault, as a “modern,” collected and rewrote multiple existing folk narratives as his entry in the debate: his versions were witty confections with semi-ironic morals, aimed at an educated courtly audience. He, like his fellow salon writers (and their Italian predecessors Straparola and Basile) were deliberately tarting up existing folk narratives to appeal to haut-bourgeois readers.
(FYI, there’s a standard piece of bullshit often trotted out about Perrault’s “Cendrillon,” that the glass slipper was a mistranslation and it was “originally” fur: NOT TRUE. Perrault loved including all sorts of details about luxurious dress and decor, and “glass slippers”–beautiful, fragile, completely impractical–is exactly what he said. Again, stop with these claims about the “original” versions, there’s no such thing.)
The Grimms, writing a century or so later, were coming out of a radically different intellectual tradition: they were Romantic nationalists, and saw the stories and beliefs of peasants as containing the True Spirit of Germanness (Volksgeist). Their goal was to take down the stories, unchanged, straight from the mouths of the dirtiest rudest peasants they could find. (They didn’t actually do this–many of their informants were middle class–but they claimed that that was their goal and method.) Their first edition (1812) was aimed at scholars, but then when it proved to be a hit, they started expanding and further editing the collection for a more general readership–the seventh and final edition came out in 1857. There’s literally mountains of scholarship that’s been done on the increasingly intrusive editing that the Grimms did, to better fit with bourgeois sensibilities, vs. their actual field notes.
(There’s also the fact that, during the Grimms’ lifetimes, the concept of children as a separate and unique audience, who required stories designed specifically for them, was solidifying; “children’s literature,” as we know it, really starts taking off during the 1800s. Most fairy tales are far older than this, and were told by and for all ages. The changes made to the later editions of the Grimms’ fairy tales reflect this. It’s not surprising that Disney, coming after 150 years of increasingly more intense policing of what stories children should and should not see, chose the Perrault version.)
Given all that, from my position as a folklorist, I’m prepared to say that the Grimms’ version of the story is almost certainly closer to the folk versions of “Cinderella” that would have been circulating in Western Europe from the medieval period onward: not because it’s omg bloody and gruesome, but because we know how Perrault worked, and he deliberately was changing and fancifying stories for a highly specific elite audience.
For anyone who’s interested, I highly recommend Jack Zipes’s great collection The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood: versions of Little Red vary even more intensely than Cinderella does (LRRH has 3 possible endings, all radically different), and there’s a great essay about the history of fairy tale writing and collecting.
I’d recommend everyone look into Tale Typing, which is used to figure out which themes are present across folk tales and folklore.
Absolute History on YT has a series called Myths and Monsters that talks about stories in Europe and how they intertwined with history, societal anxieties, and the purpose of stories in human culture. It’s really neat and you should all watch it if you’re at all interested in this!
“I’ve seen the Doctor. He’s like fire and ice and rage. He’s like the night, and the storm in the heart of the sun. He’s ancient and forever. He burns at the center of time and he can see the turn of the universe. And… he’s wonderful.”
DOCTOR WHO | 3.08 “Human Nature”
A reminder that bats are superior to swords for their inherent potential for inflicted pain
Nothing rivals a sword in homoeroticism, but for just raw pain, bone breaking, blocking, and parrying, bats reign supreme
it took me a full minute to realize that you weren’t advocating using a flying rodent to inflict pain
omg??????
SIS OMGGG
Cutest photo set ever. 😌
“Come here,Love” -he took my hand.
I wish he took mine!!!!
Denmark: @dananicoledesigns
almost forgot to post! inktober day 1!
been loving watching who on bbc 24/7
The Satan Pit // The Woman Who Fell to Earth
My desk is starting to give off a forest witch aesthetic vibe.
Stalactite Crystal / Crystal Geode Candles
Amethyst Amber Candles on Etsy
See our #Etsy or #Candles tags
Look what my partner got me as a Christmas present!!!!