Posted by Tamar on June 3, 2005, at 3:56:18
In reply to Re: Jung and fairy tales...interesting exercise, posted by daisym on June 2, 2005, at 21:02:35
> Fairy tales aren't supposed to be happy. They were a way that parents and clans communicated warnings and social rules to children. They were supposed to clearly show good and evil.
I think you’re right, and I think they were probably intended for adults too. I suppose urban legends probably fulfil a similar function today.
> The problem now a days is that we read confusing stories to little kids. That is what I meant by Peter Rabbit got ruined for me. In the story, PETER breaks into Mr. McGregor's garden and STEALS food. But we are led to feel sorry for Peter and hate Mr. McGregor. So the message is confusing.
Or possibly the message is that there are lots of grey areas? That good and evil are contingent? For example, Peter is a RABBIT. Can't we feel some compassion for a rabbit who takes a carrot? (I can't quite remember - is it a carrot?) Can Mr McGregor really claim to own the carrots? Is it OK for humans to work ecosystems to their own advantage (e.g. by farming vegetables) if it disrupts the local food chain (e.g. by denying young rabbits a source of sustenance)?
Of course these questions are a little bit silly, but on the other hand, I think there's plenty of precedent. Most story traditions have trickster characters, and their activities are presented in such a way that the audience delights in their naughtiness at the expense of the great and the good.
> On the bright side, most Fairy Tales have a good ending.
Yes! Whatever happens, things usually turn out OK in the end (at least, for the good guys who haven’t compromised their integrity too much). I think it’s supposed to reassure us that there’s a natural justice in the world.
I wonder what it means if my favourite story is about one of these tricksters...?
poster:Tamar
thread:506634
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050528/msgs/507220.html