God picked up the golden slipper and saw that is was good.
No, wait. What?
I just read a scientific, published (!) paper where the author actually tries to argue that the prince in Cinderella is actually God.
WTF?
They make the stepsisters the worldly evil, the fairy godmother/hazel tree into the 'World Spirit' and then let Cinderalla overcome worldy adversity through spirituality, leading her to God, ie. the prince.
Seriously?
I mean, okay. Maybe. If the whole thing weren't such an old and varied trope. If they didn't deviate so much from Perrault's, ie. the Disney, version. Maybe. Sort of. If you squint and tilt your head.
But then they go on to analyze All-kinds-of-fur and make the cloak the princess wears a symbol for death and rebirth. How, you ask? Well, easily. The cloak, in the most common versions, is made of furs, which come, one may assume, from hibernating animals. Hibernation is a sort of death and rebirth thing, right?
Okay.
They support their theory by stating that in some versions, the cloak is made of wood, which is also dead, or of animal skins, which are also a symbol of rebirth.
Let's finish that thought, shall we? What can a cloak be made of? Furs, obviously. Dead animal. Skins. Dead animal. Wood, however questionable. Okay. Dead tree. What else? Linen? Dead plant. Silk? Dead animal. Better, dead baby animal. Feathers? Usually a dead animal in there somewhere.
Here's an idea: Anything we clothe ourselves in is, in one way or another, dead. Your logic is invalid!
The best part of the whole paper, however, is how the author viciously, and I mean viciously, pokes fun at another author who interpreted Perrault's fairy godmother and the stepmother as two sides of motherhood, the caring and the punishing.
What seems more credible to you, honey, that two female characters represent two sides of motherhood (especially considering that in the non-Perrault versions, the fairy godmother is replaced by either the dead mother's spirit, or a tree that grows from the dead mother's grave!), or a coat that symbolizes rebirth due to nothing but the fact that it is made of dead material?
I have absolutely nothing against risky interpretations. Really. I've been known to pull those off myself, with more bravado than actual argument. But that's really, really weak.
(And while we're at it, the king lusting after his own daughter in All-kinds-of-fur is not Oedipal! Oedipus banged his momma. He never didn't lay no hand on any daughters! Geez.)
I just read a scientific, published (!) paper where the author actually tries to argue that the prince in Cinderella is actually God.
WTF?
They make the stepsisters the worldly evil, the fairy godmother/hazel tree into the 'World Spirit' and then let Cinderalla overcome worldy adversity through spirituality, leading her to God, ie. the prince.
Seriously?
I mean, okay. Maybe. If the whole thing weren't such an old and varied trope. If they didn't deviate so much from Perrault's, ie. the Disney, version. Maybe. Sort of. If you squint and tilt your head.
But then they go on to analyze All-kinds-of-fur and make the cloak the princess wears a symbol for death and rebirth. How, you ask? Well, easily. The cloak, in the most common versions, is made of furs, which come, one may assume, from hibernating animals. Hibernation is a sort of death and rebirth thing, right?
Okay.
They support their theory by stating that in some versions, the cloak is made of wood, which is also dead, or of animal skins, which are also a symbol of rebirth.
Let's finish that thought, shall we? What can a cloak be made of? Furs, obviously. Dead animal. Skins. Dead animal. Wood, however questionable. Okay. Dead tree. What else? Linen? Dead plant. Silk? Dead animal. Better, dead baby animal. Feathers? Usually a dead animal in there somewhere.
Here's an idea: Anything we clothe ourselves in is, in one way or another, dead. Your logic is invalid!
The best part of the whole paper, however, is how the author viciously, and I mean viciously, pokes fun at another author who interpreted Perrault's fairy godmother and the stepmother as two sides of motherhood, the caring and the punishing.
What seems more credible to you, honey, that two female characters represent two sides of motherhood (especially considering that in the non-Perrault versions, the fairy godmother is replaced by either the dead mother's spirit, or a tree that grows from the dead mother's grave!), or a coat that symbolizes rebirth due to nothing but the fact that it is made of dead material?
I have absolutely nothing against risky interpretations. Really. I've been known to pull those off myself, with more bravado than actual argument. But that's really, really weak.
(And while we're at it, the king lusting after his own daughter in All-kinds-of-fur is not Oedipal! Oedipus banged his momma. He never didn't lay no hand on any daughters! Geez.)