Interview with H. F. for ENG550
[To those friends on my Livejournal: The following is an assignment for one of my grad classes. We are focusing on the topic of biography, and are expected to interview people and use those interviews in part of our final paper. As part of the project, we must publish (i.e. post in some public space) our interview(s). Therefore, I have selected Livejournal to be my publishing medium of choice.]
Ding Ding Zheng
Dr. Elizabeth Horan
ENG550 (4:40pm - 7:30pm)
28 September 2011
Interview with H. F.
[Interview with H. F., Saturday, September 24th, 2011. She is a M.M. student at Arizona State University, studying viola performance. She also an avid reader.]
What was your favorite fairytale growing up?
“Tricky question. I should have looked at these [questions] beforehand. I would say it was probably The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle. I don’t know if that counts as a typical fairytale or what. It's about the last unicorn on earth and her struggle to save the rest of her kind from an evil king.”
One of my favorite fairytales is Grimms’ “The Singing, Soaring Lark,” which has similarities to “Beauty and the Beast.” Why was The Last Unicorn your favorite above the others?
“I was charmed by the character of the unicorn. She was very pure. I related to that a lot as a kid. I realized on some level that as a child, I was less jaded and more true to my original self in my eyes than the adults were. I related to the unicorn. She also goes through a somewhat typical hero's journey. She undergoes a literal transformation where she has to appear as a human in order to make it as far as the castle, and garner the help of a wizard and a 'piratess,' Molly. She has this epic journey, which of course culminates in her besting the evil king, and freeing the rest of her kind, which I found inspiring and realistic, in a funny way.”
What do you think of folklore and fairytales in general? Some people think they are only meant for children. You said yourself, when you were a child you felt less jaded than the adults. A lot of people think that they are meant for children, but I love to read and re-read them even now. What do you think about that?
“Folktales and fairytales, the way that they were originally conveyed was through physical storytelling, like bards. And the reason they lasted as long as they did (since a lot of them were handed down prehistorically, before writing), the reason they persisted, was because they had these bottom lines and underlying concepts that are really legitimate. For example, in The Last Unicorn, there's a basic ‘moral to the story’ kind of idea. She realizes she has to turn into a young woman versus appearing as a unicorn, because a farmer sees her as a beautiful white horse and tries to capture her to sell her. She realizes she has to appear a certain way in order to avoid being taken advantage of. That is kind of an obvious moral by itself. You can see these types of motifs all through fairytales. And if you were a discerning reader, you could pick up all kinds of really profound information from these stories. So, I think they are appropriate for people regardless of age.”
Even if you no longer read them - which isn’t the case - but even if, would you read fairytales to your children (if you had any one day)? Would you share with them your favorite, which is in this case, The Last Unicorn?
“Absolutely. There’s always the risk that kids will think they’re too cool for fairytales. But I would definitely emphasize that the reason these stories grab me and are compelling is because of the underlying morals to the story. Your stereotypical hero figure has a lot of really amazing characteristics that children, especially, could model themselves after. I know I was very aware of that as a kid, and it’s inspiring. In the Redwall books, for example, they were characters that you sensed, as a child, that were admirable and had all of these amazing characteristics. I really wanted to model myself, as I grew, after, say, Martin the Warrior, or Mattimeo, or any number of these characters. So, yes, definitely. And I’ll tell them [my children] if they think they’re too cool for it (which they probably won’t) that just because it's about magic and rainbows and unicorns doesn't mean it's not perfectly legitimate.”
This leads into my next question, ‘Did you want to be like any particular character in your favorite? Why?’ You already said that they were very admirable, that they had these qualities about them that really inspired you. But, what else, aside from their personality? How was their physical appearance described, if it was described?
“In the context of The Last Unicorn, I definitely wanted to be like the unicorn. She didn’t have a name, she was merely the Unicorn. She got a name when she was in her human guise. I wanted to be like her because, like I said before, she was very pure and everyone implicitly - all of her fellow animals - trusted her. She was a kind, gentle being, not warlike in the slightest way. She was very well-respected because of it. As a kid, I saw it as a way to gain love. To be gentle, and lovely, and a ferociously peaceful character. Off the top of my head, her physical appearance was mostly about her eyes, which was an insight into her personality. Her eyes reflected the forest, even if she wasn’t in the forest - it reflected her home. It was saying that her heart’s home, or her innermost personality, was conveyed through her eyes, even if she was in the middle of nowhere, or in the evil king’s castle. The king actually recognized her as a unicorn because he could see the forest in her eyes, and I thought was really cool as a kid. She was also very delicate, very graceful. I remember admiring that she was so wild yet so gentle.”
That leads me to ask, ‘Which character(s) did you not like? Why? How was their physical appearance described?’ The ones that you didn’t like?
“I’m going to go for the obvious one, the king. He was described as ugly, except, to me as a kid, it was very obvious that that was a reflection of his personality, rather than that he actually had a gnarly nose, or warts, or anything like that. He was avaricious. The reason he kept the unicorns entrapped in the sea, with his henchman, The Red Bull, was just because he wanted to have them. He wanted to possess them. He wanted the last unicorn just because she was the last one and she was there. He was very greedy. He didn’t care that he was causing suffering. His home was very much a representation of the corruption of his person. It was crumbling and old, and full of nastiness. There were a lot of cracks in the wall, howling winds, sneaking in through the windows, that kind of thing.”
I notice in your physical description of him, you can’t help but also talk about his personality (laughs), which I think is hard to separate in fairytales a lot of times. More specifically, there are obviously variants of the same fairytales, with the Disney versions being some of the most well-known nowadays. Did you ever watch Disney’s 1991 animated feature film Beauty and the Beast? (Laughs) If so, do you like that version? Why?
“That’s funny, that was my favorite Disney version, actually. (Laughs.) So I love that. As a kid, I was aware that the original version differed from Disney’s version. But I wasn’t very critical as a kid, I just kind of accepted it. I liked the fact that, somewhat selfishly, I related to the main character. She always had her nose stuck in a book, and furthermore, she had brown hair and green eyes, which is important to you when you’re seven years old, and you think, ‘Oh, my God, she looks like me!’ I really loved her friends - the fact that she made friends with all of the transformed members of the castle staff. I loved the fact that she was a really classical heroine. She transformed the Beast through her love. So, regardless of the obvious 'Disney-fication' (laughs) of the story from its original form, it was just absolutely awesome.”
Disney’s Beauty and the Beast was actually one of my favorites, too, for some of the same reasons: that she actually read books, as opposed to a lot of other heroines in which there is no mention of their hobbies. There’s Ariel who loves to sing and collect stuff, but that’s also added in. I really did love the fact that she [Belle] loves reading books. But what did you think of the ending when the Beast changes back into a prince? I always had problems with the ending in the Disney version.
“I actually had mixed feelings as well. I remember thinking, ‘But, she was already happy with the Beast as he was.’ (Laughs.) I was a little conflicted, but I remember being happy that the household got transformed back into their human selves, because, even more so than the Beast, their lives were pretty affected by being transformed into a feather duster, or a candelabra - though he tended to use his candles to great effect. I did have mixed feelings about it, though, as a kid, in a simple way, I was satisfied that she would now be able to have a normal life with him. But there was that part of me that thought, ‘Well, what’s the big deal? (Laughs.) Was it really necessary?’”
That was always the problem I had, too. That you feel emotionally connected to the Beast as the Beast, for the whole story. And then, suddenly, when he changes, it’s an entirely new person that you don’t have that same connection to. I, for one, felt a little disappointed just in that: ‘Wait, I fell in love with you looking like this, and now you look totally different!’ (Laughs.) That kind of thing, even if he’s human again. I also didn’t think he was that handsome. When he turns around, I actually screamed the first time, thinking ‘Oh, my God, his nose!’ (Laughs.) But I think that is more telling about my preferences than anything else. Switching over to another fairytale, did you ever read or heard of Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Ugly Duckling”? If so, what do you think of it?
“My earliest recollection of it has changed over time. I didn't read the original version, but I think it was pretty close. I remember feeling bad for the duckling. That he was tormented by his peers for being different. As a kid, I found a kind of satisfaction in the fact that, a big beautiful swan is of course going to be gangly and look weird to a duck. It’s got a longer neck, and when it’s a cygnet it’s gray and weird-looking. Of course you would get made fun of. I was really happy for him when he found his people, his place. As a kid I thought it was awfully obvious as a transformation story - ‘Isn’t that a little literal?’ - but I liked it.”
Have you ever watched Disney’s 1939 animated short film The Ugly Duckling?
“I didn’t know one existed.”
In that case, if you haven’t seen it, never mind that question. But, just so you know, since you have not watched it, there is really one main difference between Anderson’s version and Disney’s version. The suffering that the little duckling endures lasts for months in the printed story, and merely minutes in the animated film. Therefore, aside from the fact that it was a film and obviously had to be shortened, what kind of effects do you think such a difference might have on the audience, that one was for months and one was for a few minutes?
“I would definitely find [the shortened version] way less gratifying. Even as a kid, when you want instant gratification, just personally, I would think, ‘Well, that was handy.’ I assume he stumbles into a clearing that has some swans, and they’re like, ‘Oh, you’re a baby swan,’ or something like that. It would just be less satisfying. Also, you get that instant gratification, but you wouldn’t get the sense of something you can relate to. This is the slow transformation that you all have to go through, but you wouldn’t really feel it that much. You would think, ‘Oh, this poor little guy was in a bad situation and then it was magically fixed.’ So, I would relate to it less.”
I always had issues with the both versions of “The Ugly Duckling.” What do you think of the ending of either version? Regardless of the length of either version, he was tormented, and he ultimately realizes that he actually is beautiful, and then he is happy.
“I never thought of beauty as an important part of [the story] as a kid. But now that you put it that way, it does rankle a little bit. ‘Oh, everything is okay because I am beautiful, actually.’ (Laughs.) As a kid, the important part that I saw in the story - I really abstracted it a lot, and was literal-minded, since I thought ducks were pretty, too - I just abstracted it to a point where I saw him as being different from his peers and they torment him for it because they don't understand that he is just different. They don’t celebrate his differences, they ostracize him for it. I really saw it that way. And then he finds his people, and there’s a satisfaction in finding like minds. I guess I abstracted it out quite a lot.”
Well, props to you for doing that. (Laughs.) I think I was more stuck with the more literal meaning. After all that we talked about with Beauty and the Beast, “The Ugly Duckling,” and The Last Unicorn, in terms of descriptions of the characters, and of physical appearances tied to personalities, it seems to me that fairytales tend to make broad generalizations about a person’s physical appearance. A woman is often described as either beautiful or ugly. A man is often either handsome or homely. Why do you think there is a lack of specifics? They just say that they are beautiful, or they just say that they are handsome.
“Off the top of my head, I think it has to do with the fact that the fairytale was passed around so many times in its early stages, that it would probably change according to what the teller thought was beautiful. If they were in Norway, they might say, ‘Oh, she was tall, and had beautiful blonde hair, was strong, and could slaughter a pig by herself, or something like that.’ (Laughs.) Whereas, if the story made it all the way out to the old Slavic areas, they might say, 'Ah, she had these dark beautiful eyes, with thick lashes, and she was demure.' I would think it was that kind of thing. If the story was traditional and got passed around enough times, the most common version would become the kind of homogenized one in which you could insert your own ideas about what beautiful means.”
I do think that the reason why fairytales are so popular even after all this time is because they can be generalized enough that anyone can relate. This way we can still enjoy those stories, because they are simultaneously dated and classic. Another thing that has to do with descriptions of the characters is that fairytales tend to pair physical appearance with “good” or “evil.” A princess is lovely and kind. A wicked witch is hideous and scheming. Is this always true for you? Whether it’s true always in fairytales, or whether it’s true in life? There are some people that think that beautiful and good always go together.
“That's a really tricky question. I think that’s especially tricky for me to answer because I grew up on fairytales so profoundly, so thoroughly, that I think I automatically will assign ‘beautiful’ to someone who is good. My brain just kind of processes it that way, so that the two are kind of bound. I can say someone is pretty, but I don't really think of her that way if she is totally vainglorious, and completely self-absorbed, and a rotten, rotten brat as truly beautiful. I wouldn’t describe her as beautiful. I think [fairytales] actually did shape my concept of how to view people. I do seem to remember largely, the witch is described was ugly and scary and evil, and avaricious. One example, actually, that is a really good counter example, is in [Snow White], where the stepmother was beautiful, with the enchanted mirror. She was this vain, vain creature. I think it was a cautionary tale, saying, ‘Careful. Just because someone is pretty doesn’t mean they are good.’ I do agree, largely, [fairytales are] the other way around.”
Continuing on with the idea that appearances are tied to good and evil, do you think “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Ugly Duckling” refute or agree with such a concept? Why?
“I think in the case of Beauty and the Beast, it's very much a literal example. He turned the old witch out of his castle and refused to offer her shelter for the night, and she cursed him. When the Beast was ugly, it was a physical representation of his immaturity or lack of personal development. When he was fixed, he became beautiful. So I think it’s very much a representation of that trope. In “The Ugly Duckling,” this concept doesn’t stick at all. He was just a young beat-up, little kid, essentially, who had potential, but he was not evil. He never, in a typical sense, deserved the punishment he received.”
Keeping this idea in mind, is your perception of the endings of the two tales now different than it was previously?
“I guess that for me, now that I think about it, would inform how much respect I have for peoples’ ability to discern one’s innermost self, based on appearances. For example, Belle is good and heroic and discerning, and sees the potential that the Beast had. And the other ducklings were very shallow, and couldn’t see past his physical appearance to think, “Maybe he could be our friend, maybe he’s cool. Maybe he’s smart or funny, or anything.” I guess what I draw from the comparison of those two, is the difference it can make, what kind of company you find yourself in. I guess, moral of the story is, pick your friends carefully.”
Can you think of any other fairytales that seem to value physical beauty equal to or more than character/personal traits?
“In ‘The Canary Prince,’ I know that [the heroine’s] appearance is very much emphasized, and I can’t think of a single darn thing about her personality. Except for when the canary was pricked by the pin (that the evil stepmother stuck through the pillow that he landed on) that she was distressed. (Laughs.) But I think that’s a pretty natural reaction. But I do remember it was emphasized that she was so beautiful. I think the reason she was locked away was because the stepmother was jealous of her beauty. It was the central tenet, the conflict in the story.”
Yeah, I can think of several examples. Even if they aren’t saying beauty is a good thing, it still matters, because it matters to the characters one way or another. I can think of the stories of “Roughskin,” “Snow White,” and “The Frog Prince.” It’s a wide selection, but beauty has a huge effect on the outcome of the story, for better or for worse.
“I guess beauty is of consequence in all those stories. I guess as a kid I recognized that it was a liability. I like the fact that it’s a cautionary tale, ‘Oh, look out. This isn’t always going to work out in your favor.’ It’s also a kind of illustration of the worst parts of people, like jealousy, materialistic, a synthetic kind of shallowness. I guess if you look across the scope of fairytales and how they deal with beauty, there’s a lot of information to be gained about what it can do for and against you. (Laughs.)”
Ding Ding Zheng
Dr. Elizabeth Horan
ENG550 (4:40pm - 7:30pm)
28 September 2011
Interview with H. F.
[Interview with H. F., Saturday, September 24th, 2011. She is a M.M. student at Arizona State University, studying viola performance. She also an avid reader.]
What was your favorite fairytale growing up?
“Tricky question. I should have looked at these [questions] beforehand. I would say it was probably The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle. I don’t know if that counts as a typical fairytale or what. It's about the last unicorn on earth and her struggle to save the rest of her kind from an evil king.”
One of my favorite fairytales is Grimms’ “The Singing, Soaring Lark,” which has similarities to “Beauty and the Beast.” Why was The Last Unicorn your favorite above the others?
“I was charmed by the character of the unicorn. She was very pure. I related to that a lot as a kid. I realized on some level that as a child, I was less jaded and more true to my original self in my eyes than the adults were. I related to the unicorn. She also goes through a somewhat typical hero's journey. She undergoes a literal transformation where she has to appear as a human in order to make it as far as the castle, and garner the help of a wizard and a 'piratess,' Molly. She has this epic journey, which of course culminates in her besting the evil king, and freeing the rest of her kind, which I found inspiring and realistic, in a funny way.”
What do you think of folklore and fairytales in general? Some people think they are only meant for children. You said yourself, when you were a child you felt less jaded than the adults. A lot of people think that they are meant for children, but I love to read and re-read them even now. What do you think about that?
“Folktales and fairytales, the way that they were originally conveyed was through physical storytelling, like bards. And the reason they lasted as long as they did (since a lot of them were handed down prehistorically, before writing), the reason they persisted, was because they had these bottom lines and underlying concepts that are really legitimate. For example, in The Last Unicorn, there's a basic ‘moral to the story’ kind of idea. She realizes she has to turn into a young woman versus appearing as a unicorn, because a farmer sees her as a beautiful white horse and tries to capture her to sell her. She realizes she has to appear a certain way in order to avoid being taken advantage of. That is kind of an obvious moral by itself. You can see these types of motifs all through fairytales. And if you were a discerning reader, you could pick up all kinds of really profound information from these stories. So, I think they are appropriate for people regardless of age.”
Even if you no longer read them - which isn’t the case - but even if, would you read fairytales to your children (if you had any one day)? Would you share with them your favorite, which is in this case, The Last Unicorn?
“Absolutely. There’s always the risk that kids will think they’re too cool for fairytales. But I would definitely emphasize that the reason these stories grab me and are compelling is because of the underlying morals to the story. Your stereotypical hero figure has a lot of really amazing characteristics that children, especially, could model themselves after. I know I was very aware of that as a kid, and it’s inspiring. In the Redwall books, for example, they were characters that you sensed, as a child, that were admirable and had all of these amazing characteristics. I really wanted to model myself, as I grew, after, say, Martin the Warrior, or Mattimeo, or any number of these characters. So, yes, definitely. And I’ll tell them [my children] if they think they’re too cool for it (which they probably won’t) that just because it's about magic and rainbows and unicorns doesn't mean it's not perfectly legitimate.”
This leads into my next question, ‘Did you want to be like any particular character in your favorite? Why?’ You already said that they were very admirable, that they had these qualities about them that really inspired you. But, what else, aside from their personality? How was their physical appearance described, if it was described?
“In the context of The Last Unicorn, I definitely wanted to be like the unicorn. She didn’t have a name, she was merely the Unicorn. She got a name when she was in her human guise. I wanted to be like her because, like I said before, she was very pure and everyone implicitly - all of her fellow animals - trusted her. She was a kind, gentle being, not warlike in the slightest way. She was very well-respected because of it. As a kid, I saw it as a way to gain love. To be gentle, and lovely, and a ferociously peaceful character. Off the top of my head, her physical appearance was mostly about her eyes, which was an insight into her personality. Her eyes reflected the forest, even if she wasn’t in the forest - it reflected her home. It was saying that her heart’s home, or her innermost personality, was conveyed through her eyes, even if she was in the middle of nowhere, or in the evil king’s castle. The king actually recognized her as a unicorn because he could see the forest in her eyes, and I thought was really cool as a kid. She was also very delicate, very graceful. I remember admiring that she was so wild yet so gentle.”
That leads me to ask, ‘Which character(s) did you not like? Why? How was their physical appearance described?’ The ones that you didn’t like?
“I’m going to go for the obvious one, the king. He was described as ugly, except, to me as a kid, it was very obvious that that was a reflection of his personality, rather than that he actually had a gnarly nose, or warts, or anything like that. He was avaricious. The reason he kept the unicorns entrapped in the sea, with his henchman, The Red Bull, was just because he wanted to have them. He wanted to possess them. He wanted the last unicorn just because she was the last one and she was there. He was very greedy. He didn’t care that he was causing suffering. His home was very much a representation of the corruption of his person. It was crumbling and old, and full of nastiness. There were a lot of cracks in the wall, howling winds, sneaking in through the windows, that kind of thing.”
I notice in your physical description of him, you can’t help but also talk about his personality (laughs), which I think is hard to separate in fairytales a lot of times. More specifically, there are obviously variants of the same fairytales, with the Disney versions being some of the most well-known nowadays. Did you ever watch Disney’s 1991 animated feature film Beauty and the Beast? (Laughs) If so, do you like that version? Why?
“That’s funny, that was my favorite Disney version, actually. (Laughs.) So I love that. As a kid, I was aware that the original version differed from Disney’s version. But I wasn’t very critical as a kid, I just kind of accepted it. I liked the fact that, somewhat selfishly, I related to the main character. She always had her nose stuck in a book, and furthermore, she had brown hair and green eyes, which is important to you when you’re seven years old, and you think, ‘Oh, my God, she looks like me!’ I really loved her friends - the fact that she made friends with all of the transformed members of the castle staff. I loved the fact that she was a really classical heroine. She transformed the Beast through her love. So, regardless of the obvious 'Disney-fication' (laughs) of the story from its original form, it was just absolutely awesome.”
Disney’s Beauty and the Beast was actually one of my favorites, too, for some of the same reasons: that she actually read books, as opposed to a lot of other heroines in which there is no mention of their hobbies. There’s Ariel who loves to sing and collect stuff, but that’s also added in. I really did love the fact that she [Belle] loves reading books. But what did you think of the ending when the Beast changes back into a prince? I always had problems with the ending in the Disney version.
“I actually had mixed feelings as well. I remember thinking, ‘But, she was already happy with the Beast as he was.’ (Laughs.) I was a little conflicted, but I remember being happy that the household got transformed back into their human selves, because, even more so than the Beast, their lives were pretty affected by being transformed into a feather duster, or a candelabra - though he tended to use his candles to great effect. I did have mixed feelings about it, though, as a kid, in a simple way, I was satisfied that she would now be able to have a normal life with him. But there was that part of me that thought, ‘Well, what’s the big deal? (Laughs.) Was it really necessary?’”
That was always the problem I had, too. That you feel emotionally connected to the Beast as the Beast, for the whole story. And then, suddenly, when he changes, it’s an entirely new person that you don’t have that same connection to. I, for one, felt a little disappointed just in that: ‘Wait, I fell in love with you looking like this, and now you look totally different!’ (Laughs.) That kind of thing, even if he’s human again. I also didn’t think he was that handsome. When he turns around, I actually screamed the first time, thinking ‘Oh, my God, his nose!’ (Laughs.) But I think that is more telling about my preferences than anything else. Switching over to another fairytale, did you ever read or heard of Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Ugly Duckling”? If so, what do you think of it?
“My earliest recollection of it has changed over time. I didn't read the original version, but I think it was pretty close. I remember feeling bad for the duckling. That he was tormented by his peers for being different. As a kid, I found a kind of satisfaction in the fact that, a big beautiful swan is of course going to be gangly and look weird to a duck. It’s got a longer neck, and when it’s a cygnet it’s gray and weird-looking. Of course you would get made fun of. I was really happy for him when he found his people, his place. As a kid I thought it was awfully obvious as a transformation story - ‘Isn’t that a little literal?’ - but I liked it.”
Have you ever watched Disney’s 1939 animated short film The Ugly Duckling?
“I didn’t know one existed.”
In that case, if you haven’t seen it, never mind that question. But, just so you know, since you have not watched it, there is really one main difference between Anderson’s version and Disney’s version. The suffering that the little duckling endures lasts for months in the printed story, and merely minutes in the animated film. Therefore, aside from the fact that it was a film and obviously had to be shortened, what kind of effects do you think such a difference might have on the audience, that one was for months and one was for a few minutes?
“I would definitely find [the shortened version] way less gratifying. Even as a kid, when you want instant gratification, just personally, I would think, ‘Well, that was handy.’ I assume he stumbles into a clearing that has some swans, and they’re like, ‘Oh, you’re a baby swan,’ or something like that. It would just be less satisfying. Also, you get that instant gratification, but you wouldn’t get the sense of something you can relate to. This is the slow transformation that you all have to go through, but you wouldn’t really feel it that much. You would think, ‘Oh, this poor little guy was in a bad situation and then it was magically fixed.’ So, I would relate to it less.”
I always had issues with the both versions of “The Ugly Duckling.” What do you think of the ending of either version? Regardless of the length of either version, he was tormented, and he ultimately realizes that he actually is beautiful, and then he is happy.
“I never thought of beauty as an important part of [the story] as a kid. But now that you put it that way, it does rankle a little bit. ‘Oh, everything is okay because I am beautiful, actually.’ (Laughs.) As a kid, the important part that I saw in the story - I really abstracted it a lot, and was literal-minded, since I thought ducks were pretty, too - I just abstracted it to a point where I saw him as being different from his peers and they torment him for it because they don't understand that he is just different. They don’t celebrate his differences, they ostracize him for it. I really saw it that way. And then he finds his people, and there’s a satisfaction in finding like minds. I guess I abstracted it out quite a lot.”
Well, props to you for doing that. (Laughs.) I think I was more stuck with the more literal meaning. After all that we talked about with Beauty and the Beast, “The Ugly Duckling,” and The Last Unicorn, in terms of descriptions of the characters, and of physical appearances tied to personalities, it seems to me that fairytales tend to make broad generalizations about a person’s physical appearance. A woman is often described as either beautiful or ugly. A man is often either handsome or homely. Why do you think there is a lack of specifics? They just say that they are beautiful, or they just say that they are handsome.
“Off the top of my head, I think it has to do with the fact that the fairytale was passed around so many times in its early stages, that it would probably change according to what the teller thought was beautiful. If they were in Norway, they might say, ‘Oh, she was tall, and had beautiful blonde hair, was strong, and could slaughter a pig by herself, or something like that.’ (Laughs.) Whereas, if the story made it all the way out to the old Slavic areas, they might say, 'Ah, she had these dark beautiful eyes, with thick lashes, and she was demure.' I would think it was that kind of thing. If the story was traditional and got passed around enough times, the most common version would become the kind of homogenized one in which you could insert your own ideas about what beautiful means.”
I do think that the reason why fairytales are so popular even after all this time is because they can be generalized enough that anyone can relate. This way we can still enjoy those stories, because they are simultaneously dated and classic. Another thing that has to do with descriptions of the characters is that fairytales tend to pair physical appearance with “good” or “evil.” A princess is lovely and kind. A wicked witch is hideous and scheming. Is this always true for you? Whether it’s true always in fairytales, or whether it’s true in life? There are some people that think that beautiful and good always go together.
“That's a really tricky question. I think that’s especially tricky for me to answer because I grew up on fairytales so profoundly, so thoroughly, that I think I automatically will assign ‘beautiful’ to someone who is good. My brain just kind of processes it that way, so that the two are kind of bound. I can say someone is pretty, but I don't really think of her that way if she is totally vainglorious, and completely self-absorbed, and a rotten, rotten brat as truly beautiful. I wouldn’t describe her as beautiful. I think [fairytales] actually did shape my concept of how to view people. I do seem to remember largely, the witch is described was ugly and scary and evil, and avaricious. One example, actually, that is a really good counter example, is in [Snow White], where the stepmother was beautiful, with the enchanted mirror. She was this vain, vain creature. I think it was a cautionary tale, saying, ‘Careful. Just because someone is pretty doesn’t mean they are good.’ I do agree, largely, [fairytales are] the other way around.”
Continuing on with the idea that appearances are tied to good and evil, do you think “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Ugly Duckling” refute or agree with such a concept? Why?
“I think in the case of Beauty and the Beast, it's very much a literal example. He turned the old witch out of his castle and refused to offer her shelter for the night, and she cursed him. When the Beast was ugly, it was a physical representation of his immaturity or lack of personal development. When he was fixed, he became beautiful. So I think it’s very much a representation of that trope. In “The Ugly Duckling,” this concept doesn’t stick at all. He was just a young beat-up, little kid, essentially, who had potential, but he was not evil. He never, in a typical sense, deserved the punishment he received.”
Keeping this idea in mind, is your perception of the endings of the two tales now different than it was previously?
“I guess that for me, now that I think about it, would inform how much respect I have for peoples’ ability to discern one’s innermost self, based on appearances. For example, Belle is good and heroic and discerning, and sees the potential that the Beast had. And the other ducklings were very shallow, and couldn’t see past his physical appearance to think, “Maybe he could be our friend, maybe he’s cool. Maybe he’s smart or funny, or anything.” I guess what I draw from the comparison of those two, is the difference it can make, what kind of company you find yourself in. I guess, moral of the story is, pick your friends carefully.”
Can you think of any other fairytales that seem to value physical beauty equal to or more than character/personal traits?
“In ‘The Canary Prince,’ I know that [the heroine’s] appearance is very much emphasized, and I can’t think of a single darn thing about her personality. Except for when the canary was pricked by the pin (that the evil stepmother stuck through the pillow that he landed on) that she was distressed. (Laughs.) But I think that’s a pretty natural reaction. But I do remember it was emphasized that she was so beautiful. I think the reason she was locked away was because the stepmother was jealous of her beauty. It was the central tenet, the conflict in the story.”
Yeah, I can think of several examples. Even if they aren’t saying beauty is a good thing, it still matters, because it matters to the characters one way or another. I can think of the stories of “Roughskin,” “Snow White,” and “The Frog Prince.” It’s a wide selection, but beauty has a huge effect on the outcome of the story, for better or for worse.
“I guess beauty is of consequence in all those stories. I guess as a kid I recognized that it was a liability. I like the fact that it’s a cautionary tale, ‘Oh, look out. This isn’t always going to work out in your favor.’ It’s also a kind of illustration of the worst parts of people, like jealousy, materialistic, a synthetic kind of shallowness. I guess if you look across the scope of fairytales and how they deal with beauty, there’s a lot of information to be gained about what it can do for and against you. (Laughs.)”