Discussion about this post

User's avatar
elisabeth's avatar

Tad mentions that grandmothers told this story to their grandchildren. I think he’s trying to imply that therefore it can’t be sexist/ patriarchal and/or that the grandmothers endorsed the patriarchal norms. I have some thoughts on that claim:

1)Women are just as responsible for perpetuating patriarchy as men. That doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t want to or shouldn’t try to change it now. No matter our gender.

2)Coaching a child on how to survive within patriarchy is not the same as endorsing it.

3)The belief that the grandmothers were simply passing on the culture as they found it underestimates the ability of grandmothers to subvert.

Also,Tad insists on retaining every detail in the story as necessary. At the same time, he offers us multiple versions of the story, that vary not only in detail but in major plot lines. So the story whose canonical integrity he is defending was told at a very particular place in a very particular time. That’s interesting, and valuable, and there is much in that particular telling that is useful for us now. At the same time, we won’t be able to make full use of it if we don’t put it into context and include in our thinking the fact that we are living in a different place in a different time. Clearly the story changes with every telling. It is our responsibility, not just our right, to retell it in the context of now, again and again. Otherwise the story becomes a dead idol.

Expand full comment
Susan Gale's avatar

Without all the traits bestowed upon the princess being alive and well in a culture (or palace), it will indeed go to sleep. Things freeze into place with no more growth, just being the same... static.

The prince believed in himself fully, no wonder all parted in his path. Was it because the 100 years passed that he appeared, or did the wise woman know he would appear in 100 years? I do not think that matters.

I also wonder if the wise woman and the woman in the tower were not one and the same. We make our own stories come to pass and all that kind of thing.

At any rate, he did not believe the story... he was a myth buster! He believed in himself, which is a story unto itself.

I wonder that the king tried to protect rather than inform. Had the princess known of the danger, the entire story would not have happened. (When I was little and would ask my father about these kinds of things, he would always say ... "it's how they wrote the script.")

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts