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.
> 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’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that many of these grandmothers (though certainly not all) had some sense that these stories carried a wisdom worthy of passing on. And that this wisdom had everything to do with the importance of women and the feminine in the world. I think they would have understood this story to be an enthroning of the feminine not the disempowerment of her.
> Coaching a child on how to survive within patriarchy is not the same as endorsing it.
I have no doubt that parents have given their children guidance on how to survive the toxic societies they are in as long as there have been toxic societies. And, that is not what I see in this particular story.
> The belief that the grandmothers were simply passing on the culture as they found it underestimates the ability of grandmothers to subvert.
I think these stories are the subversion. Or rather, these stories come from healthy, intact cultures and, even though neither the stories nor cultures are still intact, that these cultures have been eclipsed and dominated by Empire. Telling these stories, from an older, Earth and kinship based, animist culture was the subversion and rebellion all rolled into one. One way to look at these stories is as patriarchal hangovers from an Empire too sure of itself, pieces of propaganda crafted by the elite and taken up by the people who perpetuated the brainwashing at the bedside. And, while I imagine there was some of that, I don’t see that in folktales generally or in this story in particular. Most folktales are critical of abuses of power and were, I suspect, crafted by the people being abused by the powerful. I these stories were propaganda, then subversion would be needed. But I say these stories, carrying old, pre-Christian, pagan folk wisdom, being told in the face of religious fanaticism was the subversion.
> Also,Tad insists on retaining every detail in the story as necessary.
I would say it in this way: it’s very unlikely that any detail in the story is there by accident. They are, very likely, all meaningful and important in some way.
> At the same time, he offers us multiple versions of the story, that vary not only in detail but in major plot lines.
They do vary in details. And some modern retellings may also have been done with an ignorance as to the true meaning of the story and added in details that don’t fit and removed details that were crucial. The details do differ but I have found that they rhyme with each other. For example, in one version of the story it’s a frog and in another it’s a crab. But those two animals are chosen, I would submit, for similar reasons, and maintain the internal consistency of the story.
> 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.
We are in agreement on this.
> 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.
We agree on this too. I would only add that, if we don’t understand this story’s deeper meaning and we try to adapt it to our modern times from a place of ignorance, that this endeavour will not dispel but deepen the cultural poverty we are attempting to alleviate. It will obscure more than obviate the spells we are under.
> Clearly the story changes with every telling.
In this, we disagree. From my understanding, limited as it is, there are some stories, little jokes and amusing stories for example, where the details are almost infinitely flexible. But with some of the larger stories, changing the details would almost never be done and, if it was done, it would be done with extreme care. I think that Briar Rose is one of the ‘big stories’ that a story teller would be expected to get right in every detail before telling. This story is not one that invites the free styling that is so popular in modern times.
> 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.
On this we don’t entirely agree. I think the story is fine as the story is. I think there are immense and unseen consequences to modernizing these stories though I understand the temptation. And, yes, we need to find ways to make the story live again. As Gustav Mahler put it, “Tradition is not the worship of ashes. It is the preservation of fire.” It is our responsibility to live on this Earth in a good way, to live beautifully and in such a way that life is fed by the beauty of our days and that future generations are fed by our labours now.
Anyway, that's how it seems to me. I'm grateful for you taking the time to share how you see it.
Thanks for a thoughtful reading and a respectful and interesting response. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this level of conversation. Another deep yearning coming from the poverty of our privileged culture.
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.")
One element that gets very little attention is the role of the prince. In order to find Sleeping Beauty, he must show up at the right time, and overcome numerous obstacles to get to Sleeping Beauty. In other words, he is "the right one," displaying courage and fortitude. So often, the women who are at the heart of these tales are seen as passive, but it is their very existence that creates the complex and challenging tale, and through their presence, demands the courage required of the prince.
So much wonderment here. I have only just started reading: here at ~
Gold Plates: In the Substack chat someone wrote, “Why does the King value eating on the 12 golden plates such that he disrespects one of the 13 wise women by not inviting her? What was so special about the plates? Why not change the plates rather than leave one out? Why not get a 13th gold plate made? It’s as if they thought, what could possibly go wrong…?” My curiosity goes to the numbers 12 or 13. Why is the 13th left out? Are there other times / tales / associations with the 13th? are there aspects where once there were 13 but one was left out to fit 12....I'm thinking moons and the Gregorian Calendar. How we count, how we measure value: the shifting roles of Kings / rulers.... and also the one that is outside and inside, the uninvited guest, the beggar, outcast, trickster IS the weaver!
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.
> 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’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that many of these grandmothers (though certainly not all) had some sense that these stories carried a wisdom worthy of passing on. And that this wisdom had everything to do with the importance of women and the feminine in the world. I think they would have understood this story to be an enthroning of the feminine not the disempowerment of her.
> Coaching a child on how to survive within patriarchy is not the same as endorsing it.
I have no doubt that parents have given their children guidance on how to survive the toxic societies they are in as long as there have been toxic societies. And, that is not what I see in this particular story.
> The belief that the grandmothers were simply passing on the culture as they found it underestimates the ability of grandmothers to subvert.
I think these stories are the subversion. Or rather, these stories come from healthy, intact cultures and, even though neither the stories nor cultures are still intact, that these cultures have been eclipsed and dominated by Empire. Telling these stories, from an older, Earth and kinship based, animist culture was the subversion and rebellion all rolled into one. One way to look at these stories is as patriarchal hangovers from an Empire too sure of itself, pieces of propaganda crafted by the elite and taken up by the people who perpetuated the brainwashing at the bedside. And, while I imagine there was some of that, I don’t see that in folktales generally or in this story in particular. Most folktales are critical of abuses of power and were, I suspect, crafted by the people being abused by the powerful. I these stories were propaganda, then subversion would be needed. But I say these stories, carrying old, pre-Christian, pagan folk wisdom, being told in the face of religious fanaticism was the subversion.
> Also,Tad insists on retaining every detail in the story as necessary.
I would say it in this way: it’s very unlikely that any detail in the story is there by accident. They are, very likely, all meaningful and important in some way.
> At the same time, he offers us multiple versions of the story, that vary not only in detail but in major plot lines.
They do vary in details. And some modern retellings may also have been done with an ignorance as to the true meaning of the story and added in details that don’t fit and removed details that were crucial. The details do differ but I have found that they rhyme with each other. For example, in one version of the story it’s a frog and in another it’s a crab. But those two animals are chosen, I would submit, for similar reasons, and maintain the internal consistency of the story.
> 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.
We are in agreement on this.
> 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.
We agree on this too. I would only add that, if we don’t understand this story’s deeper meaning and we try to adapt it to our modern times from a place of ignorance, that this endeavour will not dispel but deepen the cultural poverty we are attempting to alleviate. It will obscure more than obviate the spells we are under.
> Clearly the story changes with every telling.
In this, we disagree. From my understanding, limited as it is, there are some stories, little jokes and amusing stories for example, where the details are almost infinitely flexible. But with some of the larger stories, changing the details would almost never be done and, if it was done, it would be done with extreme care. I think that Briar Rose is one of the ‘big stories’ that a story teller would be expected to get right in every detail before telling. This story is not one that invites the free styling that is so popular in modern times.
> 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.
On this we don’t entirely agree. I think the story is fine as the story is. I think there are immense and unseen consequences to modernizing these stories though I understand the temptation. And, yes, we need to find ways to make the story live again. As Gustav Mahler put it, “Tradition is not the worship of ashes. It is the preservation of fire.” It is our responsibility to live on this Earth in a good way, to live beautifully and in such a way that life is fed by the beauty of our days and that future generations are fed by our labours now.
Anyway, that's how it seems to me. I'm grateful for you taking the time to share how you see it.
Thanks for a thoughtful reading and a respectful and interesting response. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this level of conversation. Another deep yearning coming from the poverty of our privileged culture.
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.")
One element that gets very little attention is the role of the prince. In order to find Sleeping Beauty, he must show up at the right time, and overcome numerous obstacles to get to Sleeping Beauty. In other words, he is "the right one," displaying courage and fortitude. So often, the women who are at the heart of these tales are seen as passive, but it is their very existence that creates the complex and challenging tale, and through their presence, demands the courage required of the prince.
Amen. Good catch.
So much wonderment here. I have only just started reading: here at ~
Gold Plates: In the Substack chat someone wrote, “Why does the King value eating on the 12 golden plates such that he disrespects one of the 13 wise women by not inviting her? What was so special about the plates? Why not change the plates rather than leave one out? Why not get a 13th gold plate made? It’s as if they thought, what could possibly go wrong…?” My curiosity goes to the numbers 12 or 13. Why is the 13th left out? Are there other times / tales / associations with the 13th? are there aspects where once there were 13 but one was left out to fit 12....I'm thinking moons and the Gregorian Calendar. How we count, how we measure value: the shifting roles of Kings / rulers.... and also the one that is outside and inside, the uninvited guest, the beggar, outcast, trickster IS the weaver!
Beautiful wonderings.