Post by Benton Payne from ,,The Nasty Stepmother''

Response #1
As I see it, the key difference between these two articles has to do with what they perceive their subject matter to be. While reading Bettelheim, it appears that the author is much more concerned with the stories we tell our children and how that relates to their psychological make up. While this may be an interesting topic, it is clear that he really isn't talking about fairy tales at all. He is interested in the popular versions of Red Riding Hood and why this story is better for young children than other stories parents may read, but in this analysis he doesn't really get to the root of what fairy tales are, rather what their modern transformation into children's stories can do for our kids. Darnton, on the other hand, sees this gap in Bettelheim's argument. There's nothing particularly wrong with Bettelheim's analysis of the effects of good stories on children, but the fact is that this argument really doesn't have anything to do with fairy tales at all, just children's stories, many of which may be derived from sources like the Grimms and Mother Goose. In Darnton's article, he focuses more on the anthropological importance and development of fairy tales: who told them, why they are what they are, how they were perceived by the audience, et cetera. This is a much better template to understanding these tales and their unique place in the history of oral and written literature. Darnton sees fairy tales as what they really are and tries to understand them in that light rather than going down Bettelheim's road of placing other meanings on a particularly recent incarnation of these stories. In the end, Darnton's view provides a much richer and more accurate way of seeing fairy tales both within and out of their historical contexts. Fairy tales are evolving, vague, unique, enriching, sometimes unsettling, and thoughtful pieces of history, not merely bedtime stories to keep our kids from growing up crazy.

-Benton Payne