I think the best essay to learn how to think about fairy tales as more than children’s entertainment is Jack Zipes Introduction in The Wondrous Fairy Tales of Western Culture. He discusses the history of fairy tales, highlighting how the genre has its roots in the aristocracy and only evolved over time into children’s literature. But, since that essay is off the table, I guess a distant second place for most productive in helping me think about fairy tales as more than children’s literature goes to Robert Darnton’s “Peasants Tell Tales: The Meaning of Mother Goose.”

Darnton’s essay makes some great points that aid in a fuller understanding of the idea that fairy tales are more than children’s entertainment. I like his long introduction that ends by critiquing psychoanalysis with the question, “How could anyone get a text so wrong?” (p282). There are few theories that make me sigh harder than hearing the word “psychoanalysis;” maybe it is because I’m Irish. But regardless of why I dislike psychoanalysis, I smile at his first point and then nod in agreement when Darnton suggests that my analysis might be more productive if I approached fairy tales from a historical perspective. Darnton reminds the reader that “fairytales are historical documents,” not some totally constructed fiction just to amuse kids (283). They may not be historical fact, but they are still useful in more than only morally instructive instances. According to Darnton, the tales make more sense when examined under a dual lens of anthropology and folklore (285). Incorporating knowledge from hard-hitting sciences like “anthropology” and “folklore” open up more areas to explore the idea that fairy tales might be more than children’s entertainment. In what is possibly the most important part of Darnton’s argument for realizing that fairy tales are more than children’s literature, he makes the point that, “Whether they were meant to amuse adults or to frighten children, as in the case of cautionary tales like “Little Red Riding Hood,” the stories belonged to a fund of popular culture, which peasants hoarded over the centuries” (287). It is pretty clear that originally fairy tales served more of a purpose than just being children’s literature.

It is obvious that Darnton’s essay is more about keeping the historical context in mind when trying to analyze fairy tales for deeper meaning. That is good advice, especially compared to the shenanigans of psychoanalysis, but it is not an essay about the fact that fairy tales are not simply children’s entertainment. All of the evidence that shows that this is not the case must be pulled out of the references to the historical origins of the tales. Again, I think Zipes’ Introduction does a more explicit job of showing how varied the role of fairy tales truly is.

A lesser creature, like an ogre or wicked stepmother, might argue that Bettelheim’s essay does a better job arguing that fairy tales are more than children’s entertainment. I can see where they are coming from, what with him making the point that fairy tales are important for child psychological development. Yes, if fairy tales are for childhood psychological development, then they are for more than just children’s entertainment. But if an ogre or wicked stepmother came away with only this lesson, they could easily think that fairy tales serve a multi-faceted role for children only. It is important to understand that fairy tales serve a purpose for more than children, or at least they did historically. Because Darnton reveals more of this overall utility of fairy tales, he wins the “better than Bettelheim” award for being more productive in helping me think about fairy tales as more than children’s entertainment.

Oh, and since this is a blog, the song of the blog is “Girl’s Night Out,” by The Knife.