Although I disagree with some of the reasoning of Tatar, I do believe that “Cinderella” and “Donkeyskin” can legitimately be read together. Tatar admits that the two stories seem superficially unrelated. The title character in each is very different in nature, and “unlike Cinderella, who endures humiliation at home and becomes the beneficiary of lavish gifts, the heroine of Catskin tales is mobile, active, and resourceful” (105). "Cinderella’s” plot revolves around biological family jealousy and forced domesticity, while “Donkeyskin’s” plot includes a father’s sexual desire and a daughter running away. In the first kind, focus is on “the unbearable family situation produced by a father’s remarriage,” yet the father’s responsibility is suppressed and the emphasis is placed instead on the evil doings of his wife. In the latter, stepmothers and daughters are nonexistant, yet the mother’s words drive the father’s desire by giving him strict requirements that only her daughter could fulfill. In this way, the catalyst for both stories can be read as the mother. However, this parallel is not enough to place the two stories in the same category, because mothers as villains are ever-present in fairytales (ex. Snow White). Nevertheless, Tatar does make a convincing argument for their connection in that both stories illustrate “the way in which the path to happy heterosexual unions depends on a successful transfer of filial love and devotion from a father to a ‘prince,’ on a move from a false ‘perfect fit’ to a true ‘perfect fit’” (105).
The two can be read together, because the similarities outweigh the differences. In each there exists a fairy godmother, a prince’s quest of fitting (either of the glass slipper or of the ring), beautiful gowns, and the girl wearing rags and performing menial labor. While there are no literal stepmothers or stepdaughters in “Donkeyskin,” the general populace fills these roles, echoing the evil characters of “Cinderella” in declarations like “It’s only Donkeyskin” and “only wolves are uglier than she is” (113).
However, Kashmir’s “The Wicked Stepmother” is read as a “Cinderella” tale, yet its birthmother is prevalent and there is no prince. It does, however, relate to “Cinderella” in a major way that “Donkeyskin” does not: there exists a wicked stepmother who is the driving force of evil in the story. There is also the fitting of the ring that's found in "Donkeyskin" but not "Cinderella." Therefore, which stories are read together depends on the specific classification. In the category of tales of finding "the perfect fit," all three stories are in harmony.
In general, I agree that the stories can be read together, despite some differences. One of the most interesting points in your post was the brief mention of a quote explaining the differences between the Cinderella type characters: Cinderella enduring versus Catskin being mobile, active, and resourceful. Maybe Catskin is just our modern Cinderella; the princess to be looked up to in this time as active and ambitious instead of passive and meek.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Tatar asserts that the tales are "superficially unrelated," I would contend that their similarities are just as superficial. However, this belief stems from my own reading of fairy tales which relies more on the meaning and the intent of the tale rather than their plots and structures. Tatar's point about the transference from father to husband is intriguing, but ultimately I feel that the differences between the tales outweigh the similarity of their "transference" message. The underlying conflicts in the tales, and therefore their ultimate significance, are utterly different. The incestuous father and the evil step-mother both are the sources of conflict, but the natures of the conflicts are drastically different. Because these conflicts are so fundamentally different, I cannot reconcile studying them as "similar" tales.
ReplyDelete