In Vladimir Propp's essay "The Method and Material", from his Morphology of the Folktale, he goes into great depth about a method for organizing and classifying all tales. Although there will be some exceptions, naturally, I think that Propp managed a fantastic feat in deducing the so-called 31 functions of a fairy tales. In doing so, he determined that the folktale, with fairy tales in particular, are truly formulaic in nature. Walt Disney managed to portray this formulaic quality in the fairy tale movies that he chose to make; the 'Disney Effect' is merely a different formula used to create lasting imprints on society. Propp also applies his mathematical method of thinking to the characters in fairy tales, and again I agree with him. Fairy tales, especially ones in the same general category of tale, are virtually identical in the characters used. Disney, again, takes this to the extreme. In the Disney fairy tale movies there exist, without fail, the prince, the princess (or princess-to-be), the villain, and the helpers of both the princess and the villain.
Propp takes an extremely rational approach to classifying tales. He breaks them down into discrete segments, gives the segments a broad overview, and then shows how they inter-relate with other tale types. In doing so, he provides yet another definition for what may be called a fairy tale, and his definition is much longer and more specific than many. Vladimir Propp recognizes that tales all have similar properties, and that these properties are all present in a distinct order in almost every tale; thus, his definition is simply all folktales which have some or all of the elements he deems necessary in the order he has provided (his 31 functions). I think that Propp's ideas are much more rational and objective than many folklore specialists because he analyzes only the formula for a fairy tale, not the actual content of the tale itself. While fairy tales can be interpreted infinitely by anyone, his formula for a fairy tale is stable through the throes of dispute over meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although he did make what could be considered a great accomplishment by reducing all fairy tales down to 31 functions, the ultimate end of this reductionist form of analysis is that there is no more ability to discern or inquire as to the meaning, unless it is conversely used as an act solely of delineation, in which case there is nothing gained and perhaps something lost. The identification of certain types of plot device that are common in fairy tales (an arbitrary category defined after collecting and reworking many folk tales) does nothing more than further categorize an artificial division. Also, the act of identifying as such does not really inform us of anything except that it is identified. Similar to when our elementary teachers explian that stories are made up exposition, climax, and resolution with rising and falling action, this does not help us to learn anything about the people that created the stories nor any possible purpose nor anything else except for the quest to locate and identify the specific structural elements. Searching only for these elements ecourages people to miss everything else, and any possible meaning or implications get lost in the process.
ReplyDeleteWell I would agree with the orignal post. I guess what I took from the deducing of the 31 functions of the fairytales was to give a pattern for the tales. And I've a few people's blog that noted its too general and any fairytale could fit, but I thought that was the point. Considering there is a larger, expanded list that categorizes fairytales more specifically and more critically, I would say this basic outline of a fairytale helps guide the reader when reading the fairytale genre. If the reader was so inclined, I would imagine he or she would then look into the 31 functions of the genre and even the AT system.
ReplyDelete