A Reduction of Reductionist Approaches to Literature

I have no illusions regarding the nature of this blog post. It is a rant, pure and simple. I know this, I acknowledge this, but nonetheless, the "abbreviated" Functions that we discussed in class today just rub me the wrong way. While Propp's original thirty-one Functions were at least somewhat meaningful in the study of fairy tales, the so-called "Abbreviated Functions" are nearly meaningless. Reducing the structure of thousands of tales into generalizations that somehow encompass all of the genre, in effect, also reduces the genre. The five abbreviated functions only very loosely apply to fairy tales or folk literature at all.

1. There is a lack of something
2. The lack forces the hero on a quest to address this lack
3. The hero encounters a magical helper
4. Test(s)
5. Reward for the test(s)

With the notable exception of number three, all four other functions could easily apply to almost any tale of any genre. And even then, depending on how loosely one interprets a "magical" helper, even the third function could conceivably apply to more mundane stories. For instance, the "magical" realization of a heroine that she truly does love the man who has been courting her, or the "magical" happenstance of coincidence that favorably affects events.

Although these Abbreviated Functions were designed for folk tales and certainly apply to folk tales, they are simply too general in focus. Rather than defining the genre, because of the breadth of folk literature the functions instead are so generalized that they could nearly universally apply to any form of literature. Propp's Thirty-One Functions are useful because while they are general enough to encompass the genre of folk literature, they are also specific enough to actually apply directly to the genre. Not all thirty-one functions were intended to apply to every single tale. However, in the case of the abbreviated functions, which were designed such that all of the functions apply to every folk tale, the functions are simply too general.

I am, perhaps, being too critical of these Abbreviated Functions. If the third function is interpreted literally, the range of literature to which the Functions can apply is sharply reduced. Additionally, the Functions do not necessarily need to define the genre of folk literature. Rather, if they are used internally as a lens to study folk literature they provide a solid structure around which all folk tales hold common ground. As a tool, the Abbreviated Functions serve as a structural rubric, rather than as conditions that define the genre.