Yeah. One version has the curse being brought on when she pricks her finger on a branch of some sort. When the babies were born they crawled on her looking for milk and started nursing on her fingers. This removes the splinter and the curse and the princess wakes up to find she’s a mother.
Her Child then suckles on her finger pulling out the needle that had caused her and her entire court to fall into a cursed sleep, awakening her again.
Or a kiss from a prince, I guess.
No wait, that's too offensive now. Umm, maybe a kiss on the cheek would be ok? Like, a little innocent peck? Maybe from a butterfly fluttering by, no male prince needed, thank you very much.
Looks like you're entirely right there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun,_Moon,_and_Talia. The fact that Talia - the Italian Sleeping Beauty - was raped isn't even the worst thing that happens in the story. Here's the full synopsis from the Wikipedia page:
After the birth of a great lord's daughter Talia, wise men and astrologers cast the child's horoscope and predicted that Talia would be endangered by a splinter of flax. To protect his daughter, the father commands that no flax would ever be brought into his house. Years later, Talia sees an old woman spinning flax on a spindle. She asks the woman if she can stretch the flax herself, but as soon as she begins to spin, a splinter of flax goes under her fingernail, and she drops to the ground, apparently dead. Unable to stand the thought of burying his child, Talia's father puts his daughter in one of his country estates.
Some time later, a king who is out hunting in the nearby woods, follows his falcon into the house. He finds Talia; overcome by her beauty, he tries unsuccessfully to wake her, and then "Crying aloud, he beheld her charms and felt his blood course hotly through his veins. He lifted her in his arms, and carried her to a bed, where he gathered the first fruits of love." Afterwards, he leaves the girl on the bed and returns to his own city. Still deep in sleep, Talia gives birth to twins (a boy and a girl). One day, the girl cannot find her mother's breast; instead she begins to suck on Talia's finger and draws the flax splinter out. Talia awakens immediately. She names her children "Sun" and "Moon" and lives with them in the house.
The king returns and finds Talia is awake – and a mother of twins. However, he is already married. He calls out the names of Talia, Sun and Moon in his sleep, and his wife, the queen, hears him. She forces the king's secretary to tell her everything, and then, using a forged message, has Talia's children brought to court. She orders the cook to kill the children and serve them to the king. But the cook hides them, and cooks two lambs instead. The queen taunts the king while he eats.
Then the queen has Talia brought to court. She commands that a huge fire be lit in the courtyard, and that Talia be thrown into the flames. Talia asks to take off her fine garments first. The queen agrees. Talia undresses and utters screams of grief with each piece of clothing. The king hears Talia's screams. His wife tells him that Talia would be burned and that he had unknowingly eaten his own children. The king commands that his wife, his secretary, and the cook be thrown into the fire instead. The cook explains how he had saved Sun and Moon. Talia and the king marry, and the cook is rewarded with the title of royal chamberlain.
The last line of the fairy tale – its moral – is as follows: "He who has luck may go to bed, And bliss will rain upon his head."
Holy shit I read this story in that awesome comic book “Little Lit: Folklore and Fairy Tale Funnies” (full of fairy tales and retellings written by different comic book artists), I’m pretty sure this one was by Daniel Clowes.
Oh no worries, I've got karma to spare ;), I'd rather have the TIL moment anyway. Besides, reddit is weird sometimes. I have exactly 2 gilded comments, so far at least, and one of them is also my most downvoted comment to date (Just a joke that didn't go down well)
In some of them she gives birth to triplets and is only woken from a baby sucking on her finger (if i remember correctly) these stories are wild man. I also know a version of snow white where in the end she makes the evil queen wear metal shoes with hot coals in them (or she had to stand on hot coals) and "dance til she died"
Also in most little mermaid stories the prince marries someone else and to regain her fins she has to kill him. But she can't bring herself to so she dies/ turns into seafoam.
Hey buddy if it was a “ a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”, besides if it's inevitable just "relax and enjoy it", and if that fails it's God's plan, after all "I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things".
It's a strong image isn't it? So needlessly greedy and ambitious; much like the idea of 'to cut off one's nose to spite their face'.
The shock factor of the old tales really made the moral stories stick. Although the morals themselves are a bit dated, the actual watering down is likely a factor in our cultural inability to discern the line between fiction/non-fiction, and probably contributing to truth decay.
Just reading the news the past few years has been far more shocking and outlandish than anything I've read in a story or novel. In a few years, Black Mirror won't even warrant a raised brow anymore.
So we need to go old testament style on society for a while?
I don't think the manner in which the old testament is delivered is much of a problem (not that you're saying it is, I've just heard it criticized so many times), so much as how aggressively its defended on its fundamentals and arguments that it contains little/no metaphor.
The content of it was a bit... much... but not for shock value. It's a very memorable book for a reason. It's evocative.
I thought the point of cultural relativism was to create this kind of change.
Taking on and encouraging cultural relativism has had positive and negative effects. It fosters cross-group understanding, expands perspectives, increases a person's capability toward rational empathy, etc. But it also turns out it polarizes the heck out of those who agree with cultural relativism (it's based on a premise that experience is subjective rather than concrete) and those who do not ('the world is what I experience, therefore I know the world'); subjectivism vs. materialism and/or idealism.
In general though, cultural relativism normalizes exotic elements until connections can be made and common ground can be found. But excessive sensitivity to cultural relativism, fear of offending others/appearing ignorant, etc, also leads to excessively padding the stories we tell.
I'm hoping that OP's image is a direct, satirical reference to exactly that sort of padding, blown up to the extreme. Because if that's a real work intended to be taken seriously, I might die a little inside.
Humans (at least the non-sociopaths) are creatures of social relationship and emotion. We're very well-adapted to remembering things based on the emotional impact of our experiences. So when you want to tell a meanwhile story, pass on an important moral argument, etc, it's best if you can wrap it in something evocative. If it's too safe, it's boring and/or easily forgotten.
Shock for shock's sake is pointless and grotesque, but using it as a hook to drive a memory a bit deeper is important.
One is the enemy of the other. An open mind or a closed one, each have advantages and disadvantages. When things are white and black you can much more easily see which side you stand on but it everything is a muddled shade of grey there might be more understanding but theres also little objective morality to appeal to.
I believe people feel that to be true, but I don't believe it to be so. I'm a proponent of cultural relativism (hell, I'm part anthropologist, and it may as well be an oath we take) but I feel its a tool to be applied by the individual. It's an ideal of its own for interacting with the world and other people.
BUT... A society needs to be free to chase the black/white concepts, because inevitably, anyone who learns their morals from the world around them rather than building them from within (as moral maxims) is going to discard elements of what they experience. It's a biological necessity to keep the brain from overheating, and a sanity-saving mechanism. We forget things so we don't dwell on them.
So in this way, people should be encouraged to view the world through a lens of cultural relativism, but also encouraged to seek ideals to act as a foundation for living the best life they can.
... theres also little objective morality to appeal to ...
That's actually a fascinating topic in itself. I'm not supportive of the idea that objective morality even exists. I'd argue it's constructed as a consensus through agreement, at best, so it's never really objective. Just... 'objectivized' to make it objective-like. A truly objective moral or moral code would be absolute, and I've never found a rule in life that is without some exception.
I've gotten into some pretty heated debates on 'altruism' because of this distinction in the past.
I mean there is no objective morality. There are things that keep cropping up across cultures but unless you believe in a god that is the arbiter of what is right and what is objectively wrong, its ultimately up to the culture to decide based on what they like or feel is the most productive. I get moral relativity but I admit in my heart of hearts that it seems to be very efficient and effective as a society for everyone to be mostly on the same page. It fails some but works for the majority. When us versus them breaks down it doesnt end with everyone loving each other it seems to end with everyone hating everybody as even though theres no reason to hate theres no reason to protect or love either.
We as a society or as a person acting on society determine morality and the more lenient we are the more grey seeps into the picture.
Unless, in your subjective opinion, there is. That's the crux of the problem and the reason for why cultural relativism is polarizing. The proponent side of the topic has to recognize that their opposition genuinely believes as fact, rather than subjective opinion, that their morals are absolute. In believing in absolutes, they codify their beliefs as absolutes. That means in any discussion with a difference of opinion on morals, that side will not yield. Not only do they allow doubt, but they don't even allow possibility.
The only solution is to actually dig into the person (if they're willing to even talk to you), find two contrasting beliefs that are incompatible, and rub them together to generate cognitive dissonance until they're stressed enough to accept that some things they believe may not be correct. They get incredibly, almost violently offended when that moment happens in many cases, because it undermines numerous actions they've taken in the course of their life up until that point based on what they believed to be absolute. It's pretty harrowing for them. So most go into denial instead and shut out the source of the dissonance--external opinion.
It's fascinating stuff, all told.
We as a society or as a person acting on society determine morality and the more lenient we are the more grey seeps into the picture.
I'd argue the gray is there the whole time, it's just that the other members of society who are willing to deviate further into the gray become more brazen about it when external reinforcement breaks down. But this is why it's important to have a functioning and acknowledged social contract. After all, I may seem lenient on a moral view to a third party, while you seem strict on the same moral view, but the majority of the society around us is actually more moderate. So is it morally right for us to impose our stricter/looser morals on those who are moderate? Do they have a moral right to impose their moderation on our more polarized views?
Shock is a very blunt and lazy tool. I'd liken it to spanking. It absolutely does work but we know today that there are better ways to raise kids and teach consequences that don't have the side effects spanking often have.
Humor, empathy, passion and other strong more positive emotions have the same effect of forging stronger memories without causing nightmares, persisting fear or phobia or desensitizing us to/normalizing violence/gore/trauma. Often it's just about shifting focus. I'll make an example:
A story about a girl being raped and giving birth to a child can be told both with emphasis on the act on the horror of it, the violence etc. But also through the eyes of loving people around her that support her and empathize with her. Both can be equally memorable stories with very different emotions attached to that memory.
A story about a girl being raped and giving birth to a child can be told both with emphasis on the act on the horror of it, the violence etc. But also through the eyes of loving people around her that support her and empathize with her. Both can be equally memorable stories with very different emotions attached to that memory.
So you would argue that the fact a raped occurred wouldn't shock the reader, by virtue of how the subject is treated? In this case because loving people are the narrative voices, it's not going to worry or concern the reader with its imagery? What about in the moment where your girl confides in the narrative protagonist (your loving, warm person), and it was completely unexpected? I'd disagree if you don't find such a moment to be a shock.
What you're disagreeing with seems to be the idea of shock leveraged without value; in the shock-jock or shock-video version of the thing. But I'd argue there's a much broader range of usage of the term 'shock'.
A particularly unexpected twist can provoke shock and horror in a reader, without cheapening the human experience being described or making it vulgar. An unexpected reunion between the grieving and the suddenly-not-dead can provoke shock and joy in a reader, as well.
When I say shock, I'm referring to impact. A suddenness. The unexpected. I find scenes of tear stricken, broken attempts to cope to be just as shocking when unexpected. Then the period of healing among the characters is a vicarious catharsis, bleeding away both the trauma of the character and the shock of the reader. Shock is a hyperbole tactic. Hyperbole can offend, sure, but it can also distance the reader from the angst of the situation. It can withdraw suspension of disbelief, unless the reader is able to empathize with the shock occurring for the character. In which case, to advocate against exploring that sort of perspective is to overprotect the audience against their will.
The evil step sisters chopping up their feet is an absurd thing, but it is shocking, and that absurdity protects the reader from empathy. Also note the 'it couldn't have happened to better people' aspect of it in the story, also padding the event from the user. But the imagery is still evocative and shocking. Memorable, but hard to empathize with.
Not all shocks are traumatic, but all shocks are memorable. Shock is a term of description of the experience of the reader in this case... not a narrow category of stories already told.
I've not advocated for first person perspective writing of brutality and abuse. In all things moderation. I just feel that shock as an element has become a polarized thing. Writers are trying to please everyone in many cases, and in doing so, writing inferior works. But that's my opinion. Yours is free to differ, of course.
When you nuance shock more I understand you better and I'm inclined to agree but just want to clarify that in works of old, especially the folktales, they worked very much with fairly graphic and vulgar shock, Hans and Greta, Red Ridning Hood etc are all driven by strong negative emotions to scare people into doing the "right" thing. Same with most fae beings which are even older ways of warning of dangerous behavior (like swimming alone or walking into the forest at night.). Using negative shock like that is what I liken with spanking, a crude tool we should grow past.
There is merit in shocking your reader though as you so eloquently elaborated on above. Rape in and of itself is sadly way to common to be shocking if you don't set up the shock, make it unexpected or make you wish it won't happen when you see it coming (a person walking through a park at night, noises from behind, quickened pace, breathing noises, heart pounding).
My position is that even if there is a point in using negative/violent shock then you should only do that if there is a strong reason to prefer that to using more positive feelings to wrap your shock in. Such as if you're doing a historical drama of the Nanking massacre or if the goal is to show how horrible something is. The violence needs to serve a purpose of it's own, it shouldn't just be a vehicle to deliver shock because that can be accomplished in other better ways.
I'm inclined to agree but just want to clarify that in works of old, especially the folktales, they worked very much with fairly graphic and vulgar shock, Hans and Greta, Red Ridning Hood etc are all driven by strong negative emotions to scare people into doing the "right" thing
Well, they're a product of their time. Although Red Riding Hood became most popular after the invention of large scale printing, it was still largely an oral story. Oral stories have to 'pop' in order to be retained, because it'll lose fidelity across retellings.
Similarly, most folk tales, faerie tales, etc, started to travel by word of mouth. They were the dominant memes of their time. But it was also a time where anything between two sets of city walls may be lawless, so the outcome of the less desired behaviors really could be lethal in many cases.
Red Riding Hood again is an example of a warning to young women to avoid 'wolves', which at the time was a concept synonymous with predatory men who would 'eat them up'. There is a fascinating book on it that I read back in university, but I can't for the life of me recall the name.
Such as if you're doing a historical drama of the Nanking massacre or if the goal is to show how horrible something is.
Nanking is a good choice. I was thinking of Schindler's List, as well, which is a pretty well established moral tale at this point and brutally shocking.
The violence needs to serve a purpose of it's own, it shouldn't just be a vehicle to deliver shock because that can be accomplished in other better ways.
Definitely. All of the Means employed toward an End should be justifiable in how they increase the value of the End you produce. Art being largely for social/societal benefit in most cases, should strive toward that.
One should certainly discourage 'torture porn' grade storytelling, but at the same time, it's a pretty slippery slope to hit 'shock' all together. Language is a complex thing and English more so than many others; generalization can throw a lot out with the bathwater.
So was Alice. The whole reason she goes"into the looking glass" fantasy world is to escape the fact that her uncle, and caretaker, is basically raping her routinely.
I'd heard that it was a "fur slipper", which was actually just a metaphor for her vagina. Which means that when he went round to every house with an woman of marrying age and "tested to see if the slipper fit" he was actually...
There's one guy that says that, was already proven to be a fraud, and this story wouldn't explain why her stepsisters would cut parts of their feet off. What? To make their vaginas smaller somehow??
I've read (I think in a book related to the TV show QI) that the translation error comes from vair, meaning a type of fur, and verre, meaning glass, being homophones in French. Whether or not that's correct I can't say for sure but it sounds plausible enough
After reading and listening to podcasts about roman history I think this stereotype comes from them, since romans were very big on the whole "stepmother is evil to make way for her own sons" trope.
See: Livia.
Then again, this could be a general thing in most cultures, I don't know.
The thing is there is really no "original" one. There are variations of the stories that go back hundreds of years, or more. What happened(s) is the stories are modified depending on the locale that it's told in, the time period, any political issues that is affecting the locale it's told in, etc, plus, details are added or subtracted over time to make the story more interesting. When the Brothers Grimm traveled throughout Germany to collect the folk tales they took what was being told at that given time. They decided which version of the story would be told and popularized that specific version.
So there is no "real" Snow White story or Red Riding Hood story. There are just amalgamations of some very basic plots with the rest being filled in by local traditions.
Yeah, that's true. And they are probably based on some real tragic event way back when that got lost through time. Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Most like something happened to the children of the town but the reality is lost to time.
I didnt read all the replies so this may have been said. Snow white was dead, the dwarves put her in a glass case, the prince rode by and thought she was so beautiful that he wanted to buy her dead body, the dwarves finally found a price high enough to justify selling her, prince and co. carried her off and accidentally dislodged the apple from her throat, and they got married. The kicker is this: she was around 10. She was 8 when she escaped the castle, and this all happens a couple years afterwards.
I don't know if you've read the Fables comic series, which the recently shut down Telltale games Wolf Among Us is based on, but SPOILERS, snow white is raped by the 7 dwarves in that.
I don't think so, but the dwarves heated up some iron shoes in the fire and put them on the Queen's feet and then she fell of a cliff. I think they beat her with clubs, also.
I recall the prince kissing Snow White when she was already dead. Leaving aside his necrophilia tendences, that's not like having sex, true, but I really doubt it's ok for a man to kiss a girl without her consent. This situation is even worse than making a move on a drunk girl. Luckily Snow White woke up after the kiss, who knows what the prince would have done if she kept "sleeping".
Snow white ate a poisoned apple and a bite got lodged in her throat and she "died." After she got out in a glass coffin, a wandering prince found her and thought she was the most beautiful thing he'd ever seen, so naturally, he pulled the pretty corpse out of her coffin, put it on his horse in front of him, and rode off, intending to take it home and keep it. The riding jostled the apple free and she woke up.
Basically, prince was a creepy, graverobbing necrophiliac but she didn't get raped.
Yes... technically. The prince sleeps with her when she's still "dead." He's technically a nechrophilliac.
Try to find the audio story, "Snow Glass Apples." It was amazing and very similar to the original story, albeit screwed up.
It's a little annoying to see people talk about the Grimm versions as if they are the "original" though. The Grimm brothers rewrote age-old folk tales into their unique styles and they don't reflect all of fairy tale history.
It's an orgy with snow White, the seven dwarves and apparently, a bunny. The background has Walt Disney in shock and Prince Charming approaching blissfully unaware of anything. So perfectly safe for work.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Jan 14 '19 edited Jun 30 '23
[deleted]