The Frog King and Cinderella - Essay Example

November 9 The Frog King and Cinderella Morality, Sexuality and the Loss of Autonomy Fairy tales and folk stories are an oral tradition of morality stretching back thousands of years. Even in the high-tech twenty-first century, parents make use of these traditional tales to instil important lessons in their children – we have all, in part, learned decency from stories. The Frog King, for example, teaches us that it is always worthwhile to keep our promises, even those made in haste; the moral of Cinderella is that a good heart and obedience will be rewarded above cruelty and lies. But are the lessons of fairy tales as simple as that, and do we want to continue telling such stories to our sons and daughters without encouraging them to criticize? In our world in which, by implication, “wishing [does no] good” (The Frog King), what is the symbolism of the princess's golden ball, and should fathers force their daughters to keep insincere promises made in return for small favours? In our world, do we really believe that wealth does not guarantee happiness unless it is given as a prize for suffering, as Cinderella experienced? This paper will look at the symbolism and father-daughter relationship dynamics of The Frog King, with reference to Cinderella as supporting evidence, to show that instead of morality, the stories depict the development of sexuality twinned with a loss of autonomy for its female characters. The basic story of The Frog King is so well-known that it was even used as the basis for one of Disney's most famous cartoons, Beauty and the Beast: that is, we think of the princess saving a prince from an evil spell, cast on him long ago, by kissing him. Instead, as the Excelsior File says, “She throws Frog against the wall with the intent to kill him. Well. This instantly changes him into a handsome prince (no kissing involved at all!)” (“Grimmoire #1”). However, Excelsior goes on to argue that this shows “that one honors ones [sic] agreements … and that the Princess was a bit of a spoiled snot and should have behaved better” (ibid). However, the concept of promise-keeping is a complicated one for young minds, and children would obviously identify more with the unfairness of the father and the disgust of having a slimy frog in one's bed than the prize of winning a handsome prince. In Cinderella, likewise, it would be difficult for children to identify with a girl who “bore [mistreatment and abuse from her stepmother] patiently, and dared not tell her father” (Cinderella), unless of course they had been in a similarly tragic situation themselves. Obedience to bullies and patience in the face of abuse are not 'virtues' which should be encouraged in the modern era; this paper will show that these fairy tales are stories of their times, and should be retold now with caveats and critical thinking. In each of these fairy tales, a pivotal role in the plot is played by an object: in The Frog King, it is the princess's golden ball, her “favourite plaything”; in Cinderella it is the golden or glass slipper, depending on which version is used. The golden ball is often interpreted as the girl's innocence, and its loss as her burgeoning sexuality. That the male frog returns it to her implies the major part which men will play in her (presumably heterosexual) future. Given that the protagonist is “the youngest” (The Frog King) daughter of the king, we can assume that she is pre-pubescent, suggesting that she is “appalled and even frightened” (The Wonder of Childhood) by sex itself as much as by its representative, the frog. Furthermore, the “phallic” (“Psychology and Fairy Tales”) frog's return of the golden ball shows that the princess will, for much of her life, be unable of making her own sexual decisions; this concept is reiterated less subtly when her father orders her to “Go and let the frog in” (The Frog King). Similarly, in Cinderella, the protagonist does nothing herself: her lifestyle is changed drastically by her mother's death, her father's decision to remarry, and her “proudest and most haughty” stepmother's use of her as a slave. Instead of deciding to seize control of her destiny and head to the ball, it is her fairy godmother's idea that she go, Cinderella being too upset to even ask the fairy to help her - “'I wish I could, I wish I could.' She was not able to speak the rest, being interrupted by her tears and sobbing.” Likewise, in many versions of the story she only tries on the slipper – which she knows to be hers – through the encouragement of others, even though she is aware that to fit into the slipper would be to escape from her current miserable existence. In both stories, the central object is representative on one level of a girl's maturation into a married woman, and of all the sexual and emotional revelations that go with such an event; simultaneously, it is symbolic of the restrictions which used to lock in on a woman of marital age. Before the loss of the golden ball and the creation of the golden shoe, the two princesses are able to “go out into the forest” on their own, metaphorically; in other words, they are in control of their lives. Later on, their fathers and fiances dictate their behaviour and desires, and the women's passive acceptance of such indicates that growing up is inextricably linked with a loss of self-esteem – again, not a message which the next generation should accept. Another disturbing message idealized in fairy tales is that of a problematic relationship between fathers and daughters. The relationships in The Frog King are remarkable because they take away entirely from the significance of the main character, the princess. Nameless and lacking the ability of self-determination, the frog king's intended wife interacts with the frog and her father and comes off worse in each situation: the frog manipulates the young girl by agreeing to swap something small (a dive into a pond to fetch a ball) for companionship for the rest of her life; her father, rather than supporting her rights to her own life, bedroom and body, forces her to follow through on an insincere, childish promise, the consequences of which a young girl would be entirely incapable of understanding. The frog gives her rude orders, to which the princess “hesitates … until the kind commanded her to [obey the frog]”. The daughter cries, is afraid, visibly does not want to spend time with the frog – and in response her father becomes “angry”. Even when the frog turns into a prince, it is written that “he was now, according to her father's will, her dear companion and husband” (The Frog King) (emphasis mine). The princess's father does not stop at dictating her behaviour, but also demands certain emotions from her. Cinderella's father's role is not so much that of the gatekeeper of his daughter's virginity, but is an equally worrying and inappropriate one. In some versions of the story we hear that Cinderella dares not complain to her father about her step-mother forcing her to “do all the drudgery of the house, to attend the kitchen fire, and [to] sleep on … the heap of cinder raked out in the scullery” because “he would have scolded her; for his wife governed him entirely.” Whereas the king is an active and strict father, Cinderella's father is passive and easily cowed by the strong (and therefore evil) women in his life: in one version of the story he suggests that Cinderella could go to the ball with her step-sisters, but when the step-sisters laugh at the very idea he “held his peace”. Both images of fatherhood lead to the daughter's youthful escape from a tyrannical household into the arms of a stranger, not necessarily voluntarily. Fathers, indeed all parents, should encourage their sons and daughters to success, independence, and self-fulfilment – not passivity, obedience, and a lack of self-esteem. Both of the fairy tales end with the marriage of the protagonist to a prince, implying that this reward is for their good behaviour (and, of course, their noble birth). But in the twenty-first century, we should ask ourselves why marriage to a rich stranger is a reward, and whether we really do feel like the protagonists have earned such a prize through their behaviour. Is it genuinely moral to keep one's promises no matter what, or as in Jones' 1928 Freudian interpretation of The Frog King, does the fairy tale focus more on “the female's aversion to sexual intimacy” (“Psychology and Fairy Tales”)? And if so, does the story itself include any hints as to why the princess would shy away from sexuality? In Cinderella, the protagonist's relationship with her family is abusive and neglectful; she is patient and hardworking but it is only for her beauty and mystery that the prince wants to marry her. What sort of moral is that? What kind of adult wants to teach the next generation to bear mistreatment in silence, to never say anything one doesn't mean (even in play), to allow themselves to be manipulated by exchanging great things for meaningless things, and that above all it is beauty that will ensure future success? Another psychological analysis of The Frog King suggests that it represents “the call to adventure” and “the individual's awakening to … a new stage of life” – but whose awakening? The frog, in becoming a prince again, returns to his former state rather than evolving to a new one; his new wife is an important character only for the role she plays in his revolution of self, with her “new stage of life” (Campbell, “Psychology and Fairy Tales”) disregarded. The authors, the characters, and the tellers and retellers of The Frog King and Cinderella have, over the years, conspired (whether knowingly or not) to reinforce ideals of passive femininity and active masculinity, at the expense of millions of children who have failed their own potential in the belief that beauty and obedience will win one the prince. Works Cited D.L. Ashliman, trans. and compiled. “Cinderella.” Folklore and Mythology Electronic Texts. University of Pittsburgh, June 1 2011. Web. November 8 2011. Elzey, David. “Grimmoire #1: The Frog King, or Iron Heinrich.” The Excelsior File. N.p., March 6 2007. Web. November 9 2011. Grimm Brothers. Trans. D.L. Ashliman. “The Frog King.” Folklore and Mythology Electronic Texts. University of Pittsburgh, November 30 2005. Web. November 8 2011. Haase, Donald. “Psychology and Fairy Tales.” Answers.com. N.p., n.d. Web. November 9 2011. Natale, Christine. “The Frog King, or The Frog Prince.” The Wonder of Childhood. N.p., June 2011. Web. November 9 2011. Read More