Darnton vs. Bottelham

In preparation of this blog post, I began by recording my own personal notes and comments before class today. I admit though, after class today I find that some of my initial feelings about the articles have changed and I will make note of that throughout the post.

How do their perspectives differ?

Well, Bottelhem in brief believes that Fairy Tales address unconscious feeling and desires, thus they have been immortalized. He believes that they are especially appealing to children. Children are drawn to such tales because they allow the child to safely immerse themselves in situations of danger and build a repertoire of mechanisms to fight the unpleasant obstacles that life presents.

Darnton on the other hand quickly dismisses the psychoanalytic approaches. Darnton believes that Bottelham relies to heavily on details that are not latterly present in the tales and get fixed on one version, which may be severely doctored, which satisfies his goals as a psychiatrist. Darnton approaches fairy tales as an alternative source of historical information. He believes that although the current versions of fairy tales are compromised, they are still a valid source of historical information on peasants during the Enlightenment. They should not be addressed as a source of facts, but historians should dwell on the fact that the general persisting themes are reoccurring as a result of a need of the culture that produced them.

Which do you find more convincing?

This is where my opinion has swayed a bit. Initially I thought Bottelhem to be the more convincing article. He asks the question, “Why do children find fairy tales more satisfying that all other children’s stories?” and I thought his answer was very convincing (means of confronting obstacles without any real danger). Yet, in class I was intrigued by the almost disdain towards this man’s ideas. For instance, the above question was discussed as such a broad generalization and almost arrogant. I began to reconsider and perhaps I too quickly accepted the question and answer. I was also not really aware of the Freudian lens I was reading the article through. Yet at the same time, if I consider the argument in isolation from Bottelhem’s overriding Freudian based carrer , I would still agree with it. Summarily, I agree with Darnton as well. Some psychoanalyst may take their analysis too far. Although, to some degree I find it a reasonable to read the symbolism as a similar leap of faith is necessary to “read” a painting. Approaching it as historical evidence is defiantly valid and his arguments support it thoroughly.

I believe the two theories can work together rather than in conflict. If Darnton admits that fairy tales have general themes, which are a result of a culture’s contemporary situation, why can one not read into some of the clues to decipher the feelings/ sensibility of that culture? Fairy tales have many different versions for a reason- and if the audience if so vast, why can they not be seriously considered in a vast number of disciplines?