Guest Mnytime Posted June 17, 2003 Report Posted June 17, 2003 (edited) This goes in the you learn something-everyday dept. The Discovery Channel is showing a show called Giants: Friend or Foe. Part of discusses the Jack and the Beanstalk story. According to this show the story is supposed to have been about Sexual Awakening and Coming of Age. Myself I was never really into children's stories. I know the stories and their outlines but I never actually read the stories and no one read them to me. Different cultures after all so different stories. Never read the Grimm stories either. I just wasn't the children's stories type. I was into more grown up books when I was at the age most would be reading these stories. Yea I knew the whole Phallic Beanstalk thing but not having read the story the rest never crossed my mind. A cow represting his mother? The cow without milk his mom milkless? So I went looking online and found on this site about a quarter of the way down the site http://faculty.virginia.edu/kononenko/text...res/oct_15.html Hansel and Gretel - orality Little Red Riding Hood - sex and girl's Oedipal Jack and the Beanstalk - boy's Oedipal Snow White - parent/child Oedipal conflict and Freudian inversion - attribution of own desires to usurp onto parent Also latency and symbol of sleep Cinderella - post-Oedipal and sibling rivalry Now the question I have is why would anyone write stories for kids that are about sex and how in basically puritan/Victorian countries did these stories get so big and accepted? Is it possible that no one else caught on to the meaning a behind these stories before? They than go on into more detail explaining for each story. For the Beanstalk story for example this site has this: Jack and the Beanstalk According to B. - two parts The trades 7 cows First 3 trade for - magic stick Singing bee Fiddle Jack uses these three to win princess Task to get princess - must make her laugh Bee and fiddle make her smile Stick beats up other suitors - she laughs They marry and go to bed - for 3 nights Jack does nothing Princess complains and Jack thrown to wild beasts Stick beats up beasts Jack and princess live happily ever after Jack shows control of stick (esp. over beasts) Not just power and aggression; prowess = control Princess recognizes live happily ever after Beanstalk part Milky White - cow, also symbolizes mother Jack now alone with mother, father gone Traded for some beans Beans thrown out window by mother Beanstalk grows at night and Jack's journeys up beanstalk occur at night Journeys to utopian, narcissistic land of plenty Comfort in own body and esp. newly discovered magical part (which grows at night) But in land of plenty, in heaven - ogre, giant Both angry father - angry about what Jack has been up to (note Jack's alliance with the giant's wife - like wished for Oedipal alliance with mother) And ogre, animalistic, uncontrolled part of self Mother/giant's wife help Jack out in various ways, But ultimately must control (chop down) himself Subsidiary points insecurity in new masculine role - leads to regression to orality - Jack's behavior at table of giant His inability to take care of mother when left alone with her and need to trade only cow His trade of it for something that produces beanstalk Egotistical (and fearful) regression into self - autoeroticism Jack looking at hairy legs of giant coming down beanstalk His fear of sexuality Edited June 17, 2003 by Mnytime Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted June 17, 2003 Report Posted June 17, 2003 Peter Gabriel talked about this. Supposedly there is some book about it out there. He wrote some of the songs on "Us" with these things in mind. Quote
Guest Mnytime Posted June 17, 2003 Report Posted June 17, 2003 (edited) Peter Gabriel talked about this. Supposedly there is some book about it out there. He wrote some of the songs on "Us" with these things in mind. As you can see this former College Boy doesn't know everything. Close to everything but not everything. But than I was never big on reading about sex. I was more of the active participant type myself. Edited June 17, 2003 by Mnytime Quote
Guest Mnytime Posted June 17, 2003 Report Posted June 17, 2003 (edited) Never heard Us. I really don't care for solo Gabril especially later day Gabriel. I thought Us was supposed to be about his relationships? Edited June 17, 2003 by Mnytime Quote
Jazzmoose Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 First of all, these stories weren't created for children. Secondly, the versions we currently have are nothing like the original versions (if the originals can even be found). Quote
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) First of all, these stories weren't created for children. Secondly, the versions we currently have are nothing like the original versions (if the originals can even be found). Yea, I forgot to add that in. It was during the Victorian Age that the sexual references was added into the written versions. Why anyone would want to add the sexual references to what had become children's stories by than I have no idea. In the original version of Jack instead of the Sex it was a lot more violent and set in the time of King Arthur. Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime Quote
J Larsen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 This doesn't necessarily apply here, but does anyone else get tired of lit crit types interpreting anything longer than its width as a phallus? Quote
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 This doesn't necessarily apply here, but does anyone else get tired of lit crit types interpreting anything longer than its width as a phallus? It seems while Psychologists and Psychiatrists are turning their back on Freud that Lit Critics seem to be even more influenced with every passing year. I think it has more to do with the Sexual problems of the Critics. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 This doesn't necessarily apply here, but does anyone else get tired of lit crit types interpreting anything longer than its width as a phallus? It seems while Psychologists and Psychiatrists are turning their back on Freud that Lit Critics seem to be even more influenced with every passing year. I think it has more to do with the Sexual problems of the Critics. Quote
Alexander Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 The sexual nature of most fairy tales is far from explicit. In Little Red Riding Hood it is largely a matter of symbolism. The Red Hood is read as a symbol of menstral blood and sexual maturity. The woods are often a symbol for sexual confusion and danger. The stranger that waylays a child, in this case a wolf, is a common trope in children's literature (think of the Witch in Hansel and Gretel). The theme of devouring (the wolf eats grandma and then Red Riding Hood herself). The theme of rebirth (the huntsman cuts open the wolf's stomach and brings Red Riding Hood and her grandmother through the opening). The theme of the mature male who comes to the rescue (the huntsman). Red Riding Hood is highly sexual, without ever showing any explicit sex. And that's just one of the most obvious examples. Quote
jacman Posted June 19, 2003 Report Posted June 19, 2003 (edited) didn't Sigmund Freud once say, "Somethimes a cigar is just a cigar." ? Edited June 19, 2003 by jacman Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted June 19, 2003 Report Posted June 19, 2003 Actually, all stories and novels can be reduced to sexual interpretations if you approach it from that viewpoint. Lit. Crit people are useless drones. I know, I have a M.A. in Literature. Nothing but a waste of time. Quote
jacman Posted June 20, 2003 Report Posted June 20, 2003 Actually, all stories and novels can be reduced to sexual interpretations if you approach it from that viewpoint. Lit. Crit people are useless drones. I know, I have a M.A. in Literature. Nothing but a waste of time. is the 'waste of time' the Lit Crit's analysis, or the M.A. in Literature? J/K...i couldn't resist. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.