(no subject)
Jul. 10th, 2010 07:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
F-list, solve my life for me.
Are Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass fairy tales?
Important question is important! Seriously!
Are Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass fairy tales?
Important question is important! Seriously!
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 07:47 pm (UTC)But I dunno. I lean towards agreeing with Ashie as a general rule: an author's name under the title makes a text fairy tale like rather than a fairy tale. Fairy tales are unattributed. Which I guess makes Andersen's stories the exception that proves the rule.
But I also think Alice has structural, ah, oddities that preclude it from being a fairy tale.
(Can one make a statement like "It waddles a little like a duck, and people treat it like a duck, but it's really still a goose" in an academic article and still be taken seriously? >.>)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 09:05 pm (UTC)I don't know if I agree that fairytales are unattributed, is the thing. But there's no real way to determine whether or not that's part of the definition, except by declaring it so (or not).
no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 12:15 am (UTC)I don't think attribution or the lack thereof is as important in this context as structure. It is certainly a part of our common definition, but as you pointed out, there are modern stories that are definitely fairy-tale like. We may have to draw a distinction between folklore/folktale and fairy tale. They often overlap, but one is not always both. Then there are other archetypal stories; they may fit into Jung's collective unconsciousness, but I don't think of them as fairy tales.
The cause-and-effect structure you mentioned might be a good working definition; you can flesh it out as you go.