Tollie Spain

2221158s
26/04/2016
Assignment 2

Not suitable for children? The Necessity of Violence in Fairy Tales

Albert Einstein said, “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy
tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.” I have a
vigorous affection for fairy tales, and naively as I began my research, I assumed the
contention against violence within fairy tales was a recent phenomenon conducive to our
PC culture. This anomaly commenced even during the composition of the acclaimed
works of the Brothers Grimm as they perilously reprised their book to benefit the needs
of the child audience. As fairy tales began to take shape, the folklore community from
which it emerged, operated as a kind of censor as the stories changed from teller to teller
to appease their audience until it was met with full approval.
Oppositions to violence in fairy tales and stories for children contend that such
alarming images could create a frightful impression on the fragile psyche of a child.
Through the child’s imagination, and that their future lives would be damaged by contact
with mystery, enchantment, and that of the terrifying. The attacks against Rated R
material in fairy tales abide by three rules: they distort reality, the do not depict the truths,
and that violence is detrimental to the health and psyches of the young readers. The
infamous tales rely on a world of fantasy, but hold their influences in historical events,
giving a medium in which troubling circumstances can be interpreted without the
restrictions of our reality. Gilles de Rais confesses that the conte (fairy stories) offers that
crystalline translucency through which a more profound truth appears. After the
completion of Fiabe Italiane, Italo Calvino affirmed, “Now that the book is finished, I
know that this was not a hallucination… but the confirmation of something I already
suspected – folktales (fiable) are real” (1980). Fairy tales are not true in factual terms, but
in the manifested truth because they speak of poverty, scarcity, hunger, anxiety, lust,
greed, envy, cruelty, and of all the grinding consequences in the domestic scene and the
larger picture. The wishful thinking and the happy ending are rooted in sheer misery. The
last resistance against violence in fairy tales contains the utmost volumes of research,
most famously included that of Bruno Bettelheim.
In this study, I will explore what the qualifications prevail in a genuine fairy tale
and the role violence plays in the creation and evolution. A complete consideration of
fairy tales could not be complete without the recognition of the Brothers Grimm and their
influential attribution to the genre. I will commence in a close scrutiny of Bruno
Bettelheim’s work and his enthrallment of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Conversely, I will
discuss and compare Professor Jack Zipes disdain for Bettelheim’s preeminent work, and
lastly, my conclusive assessment of the necessity of violence in fairy tales.

1
 To be inducted into the magical realm of fairy tale literature, the work must
consist of six defining characteristics. The first two demand that the story must be a short
narrative, but also a familiar story. A tale passed through generations and patched
together to manifest the accumulated wisdom of those who possessed the tale before.
Fantasy often allows for a stronger pull than reality and they become a commentary on
social history where the protagonists are recognizably ordinary working people, toiling at
ordinary occupations over a long period of history, before industrialization and mass
literacy. The historical reality that can be unearthed from fairy tales does not carry the
“memory of extreme horrors, specific tragedies, or individuals, but rather dramatize
ordinary circumstance, daily sufferings, needs, desires – and dangers, especially of dying
young” (Warner, 2014). The Brothers Grimm seemed to find the facts of life more
disturbing than the harsh realities of everyday life. Their tale, Bluebeard, communicated
grisly layers of historical truth cloaked in Gothic scenes, but local incidents added more
colour to existing tales far after the historical memories have faded from the mind.
The third element is the necessary presence of the past. Karel Čapek divulges that,
“a real fairy tale, a tale in its true function, is a tale within a circle of listeners” (1990). It
is a conversation that is taking place over centuries that promises an unbroken link to
past. One of the most charged questions about fairy tales is not; do they carry the
evidence and reflect what happens? But do they interact with reality and shape it? Are
they addressing the future as well as the past? Fairy tales exist in a realm of the past and
the skepticism of the future simultaneous. The universal themes allow for the tales to
transcend time.
The fourth determinate of a fairy tale is its ability to maintain consistent acts of
imagining, a common language, and recurrent motifs. The tale is one dimensional and
matter-of-fact. During Wilhelm’s revisions, instead of allowing the protagonist’s actions
speak to their true character (one of the hallmarks of a folktale), he injected blatant
descriptions and judgments where the reader was unable to develop their own
rationalizations. The fifth element dwells with the magical state of reality in which a fairy
tale takes place. They allow entry into a world free of intellectual and religious authority
where readers are allowed to indulge in ‘unheard’ of things that were not openly spoken
of in other ways. It is a secondary world that refracts our own. Lastly and the most
important principle is that a fairy tale must contain a happy ending. This essential
element allows for the most meaningful moral of a fairy tale to shine. The soul of a fairy
tale is that which shows how good triumphs over evil and without this quality they would
not have maintained the lasting power that made the Brothers Grimm book of Fairy Tales
one of the most translated works of all time, second only to the Bible.
One cannot speak about fairy tales with mentioning the notorious names
associated with the genre: The Grimm Brothers. No age group has ever maintained a
monopoly over fairy tales, but as they became out “out of fashion” as stated by Tolkien
(1947), the genre entered the realm of “children’s literature”, but this does not mean that
they were devoid of psychological depth and characteristically innocent. In fairy tales,
nearly every character from the malicious to the Virgin Mary is capable of cruel behavior
and the Brothers Grimm were tenacious to add and intensify violent episodes. Due to
poor sales, the Brothers abandoned their search for an academic collection of folk tales
for the élite and literary fidelity to oral traditions. They took pains to delete every phrase
unsuitable for children. In fact, as Tatar wrote, “Wilhelm rewrote the tales so extensively

2
and went so far in the direction of eliminating off-color episodes that he can be credited
with sanitizing folktales and thereby paving the way for the process that made them
acceptable children’s literature in all cultures” (1987). But one question remains, why
intensify violence or take pains to portray the punishment of evil if one’s ambition is to
reach that of an audience of children? In Maria Tatar’s Book, The Hard Facts of the
Grimm’s Fairy Tales, she explains that professional raconteurs report that children are
seldom squeamish when they are subjected to decapitation or other grisly forms of
mutilation. Gruesome episode often strikes them as amusing rather than terrifying.
Obviously, this kind of reaction through laughter is an expression of pent-up anxieties
rather than a declaration of joy. The depiction of physical violence portrays a special
appeal for children past the connection to the punishment of villains. Countless amounts
of scholars have devoted efforts to the debate over violent exposure in children’s stories,
but none more famously than Bruno Bettelheim.
The Uses of Enchantment, by Bruno Bettelheim, was the first comprehensive
study in fairy tale research to be based on Freudian psychoanalysis and one of the most
influential advocates for the necessity of violence in children’s literature. This study was
published during a time in which fairy tales were regarded with cynicism as the tools of
the bourgeois oppression used to instill false ideas and attitudes to the youth. With the
representation of violence, a social theory perspective argued that fairy tales legitimized
violence as an aggressive mode of conflict resolution. Through his study, Bruno
rehabilitated fairy tales and proved that they can be instrumental in understanding the
inner life of the child. Bettelheim theorizes fairy tale figures as symbolizing Freud’s
elements of the personality: the “ego”, “id”, and “super-ego”.
The essential developmental steps toward independent existence are formulated
through the basic tenets of Freud’s psychoanalysis. The first tenet being a person’s
development is resolved by often forgotten events of their early childhood rather than
inherited traits alone. Secondly, a person’s mannerism is greatly influenced by irrational
drives within the unconscious. What a child is afraid of, or is fearful of is largely
irrational and therefore almost impossible to determine. The third tenet is the need to
bring these drives into awareness through bypassing psychological resistance. Without
exposure to fearful situations and violence, the child’s drives will never manifest.
Fourthly, if the drives are left in the unconscious then they can materialize in a mental or
emotional disturbance. Lastly, to liberate the elements of the unconscious, the material
must be brought to the conscious. Bettelheim uses Freud’s psychoanalysis to validate his
belief that fairy tales are an exceptional device to allow children to explore their inner
conflicts in a fantastic and fearful setting from the safety of their own environment. Freud
determined that thought is an exploration of possibilities that avoids all the dangers of
actual exploration. (Freud, 1935)
Bettelheim’s study is separated into two sections. The first containing a
theoretical reflection from Bettelheim’s psychology practice through the related motifs
and figures of German folk tales. The second part is an extensive interpretation on of how
the fairy tales can be read and understood using a psychoanalytical viewpoint. Although
some critics presume that Bettelheim relies on the “almighty power of the folktale”
(Zipes, 1978), he is not negligent to the opposition. Those who would outlaw fairy tales
argue that all fearsome aspects should be sanitized, even suggesting that scary monsters
should be friendly and this solution will keep fear from those who would be influenced.

3
Since this not only combats Freud’s psychoanalysis, it also deprives the child reader of
the chance to project their inner struggle onto the monster and gain mastery of it. The
metamorphosis of human into a beast is a recurrent theme within folk tales, and Maria
Warner agrees that this transition aids in the reconciliation of “common experiences –
fear of sexual intimacy, assault, cruelty, and injustice, in general, the struggle for
survival” (2014). Unfortunately, the opposition is focusing on the violent aspects and
“remain oblivious to all the reassuring messages in fairy tales” (Bettelheim, 1976), the
primary theme of good triumphing over evil.
Bettelheim places an extraordinary amount of faith into Freud’s theories, and the
notable fairy tale expert, Jack Zipes, postulates that it is “actually an unconscious expose
of orthodox Freudianism’s crippling effects on psychoanalytic theory and literature”
(1978). In Zipes essay, “On the Use and Abuse of Folk and Fairy Tales with Children”,
he provides insightful commentary on Bettelheim’s monomania on a Freudian
explanation. It is hard to elicit a commonality between the two fairy tale enthusiasts, but
Zipes reluctantly laments the significance of Freud’s contribution to the fundaments for
social science. He concedes that Freud’s work was significant in locating the cause of
psychosis and all other mental sickness in the historical and materialistic development of
social conditions, even though most of the theories have been misconstrued because they
were based on inconclusive and partial data. His opposition to Bettelheim is Bruno’s
fixated worshipping of Freud’s method to construct his position on the necessity of fairy
tales in the development of children. Zipes asserts that it is an “outmoded and unproven
principles of psychology and child-rearing which require children to conform and adapt
to repressive conditions of a social order that legitimizes the arbitrary use of power by
elite groups” (Zipes, 1978). Whereas fairy tales do perpetuate a class system, in most
tales, the protagonist is able to rise from their inherited rank through heroism, or in a
heroine’s case, through beauty and patience.
Fairy tales underwent extreme scrutiny, but the discovery of psychoanalysis and
child psychology revealed just how violent, anxious, destructive, and even sadistic a
child’s imagination really is. I had a normal childhood, nothing to repress but still I was
filled with a fascination with dark and violent images. If I were denied access to stories
that implicitly explained that others had the same violent fantasies, then naturally I would
have come to the conclusion that I was the only one who experienced such thoughts. I
would have felt as if I was not part of humanity. Bettelheim explains the contrariety to
submerging oneself into a world of fantasy and the harm it can implement on the
personality, “but free-floating fantasy, which contains in imaginary form a wide variety
of issues also encountered in reality, provides the ego with an abundance of material to
work with” (Bettelheim, 1976). Children do not process thoughts in the same manner as
adults, and when given new material to digest, Bettelheim suggests that the immediate
family, or parents, allow the children to evolve the meaning for themselves. If given “the
answer”, which is subjective to each reader, it will leave the child with a hopeless feeling
and no motivation to arrive at a common understanding. Zipes is averse this notion
because it restricts the development of the child to the primary responsibility of the
family instead of the civilization and society in which the child is submersed within. An
excellent counter argument, but I speculate that Bettelheim was envisioning the family as
the inaugural interaction and therefore the most influential. Zipes also scoff at the idea of
Bettelheim being able to understand all that is included within a child’s psyche, as a sort

4
of child whisperer, but Bettelheim reinforces that this psychological discovery is meant to
“aid the adult in comprehending the child from within an adult’s frame of reference”
(Bettelheim, 1976).
The two also disagree on the value of fairy tales and how they affect a child’s
development. An optimistic view, Bettelheim inspires a life where fantasy provides hope
and gives us the strength to meet adversities. Despite the trials, anger, anxiety that an
individual is met with on a regular occurrence, the happy ending ignites promise while
giving a detailed account of how to deal with the horrors, an outcome that a child would
be beset to develop on their own. Inversely, Zipes asserts that “the patterns of the folk
tales allegedly foster ideal normative behavior which children are to internalize; yet,
some of these literary patterns like the forms of social behavior are repressive constructs”
(1978). Morals are implemented within the texts due to the fact that children’s literature
is written by adults for children with the idealism of providing them with information on
how to be an adult. This information is thwarted when the material becomes outdated or
established with malice. The essential lesson that is to be taught through fairy tales is that
good will win over evil.
One of my most cherished aspects of children’s literature and fairy tales is its duty
to imprinting the values and morals we hope to instill within the youth. We are entrusted,
through our supposed wisdom, to teach the children of tomorrow what it is to be an adult
and how to live a worthy life. Before a child is able to come to grips with reality, they
must be given a frame of reference in which to evaluate it. But “in order to be able to deal
with the tasks of living, it needs to be backed up by rich fantasy combined with a firm
consciousness and a clear grasp of reality” (Bettelheim, 1976). Without a clear distinction
between fantasy and reality, it is effortless to confuse the two, which is why Grimm’s
fairy tales begins with the introduction “in olden times when wishing still helped one”
(Grimm, 1972). This opening clearly cautions the reader that what they are about to
experience is not within the same world as our own.
In the comparison between Bettelheim and Zipes, I identify with Bettelheim’s
perception of the necessity of fairy tales and his assertion that violence within these tales
remains beneficial in the developmental process, but there are convincing notions
challenged by Zipes. He inquires why there is never a distinction given between the
sexes, ages, and class background of the children he wishes to influence with his study.
He submits that such tales, if divided between the classes, could reinforce the middle
class to become ego-centered and a lower-class child to accept their place within a strict
hierarchical world. Bettelheim never refers to the gender of the child in question, except
for the patriarchal pronoun he, but I conclude that this is stipulated by the child’s lack of
gender identity. They identify with the hero based on character polarities and the
strategies in which the implement to solve their obstacles. Being raised on Disney, I
never identified with the protagonist of my gender. I had the same question Zipes
inquiries over the tale of Cinderella: “Is marriage the end goal of life?” (1978). Is that all
that I, as a girl, can hope to achieve in life? Cinderella “reinforces sexist values and a
Puritan ethos that serves a society which fosters cutthroat completion and achievement
for survival” (Zipes, 1978). Given the choice between a female lead and a male lead, in
which there are only 40 heroine leads in the completed edition consisting of 210 stories
(Stone, 1975), I engaged with the story I preferred versus that with a corresponding
gender.

5
 Bettelheim believed that violence within fairy tales could have therapeutic
qualities valuable to children, but what other constructive qualities does it possess? The
debate over violence in children’s literature stems from the disparities of societal
differences, between those who are firmly rooted in righteous beliefs and others who see
no harm by frightening children through fairy tales and folklore. Jack
Zipes declares in his book Fairy Tales as Myth, Myth as Fairy Tale:
At the beginning, the literary fairy tales were written and published for
adults, and though they were intended to reinforce the mores and values of
French civilité, they were so symbolic and could be read on so many
different levels that they were considered somewhat dangerous: social
behavior could not be totally dictated, prescribed, and controlled through
the fairy tale, and there were subversive features in language and theme.
This is one of the reasons fairy tales were not particularly approved for
children. (1994)
Violence in children’s literature is not a recent phenomenon, but rather can be traced
back to the first stories for children. Violence was used a didactic element where the
wicked were punished and the virtuous rewarded. It is a part of human nature that can
never be eradicated, but teaching fear through fairy tales is a confirmed method for
helping children learn about safety and improve a child’s judgment and critical thinking
skills. Fear is an instinctual need for survival and “Darwin speculated that fear’s
instinctual symptoms evolved, like all other features of life, because they aided survival.
Fear was a response to some threat in the environment, especially to the approach of a
predator” (Kendrick, 1991). Almost simultaneously, cultures started developing
cautionary folk tales, demonstrating a universal concern for protecting children.
Violence does not breed violent behavior, but rather the way in which it is
presented that constructs its use in the future. In a Journal of Communication study
“demonstrated that it is the way in which violence is portrayed, and not exposure to
violence alone, that may generate problematic outcomes. For example, showing violence
as justified and causing little suffering for the victims both increases the likelihood of
imitation” (Kremar, 2003). Bettelheim prophesized this discipline but exclusively
entrusted the role of portrayer of violence to the parents. With technology rapidly
evolving, children are exposed to more unaccompanied violence. In the book The
Incredible Fascination of Violence, author Allan Guggenbühl contends that it is actually
the children who actively seek violent images within books, video games, and movies
who are more likely to commit violent acts. Violent scenes only correlate to violent
behavior when the child actively seeks images within the realm of violence.
Controlled violence within books allows for a safe and healthy discourse where
the child is allowed to express concerns and insecurities. Jack Zipes disputes that the
opponents of fairy tale violence are missing the point in his novel Don’t Bet on the
Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North America and England:
Instead of examining social relations and psychological behavior first – the
very stuff which constitutes the subject matter of tales - both the
proponents and opponents of fairy tales have based and continue to base
their criticism on the harsh scenes and sexual connotations of the tales,
supposedly suitable or unsuitable for children. […] The code words of
debate change, but there is, in fact, a ‘real problem’ which remains: the

6
 moral attack against fairy tales (censorship) and the rational defence of the
tales (liberal civil rights) emanate from a mutual repression of what is
actually happening in society. (1987)
In a world wrought with violence since the dawn of civilization, both Bettelheim and
Zipes agree that shielding children from the, often violent, occurrences of the world is
negligent.
As many antagonist to the importance of violence within fairy tales, there remains
a strong endorsement that not only should the tales remain true to the original, but should
be left unaltered. In Dickens’ “Fraud on Fairies’, he advocates that “to preserve them in
their usefulness, they must be preserved in their simplicity, and purity, and innocent
extravagance, as if they were actual fact” (1853). In studies conducted by L. B. Ames and
E. G. Pitcher, the opposition that contest that the veiling of disturbing images would
attribute to an imagination devoid of frightening images would be as surprised as our
researchers. The participant children were allowed freedom to invent their own authentic
story and themes of aggression, involving catastrophe and even death were
predominating. Their research divulged that at every age, and present in both sexes,
violence was a frequent motif as they strived to come to terms with a fundamental human
nature. In our assessment of humanity, it is ill-conceived to eliminate violence because
“presumably the exposure model became necessary because we no longer have the luxury
of denying the existence of or postponing the child’s confrontation of evil” (Kidd, 2005).
The defense would not suggest that we exclude the study of history including both World
Wars and the Holocaust because they could frighten children. Our world is lavish with
violence and to eradicate a tool that aids more than damages perpetuates our lackadaisical
effort to teach the children. It would be simpler to abolish violent literature than to
thoroughly explain why we, as a community, allow such violent behavior to remain as
part of our civilization.

7
References

Ames, L. (1966). Children's Stories. Genetic Psychology Monographs, (73), pp.337-397.

Bettelheim, B. (1976). The Uses of Enchantment. New York: Knopf, pp.108-112.

Calvino, I. (1980). Italian Folktales, trans. George Martin. London: Penguin.

Čapek, K. (1990). Nine Fairy Tales, trans. Dagmar Herrmann. Northwestern University
Press.

Dickens, C. (1853). Frauds on the Fairies. Household Words. A Weekly Journal, 8(184).

Freud, S. and Riviere, J. (1935). A general introduction to psycho-analysis. New York:

Grimm, J., Grimm, W., Colum, P. and Scharl, J. (1972). The complete Grimm's fairy
tales.. New York: Pantheon.

Guggenbühl, A. (1996). The Incredible Fascination of Violence. Woodstock, Conn.:

Kenrick, W. (1991). Thrill of Fear: 250 Years of Scary Entertainment. New York: Grove
Weidenfeld.

Kidd, K. (2005). "A" is for Auschwitz: Psychoanalysis, Trauma Theory, and the
Children's Literature of Atrocity. Children's Literature, (33), pp.120-149.

Kremar, M. and Curtis, S. (2003). Mental Models: Understanding the Impact of Fantasy
Violence on Children's Moral Reasoning. Journal Communication, (53), pp.460-
478.

Pitcher, E. (1969). Values and Issues in Young Children's Literature. Elementary English,
(46), pp.287-294.

Stone, K. (1975). Things Walt Disney Never Told Us. The Journal of American Folklore,
88(347), p.42.

Tatar, M. (1987). The Hard Facts of the Grimms' Fairy Tales. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.

Tolkien, J. (1983). ‘On Fairy-Stories.’ In The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays,
edited by Christopher Tolkien. London: George Allen and Unwin, pp.109-161.

Warner, M. (2014). Once Upon a Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8
Zipes, J. (1978). On the Use and Abuse of Folk and Fairy Tales with Children. Children's
Literature Association Quarterly, 1978(1), pp.113-122.

Zipes, J. (1986). Don't Bet on the Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy Tales in North
America and England. New York: Methuen, 1987; reprint, New York: Routledge.

Zipes, J. (1994). Fairy Tale as Myth, Myth as Fairy Tale. Lexington, Kentucky:
University Press of Kentucky.