bull's eye; or, into the woods once more

2011-05-05T04:43:12Z

Dear K______,

In three of the modern variations of Little Red Riding Hood—James Thurber’s “The Little Girl and the Wolf,” Roald Dahl’s “Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf,” and the film Freeway starring Reese Witherspoon—the female protagonist is armed with a gun which she eventually uses to kill the wolf/attacker. The fact that all three protagonists are prepared for the encounter serves as proof of Thurber’s moral: that little girls are no longer easy to fool. These versions of the Little Red tale, then, indicate how folklore adapts to and reflects the time in which it is produced. None of the three stories has retained the didactic or precautionary lesson found in older variations that warn young girls to remain on the path lest they be “eaten” by “wolves.” The implication, of course, is that modern young women are already aware of the potential threat posed by men and have therefore fittingly ensured their own safety by carrying firearms on their person.
Thurber’s Little Girl, Dahl’s Little Red, and Vanessa in Freeway represent more than the clever and well-informed girl. By protecting themselves, they become their own heroes (or rather heroines), making woodcutters and police officers obsolete saviors or “good” male figures. Furthermore, the gun is undeniably a phallic symbol--Dahl’s Little Red goes so far as to draw the gun from her underwear. Marked by their confidence, assertiveness, and trigger fingers, these three girls prevail against the male threat by taking on masculine characteristics. What’s more, in all three adaptations, the girl protagonist shoots and kills the wolf/man while he is disguised as her grandmother. (In fact, Vanessa shoots her “wolf” on two separate occasions.) Thus, on the one hand the young women in these stories succeed as a result of their masculine behavior and weaponry, while on the other the male sexual aggressors are thwarted and ultimately killed dressed in women’s clothing, that is, emasculated.
Though the stories indeed empower young women, the message of gender is a muddled one: women win if they are masculine, but men lose if they are feminine. This message is especially insidious, considering Dahl’s story was written for children. Nevertheless, all three adaptations manage to approach the issues of sexual violence and female obedience that make older versions intimidating with a fair amount of humor, albeit of the dark sort.

So long, and thanks for all the fish,
Lulu Fisher

comments

into the woods; or, waste not, want not

2011-04-07T05:59:15Z

Dear K______,

Like Charles Dickens, I'm so captivated by the "Little Red Riding Hood" cycle of folk/fairy tales. It's fun reading the story's evolutions: from teaching feminine behavior, to warning about men, to valorizing men, to illustrating a change in feminine behavior. And until reading Maria Tatar's commentary, I've never thought of it as showing competition between generations when Little Red lives but Granny stays very dead and eaten. But I was most interested in the adaptations by Roald Dahl and Angela Carter.

Dahl is undeniably an author of literature for children, so his "Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf" and "The Three Little Pigs" are suitably comical. Simply reading on the surface, Little Red is cheeky, contemporary and (who didn't notice?) homicidal. She shoots the wolf preemptively in the first story, then, opportunistic girl that she is, shoots the piggy who employed her as a mercenary in the second. As strange as she is, I prefer Dahl’s Little Red to her older counterparts who couldn't put two and two together despite noticing how hairy, etc. Granny is. Reading deeper though, I think there’s metaphorical weight behind her pulling the gun out of her underwear instead of a basket like James Thurber's Little Red. Guns are typically associated with masculinity, so producing it from her "knickers" makes the gun a phallic symbol. Dahl's Little Red becoming her own hero also makes the Grimms' huntsman obsolete.

On the other hand, Carter's protagonist remains characteristically feminine, but assumes an entirely self-constructed, self-controlled sexual role. The story follows the rape motif found in many of the adaptations, but instead provides an outcome similar to the moral of Thurber's story: little girls are no longer easy to fool. Rather than shoot the wolf (that is, the male sexual aggressor), Carter's Little Red meets him halfway and even asserts herself sexually. Arguably, she becomes masculine like Dahl's Little Red by being sexually aggressive, but I think her sexuality is of the feminine sort. It's just one far different from the sexuality expected of or imposed upon women, in that Carter's Little Red puts herself equal to and maybe even above men. She tames the man-made-wolf-made-man as a woman.

Considering the story’s conclusion, Carter’s version also differs from the older didactic tellings of little girls and men in meaning. The first half seems to be the obligatory warning concerning men, but ultimately, Carter’s apparent message is not for girls to fear men but to find and maintain their own form of control in the expected interactions with men. This message is proof that folklore adapts to the times. Young women no longer have to stick to the path, but they should nevertheless be armed with social knowledge and made aware of what they are capable of (so that they don’t need to carry handguns). Although Carter was known for being a feminist author, I think it’s refreshing “The Company of Wolves” doesn’t follow the notorious and unapproachable man-hating vein of some (if not most) feminist writing. Sexual equality is meaningless if it’s rooted in fear or hate.

Cheers,

Lulu Fisher

comments

with a handful of pills

bull's eye; or, into the woods once more

into the woods; or, waste not, want not