Jess Recce

Fairy tales have been passed down through generations for centuries and play an
important role in literature. In his article, Yours, Mine, or Ours? Perrault, the Brothers Grimm,
and the Ownership of Fairy Tales, Donald Haase questions who constitutes the folk, who owns
the fairy tales if not the folk, and ultimately, why it matters who owns them (Haase 354). Haase
argues that fairy tales ultimately belong to the individual. He also suggests that reading multiple
versions of a fairy tale can alter a persons view of the classical story. I agree with Haase that
the fairy tale belongs to the individual and that reading multiple versions of a story alters the
classical story because my experience reading different versions of Cinderella confirms it.
While readers may think that fairy tales belong to a particular culture, fairy tales are
actually owned by the individual. Haase recognizes a nationalistic perspective, in which fairy
tales are considered national property (355). This view states that stories belong to a culture or
nation. However, Haase notes the dangers inherent in viewing fairy tales as the property of a
single group or nation (355). While some people use the tales to foster a national identity, the
characteristics of the fairy tales may negatively reinforce stereotypes about a nation or culture.
In contrast, scholars like Bruno Bettleheim propose that fairy tales can transcend time to
appeal to humanity. Haase argues that fairy tales do not represent universal truths, claiming that
the notion of a fairy tale untouched by its social or historical context are ridiculous (358). His
claims agree with Jean-Francois Lyotard, who states, there is no longer a horizon of
universalizationbefore the eyes of a postmodern man (2). Fairy tales are products of their
time, and postmodernism recognizes distinctions between different eras. Haase admits that fairy
tales are influenced by the authors world and discredits the universality of tales.
Ultimately, the individual owns fairy tales. According to Haase, we can each claim fairy

tales for ourselves (361). Fairy tales belong to the people who are reading them, not a nation or
a timeless humanity. Haase claims that other perspectives confine and limit us, narrowing our
views of reality (360). Acknowledging individual ownership of fairy tales gives the individual
the freedom to interpret it. Moreover, Haase claims that ownership is ultimately a question of
control and that fairy tales encourage the development of personal autonomy (361). Children
can read fairy tales, think of their own endings, draw broader conclusions, or disagree with plot
points. Because fairy tales belong to the individual, the individual can freely interpret the text.
Haases postmodernist approach implies that reading multiple versions of the canonical
fairy tales allows the reader to see the stories in a new light. My experience reading different
versions of Cinderella confirms Haases argument. Previously, I only knew of a woman who lost
her shoe on the stairs; now, I recognize that there are multiple stories. For example, Donkeyskin
and Juleidah purposely leave clues about their identity in hopes that the prince will discover who
they really are (Tatar 114, 135). Instead of presuming that Cinderella clumsily loses her shoe like
in the classical story, I wonder if she did so on purpose. Furthermore, I prefer Lin-Lans
choosiness in deciding which man she will marry; though two other men propose, Lin-Lan
denies them all until she meets the scholar (128). Lin-Lan contrasts the classical Cinderella,
who marries the prince immediately.
While some people propose that fairy tales belong to a specific nation or humanity, Haase
argues against these views and instead asserts that fairy tales belong to the individual. Individual
ownership of fairy tales allows readers to freely interpret the stories, and reading multiple
versions of a fairy tale puts classical stories in a new context. Based on my experience reading
many versions of Cinderella, I agree with Haase and see the story in a new light.