Another Children's Book Rant
Last week, we took a copy of Rumplestilskin out of the library for the girls. A lovely version with nice illustrations which both girls enjoyed. For those who don't remember the story let me recap. A miller boasts to the king that his daughter can spin straw into gold. The king orders the girl be brought to the castle and locks her in a room filled with straw and demands, on penalty of death, that she spin it into gold. Of course she cannot, but Rumplestilskin appears and agrees to do it for her in exchange for her necklace. The following day the king very pleased with all the gold locks her in an even larger room filled with straw. This time Rumplestilskin does it in exchange for her ring. On the third day the king locks her in an enormous room and tells her if she succeeds in spinning all this straw into gold she will become his queen, if not she will die. When Rumplestilskin appears she tells him she has nothing left to offer, so he asks for her first born to which she agrees assuming it is an event far in the future and that when the time comes Rumplestilskin will forget all about it. The king, delighted, marries her. Years later they have a son and when he is a few months Rumplestilskin appears to collect. The queen offers him anything else in the kingdom he wants but he is adamant. After much wailing he agrees to let her keep the child if she can guess his name within three days. She has servants scour the countryside gathering unusual names but of course none of them is correct. On the third day she goes out searching herself and comes upon his cabin deep in the woods and hears him singing a song in which he reveals his name. She returns to the palace and when he comes to get the child she reveals his name at which point he stamps his foot in fury so hard that he goes through the castle floor, presumably straight to hell. A classic children's tale, so what is my problem with it? It is that Rumplestilskin is presented as the villain in the narrative, but as far as I can tell he is the only blameless one in the entire story. Let us deconstruct. The miller is a boastful ass-kisser who endangers his daughters life by telling lies to the king to get in his good graces. The king is a greedy, power-hungry lout who threatens the life of one of his subjects if she doesn't make him richer. The girl starts out pretty blameless, but it is she who agrees to give up her child to save her skin. Not particularly evil, but not really a model of selflessness either. It is also not clear that she had no other bargaining chips. Even though she gave up her ring and necklace she was after all a pretty young maid, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Short and ugly Rumple probably doesn't get laid very often if at all. I'm sure they could have come to an arrangement. But instead she prefers to offer her first born hoping that he will forget about it (ie that she can cheat him). Now lets look at Rumple. He agrees to help a girl in dire need first for some trinkets. She was after all a poor millers daughter so her ring and necklace couldn't be very valuable especially to someone who can spin straw into gold. When she tells him she has nothing to offer on the third time he asks for her first-born. He doesn't say he wants to eat it or do anything horrible to it. Perhaps he is just lonely living like an outcast deep in the woods and wants a child of his own which he can't get any other way because woman threatened with death won't even sleep with him. He fulfills his part of the contract not even knowing if he'll ever be paid since he has no way of knowing if she'll ever have a child. When he comes to collect he agrees to give her an out. Something which is not required by any means. He has a binding contract already, so giving her a way out can only be out of the goodness of his heart. Which leads me to my conclusion that the only truly virtuous character in the whole tale is Rumplestilskin. Now I am basing this assessment on this particular telling, I didn't go back and check the original Grimm version to see if it makes a clearer case (maybe he does want the child for stew) but as I recall it, this is a fairly close representation of it. And so we have another case of an unfairly maligned Capitalist who is disparaged for offering valuable services in exchange for voluntarily offered goods and services.