A Survival Guide to Medieval Fairy Tales(medievalists.net)
medievalists.net
A Survival Guide to Medieval Fairy Tales
https://www.medievalists.net/2020/11/medieval-fairy-tales/
39 comments
With uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger, I encountered nothing. No unexpected white space, no cookie banner at all, no close button or animation. This was on desktop though.
this is why i hate the mobile web. its getting to the point i am seriously considering a text mode browser on my phone.
Interesting. I’m on iOS in the US and saw none of that except a banner at the bottom. Is this directed advertising or is there some other reason it’s not the same for me.
I'm in the EU, but other than that I was using pretty much the same (safari on ios, iphone 12, with a content blocker )
Agreed, though I found if I pressed reader mode quickly enough (Opera on Android) then I got a pretty readable result.
> What else could they do to actively make users run away?
Comic Sans and fellow-kids memes
Comic Sans and fellow-kids memes
Any time I encounter a page like this (I also got a paywall) I disable Javascript, and if it doesn't help I just leave.
marquee!
My point to add is that Fairy tales are not always (maybe not often?) children friendly by modern standards.
Same as modern day "cartoons".
They can have quite graphic content.
My wife and I were reading from a "Trove of childrens songs, fairy tales etc" to our newborn, to get in the practice of reading to our child. Simple rhyming stuff, 3 blind mice, the luminous dong, tom thumb, jack and the beanstalk. It was getting more serious.
Then a story: man earns and travels with a reaver at his side and ends up winning the heart of a princess - who up 'til that point kept a garden decorated with the blood dripping heads of failed suitors. I mean, she was under the influence of an evil troll(iirc) so no disrespect to her but I thought I might wait a few years until I read that one to my kids...
They can have quite graphic content.
My wife and I were reading from a "Trove of childrens songs, fairy tales etc" to our newborn, to get in the practice of reading to our child. Simple rhyming stuff, 3 blind mice, the luminous dong, tom thumb, jack and the beanstalk. It was getting more serious.
Then a story: man earns and travels with a reaver at his side and ends up winning the heart of a princess - who up 'til that point kept a garden decorated with the blood dripping heads of failed suitors. I mean, she was under the influence of an evil troll(iirc) so no disrespect to her but I thought I might wait a few years until I read that one to my kids...
Grimm's Fairy Tales are already watered downed versions of the originals, edited for the benefit of softer 19th century sensibilities.
Darker material gives stories gravitas as well as putting the moral lessons in starker, simpler terms. If you don't follow instructions, or exhibit some antisocial behavior, you're not just "punished", you're slaughtered. Little Red Riding Hood strayed from the path and was eaten alive by a wolf. You can't get more clear than that. If and when the hunter saves her, that's mostly for the benefit of the parent, not the kid.
I'll think you'll find that most children, even from a very early age (preschool and before), are quite capable of discerning fiction from reality, and adept at distinguishing and recognizing (if not understanding) the moral lessons. The problem, IMO, with many fairy tales isn't the gore but that neither the moral lesson nor the plots resonant; so the gore just seems gratuitous rather than punctuation. Nobody is afraid of wolves anymore (we killed them all generations ago), and we rarely if ever let kids out into the world without safety rails, even up to college. The latter wouldn't matter if kids feared wolves--the graphic detail would make the moral lesson stick, which is kinda the point--but they just aren't.
I think you'll also find that, especially in the U.S., we live in a ridiculously violent culture; violence that we at best only superficially disguise. It's not the guns dropping legions of "bad guys"--again, most children understand fiction--it's just... I dunno, violence as an end unto itself rather than a means...? Fairy tale gore in books is the last thing I would ever be concerned about. I've actively tried to read these sorts of stories to my kids, to add diversity to their diet, but they don't seem to ever get into it. I think maybe it's just too unbelievable and dull, not too raw. The modern world is too different, modern culture much more slick and appetizing, and they know it even at 3.
Darker material gives stories gravitas as well as putting the moral lessons in starker, simpler terms. If you don't follow instructions, or exhibit some antisocial behavior, you're not just "punished", you're slaughtered. Little Red Riding Hood strayed from the path and was eaten alive by a wolf. You can't get more clear than that. If and when the hunter saves her, that's mostly for the benefit of the parent, not the kid.
I'll think you'll find that most children, even from a very early age (preschool and before), are quite capable of discerning fiction from reality, and adept at distinguishing and recognizing (if not understanding) the moral lessons. The problem, IMO, with many fairy tales isn't the gore but that neither the moral lesson nor the plots resonant; so the gore just seems gratuitous rather than punctuation. Nobody is afraid of wolves anymore (we killed them all generations ago), and we rarely if ever let kids out into the world without safety rails, even up to college. The latter wouldn't matter if kids feared wolves--the graphic detail would make the moral lesson stick, which is kinda the point--but they just aren't.
I think you'll also find that, especially in the U.S., we live in a ridiculously violent culture; violence that we at best only superficially disguise. It's not the guns dropping legions of "bad guys"--again, most children understand fiction--it's just... I dunno, violence as an end unto itself rather than a means...? Fairy tale gore in books is the last thing I would ever be concerned about. I've actively tried to read these sorts of stories to my kids, to add diversity to their diet, but they don't seem to ever get into it. I think maybe it's just too unbelievable and dull, not too raw. The modern world is too different, modern culture much more slick and appetizing, and they know it even at 3.
> we live in a ridiculously violent culture
I am rather shocked at this sentiment. We live in an incredibly peaceful culture, in historical context. For example, people used to be hung in the town square. Burned alive for entertainment. People would wander around town with a sword, picking fights to the death, and it was legal.
I once asked my dad why punishments for people who conspired against the king were so public and so hideously brutal. He replied that the people lived in brutal times, death at a young age was common, so it had to be amped up to get their attention.
These days, I never even saw a dead body (outside of a mummy in a museum) until my 50s. It's incredible if you think about it.
I am rather shocked at this sentiment. We live in an incredibly peaceful culture, in historical context. For example, people used to be hung in the town square. Burned alive for entertainment. People would wander around town with a sword, picking fights to the death, and it was legal.
I once asked my dad why punishments for people who conspired against the king were so public and so hideously brutal. He replied that the people lived in brutal times, death at a young age was common, so it had to be amped up to get their attention.
These days, I never even saw a dead body (outside of a mummy in a museum) until my 50s. It's incredible if you think about it.
The U.S. is exceptionally violent as compared to most other developed countries. There are many contributors to the origins of that culture--frontier mentality, slave suppression, etc--but what's left today is the violence. In middle-class society that tendency toward violence is kept in check by other cultural norms and, arguably, redirected in various ways, such as a harshly punitive penal system, suppression of underclasses, etc. But among the American working class and, especially, the poor, that violence manifests in very direct, brutal ways. My step brother travels the country working at refineries, which tend to be located in impoverished areas, and just the other day we were discussing some of the things he's seen around the country--knife fights, gun fights, and countless bar fights. My dad has more than his fair share of scars from when he traveled from town to town for work. I saw and experienced plenty of things as a child that many Americans, not to mention foreigners from less violent countries, would only expect to see in a movie. All this stuff is mostly hidden from direct view by the middle classes. But if you grew up poor or poor-adjacent, things often look quit different.
In my travels and readings I've found that countries have distinct tendencies toward violence that clearly emanate from their culture, not from objective markers like poverty, income, etc. For example, in the 1990s Ecuador had the lowest homicide rate in the Americas, despite often crushing poverty. In the early 2000s there was a surge of Columbian immigrants in search of work. Columbian culture was far more violent than Ecuador's, much like the U.S. (as opposed to simply a consequence of organized crime), and rates of violence soared. Not because the Columbian immigrants were criminals, but because those who resorted to crime did so in a more violent manner.
But my point wasn't to say that the U.S. is unsafe. Just that what makes a culture (and people) violent isn't superficial behaviors. Guns don't make America violent. America loves guns because we're a violent society. To be clear, we love guns not because we feel we have to defend ourselves, but we because we fetishize the idea of defending ourselves amidst our own violence. Take away the guns and homicides might drop, but the tendency toward violence will simply remain latent, and all the other manifestations of that culture of violence will remain. It doesn't mean we can't become a safer, better society. We have and we are. We'll just follow a different, often trailing path as compared to less violent societies.
If we want our kids to internalize a different set of norms and expectations, it's these subtle cues that we have to watch for, not the artifice. Kids can see through artifice, at least to the extent they haven't internalized the norms the artifice reflects or disguises. They don't need to be protected from video games or gun culture or gore; they need to be taught to recognize our society's preference for conflict over cooperation, for winner-take-all strategies, rather than to let it seep in quietly. Those cues are subtle and pervasive and to some extent exist even within, e.g., Disney's otherwise saccharine world. For example, Disney's woke culture messaging (as well meaning and useful as it is) reflects the narrative of two groups pitted against each other, one right and one wrong, where the latter either needs to be vanquished or converted. Unlike in traditional fairy tales, in American narratives the boogeyman is your nextdoor neighbor, not a troll or a witch. We think we're sending sophisticated, moral, good messages, and we are, but it's not all we're sending.
In my travels and readings I've found that countries have distinct tendencies toward violence that clearly emanate from their culture, not from objective markers like poverty, income, etc. For example, in the 1990s Ecuador had the lowest homicide rate in the Americas, despite often crushing poverty. In the early 2000s there was a surge of Columbian immigrants in search of work. Columbian culture was far more violent than Ecuador's, much like the U.S. (as opposed to simply a consequence of organized crime), and rates of violence soared. Not because the Columbian immigrants were criminals, but because those who resorted to crime did so in a more violent manner.
But my point wasn't to say that the U.S. is unsafe. Just that what makes a culture (and people) violent isn't superficial behaviors. Guns don't make America violent. America loves guns because we're a violent society. To be clear, we love guns not because we feel we have to defend ourselves, but we because we fetishize the idea of defending ourselves amidst our own violence. Take away the guns and homicides might drop, but the tendency toward violence will simply remain latent, and all the other manifestations of that culture of violence will remain. It doesn't mean we can't become a safer, better society. We have and we are. We'll just follow a different, often trailing path as compared to less violent societies.
If we want our kids to internalize a different set of norms and expectations, it's these subtle cues that we have to watch for, not the artifice. Kids can see through artifice, at least to the extent they haven't internalized the norms the artifice reflects or disguises. They don't need to be protected from video games or gun culture or gore; they need to be taught to recognize our society's preference for conflict over cooperation, for winner-take-all strategies, rather than to let it seep in quietly. Those cues are subtle and pervasive and to some extent exist even within, e.g., Disney's otherwise saccharine world. For example, Disney's woke culture messaging (as well meaning and useful as it is) reflects the narrative of two groups pitted against each other, one right and one wrong, where the latter either needs to be vanquished or converted. Unlike in traditional fairy tales, in American narratives the boogeyman is your nextdoor neighbor, not a troll or a witch. We think we're sending sophisticated, moral, good messages, and we are, but it's not all we're sending.
> But my point wasn't to say that the U.S. is unsafe.
But when you say the US is "exceptionally violent" that is indeed what you're saying.
> they need to be taught to recognize our society's preference for conflict over cooperation, for winner-take-all strategies,
Oh come on. This just reads like selection bias. Just drive to work some day, and look at all the cars cooperating so the traffic smoothly flows. They go to work, and cooperate with the people at the workplace, cooperate with their suppliers, cooperate with their customers, and pretty much everyone they interact with all day, every day.
The winner-take-all mentality is in organized sports, which are specifically designed for that, and those are in every country. (And even then the teams have to cooperate with each other, and cooperate with other teams on rules and schedules.) But not much in other activities. Humans would all literally die in short order if we don't cooperate.
Thought I'd throw in this thought:
Free markets are based on voluntary cooperation. Socialism is based on forced cooperation. I can't even think of a functioning system based on non-cooperation.
But when you say the US is "exceptionally violent" that is indeed what you're saying.
> they need to be taught to recognize our society's preference for conflict over cooperation, for winner-take-all strategies,
Oh come on. This just reads like selection bias. Just drive to work some day, and look at all the cars cooperating so the traffic smoothly flows. They go to work, and cooperate with the people at the workplace, cooperate with their suppliers, cooperate with their customers, and pretty much everyone they interact with all day, every day.
The winner-take-all mentality is in organized sports, which are specifically designed for that, and those are in every country. (And even then the teams have to cooperate with each other, and cooperate with other teams on rules and schedules.) But not much in other activities. Humans would all literally die in short order if we don't cooperate.
Thought I'd throw in this thought:
Free markets are based on voluntary cooperation. Socialism is based on forced cooperation. I can't even think of a functioning system based on non-cooperation.
>But when you say the US is "exceptionally violent" that is indeed what you're saying.
Compared to present countries, not the past, the US indeed is exceptionally violent, especially given the wealth in the country.
* Homicide rate is among the highest of all OECD countries, for example: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?location...
* The US still has legal capital punishment.
* The whole approach to the penal system being very revenge-based, resulting in very high incarceration rates etc.
* The prevalence of sexual violence, e.g. compare the US with Canada: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health...
Compared to present countries, not the past, the US indeed is exceptionally violent, especially given the wealth in the country.
* Homicide rate is among the highest of all OECD countries, for example: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?location...
* The US still has legal capital punishment.
* The whole approach to the penal system being very revenge-based, resulting in very high incarceration rates etc.
* The prevalence of sexual violence, e.g. compare the US with Canada: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health...
> Homicide rate is among the highest of all OECD countries
First off, what is and is not an OECD country is selection bias right from the start. "Among" the highest is subjective as well, and it's far from the highest. Next, the US is a large and diverse country. There are some neighborhoods with very high homicide rates (in Chicago, for example). This is not at all representative of the rest of the country, but it averages into the statistics.
The TV series "Sons of Anarchy" is certainly entertaining, but has nothing to do with reality in the US.
The homicide rate is still very, very low compared to deaths from other causes. It doesn't even rate a mention in lists of deaths from causes. I wouldn't characterize that as "exceptionally violent".
> The US still has legal capital punishment.
28 states have capital punishment, 22 do not. In 2019, 22 people total were executed. While this is 22 too many and it needs to stop, it is statistically insignificant compared to the population of 328,000,000.
> The whole approach to the penal system being very revenge-based
I agree with that, but don't agree it makes society violent.
> The prevalence of sexual violence
I clicked on the reference, expecting to see rates of conviction for sexual violence. It's not there.
First off, what is and is not an OECD country is selection bias right from the start. "Among" the highest is subjective as well, and it's far from the highest. Next, the US is a large and diverse country. There are some neighborhoods with very high homicide rates (in Chicago, for example). This is not at all representative of the rest of the country, but it averages into the statistics.
The TV series "Sons of Anarchy" is certainly entertaining, but has nothing to do with reality in the US.
The homicide rate is still very, very low compared to deaths from other causes. It doesn't even rate a mention in lists of deaths from causes. I wouldn't characterize that as "exceptionally violent".
> The US still has legal capital punishment.
28 states have capital punishment, 22 do not. In 2019, 22 people total were executed. While this is 22 too many and it needs to stop, it is statistically insignificant compared to the population of 328,000,000.
> The whole approach to the penal system being very revenge-based
I agree with that, but don't agree it makes society violent.
> The prevalence of sexual violence
I clicked on the reference, expecting to see rates of conviction for sexual violence. It's not there.
Things aren't binary in real world. When you compare how ie Europe works, the differences are there and in similar vein as highlighted.
American society is brutal in many respects. It is truly winner-take-all and rest be damned, you should have tried harder. Be it medicine (you either can afford it or are screwed - unimaginable for any european country), education (public universities are almost/totally free everywhere), penal system etc.
I find it interesting how US top 1% succeeded to persuade the remaining 99% of the population that this is best system for them, when clearly it isn't. Not if you want the best place for your kid to grow up and be given fairest and best chances and have a good safe life. I guess Hollywood helped, but rather than contemplating some conspiracy it seems to me its more some sort of self-fulfilling myth.
We know class mobility is largely a myth, and US society is deeply divided into classes based on money. And as for violence - its there on more noticeable levels than across the pond.
American society is brutal in many respects. It is truly winner-take-all and rest be damned, you should have tried harder. Be it medicine (you either can afford it or are screwed - unimaginable for any european country), education (public universities are almost/totally free everywhere), penal system etc.
I find it interesting how US top 1% succeeded to persuade the remaining 99% of the population that this is best system for them, when clearly it isn't. Not if you want the best place for your kid to grow up and be given fairest and best chances and have a good safe life. I guess Hollywood helped, but rather than contemplating some conspiracy it seems to me its more some sort of self-fulfilling myth.
We know class mobility is largely a myth, and US society is deeply divided into classes based on money. And as for violence - its there on more noticeable levels than across the pond.
> Free markets are based on voluntary cooperation.
Indirect coercion due to lack of the means of subsistence is not voluntary.
> Socialism is based on forced cooperation.
It's not. Socialism is not Stalinism.
Indirect coercion due to lack of the means of subsistence is not voluntary.
> Socialism is based on forced cooperation.
It's not. Socialism is not Stalinism.
In the 90's and early 2000's, I was a child running around the desert and constantly being told how to avoid encounters with Mountain Lions, so we're not that far from those days.
While toning down the sexuality, the Grimms actually dialed up the violence in later editions of their work. Why? Maybe because the later editions were directed at children and had to have a didactic purpose, showcasing the (harmful, often gruesome) results of unwise decisions. Needless to say, didactic insights were quite different back then.
https://eraebarnes.com/2017/10/06/from-wild-beasts-to-a-barr...
https://eraebarnes.com/2017/10/06/from-wild-beasts-to-a-barr...
I don't know where you're coming from, but having read some things on my own (e.g. some myths, apocalyptic literature, books on medieval necromancy) I just don't see what is there to be "darker" in Grimm's Tales. The representation of violence in them seems to be like the same as it ever was before and if they don't all happen to be senselessly violent, it's because in there you'll find everything between Aesop, medieval romance and some absolutely mad tales.
What would, in my opinion, be an effect of 19th century sensibilities, of Romantic, Gothic and Wagnerian sensibilities, would be the attribution of any sort of gravitas to the original material. I think the violence is not even supposed to shock, scare or be believable. It is supposed to be ridiculous: the tone of story will shift in a single page into some ridiculous over-the-top violence and then go back to normal as if nothing happened. The attitude towards violence is pretty much the same as in that of Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
About children not caring about fairy tales: I don't think it's that unusual, though I don't think it has got anything to do with either children or fairy tales. A minority of people hugely enjoy something and it's because of them that the everyone else enjoys it, because they manage to make it sound fun by constantly playing with it. People don't just happen to aggregate, collate and modify folklore to the benefit of folklorists. They do it because they happen to be the main audience for folk tales. Because they are constantly alternating between telling and hearing them, even in their old age, they get good at it.
What would, in my opinion, be an effect of 19th century sensibilities, of Romantic, Gothic and Wagnerian sensibilities, would be the attribution of any sort of gravitas to the original material. I think the violence is not even supposed to shock, scare or be believable. It is supposed to be ridiculous: the tone of story will shift in a single page into some ridiculous over-the-top violence and then go back to normal as if nothing happened. The attitude towards violence is pretty much the same as in that of Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
About children not caring about fairy tales: I don't think it's that unusual, though I don't think it has got anything to do with either children or fairy tales. A minority of people hugely enjoy something and it's because of them that the everyone else enjoys it, because they manage to make it sound fun by constantly playing with it. People don't just happen to aggregate, collate and modify folklore to the benefit of folklorists. They do it because they happen to be the main audience for folk tales. Because they are constantly alternating between telling and hearing them, even in their old age, they get good at it.
[deleted]
About the telling - a good fairy tale is not read, it is told. You pick up the main plot lines and tell the story which has now become yours, controlling your voice, pausing, maybe mimicking swords or long hair, etc.
I've seen that kind of story-telling in action in a Waldorf kindergarten, and it is really capturing.
I've seen that kind of story-telling in action in a Waldorf kindergarten, and it is really capturing.
As a parent reading to my kid every day I am getting better. But it is a real skill to tell a story well.
I think the "ye olde storyteller that wanders from town to town" has morphed into the modern day comedian. The comedian often tells a mundane story, but they tell it well.
I think the "ye olde storyteller that wanders from town to town" has morphed into the modern day comedian. The comedian often tells a mundane story, but they tell it well.
That's an interesting perspective, but wouldn't your theory imply your kids would also be turned off by sanitized fairy tales? Or do they like those?
I'm comparing with my own experience. I loved (modern) fairy tales as a kid, and the world wasn't that different when I grew up.
I'm comparing with my own experience. I loved (modern) fairy tales as a kid, and the world wasn't that different when I grew up.
[deleted]
The world is a harsh place.
If you raise children in a bubble of safety and only throw them out into the real world at adulthood, they have many problems.
Scary stories are a safe way to introduce developing humans to the realities of the world so they are prepared for them.
Biologically it is the likely source of a lot of mental illness. Basically your brain tunes itself towards the expectations set in its early environment, if the adult environment is quite a lot different than the childhood one, the feedback systems tuned to keep things on the level can’t cope with the foreign environment and you get mental illness.
It wasn’t so long ago that wandering off into the forest would likely get you murdered or worse.
If you raise children in a bubble of safety and only throw them out into the real world at adulthood, they have many problems.
Scary stories are a safe way to introduce developing humans to the realities of the world so they are prepared for them.
Biologically it is the likely source of a lot of mental illness. Basically your brain tunes itself towards the expectations set in its early environment, if the adult environment is quite a lot different than the childhood one, the feedback systems tuned to keep things on the level can’t cope with the foreign environment and you get mental illness.
It wasn’t so long ago that wandering off into the forest would likely get you murdered or worse.
The world being harsh is true.
And I agree that modern western society seems to simply expect bad things not to happen. Whether it is bullying, other human-human violence or "business can't be let fail".
A simple look at the animal kingdom tells you this is not a sane "expectation".
In this instance, I wasn't planning to censor the story out of existence. Just perhaps wait a bit longer than the other stories would require.
Interesting theory on the mental illness. I won't entirely subscribe to it as I think there are a wide variety of illnesses with a wide variety of causes. Whether this is the "likely source of a lot" remains to be proven I think.
In this instance, I wasn't planning to censor the story out of existence. Just perhaps wait a bit longer than the other stories would require.
Interesting theory on the mental illness. I won't entirely subscribe to it as I think there are a wide variety of illnesses with a wide variety of causes. Whether this is the "likely source of a lot" remains to be proven I think.
Fairy tales need to be a bit grimm (pun intended). They are supposed to teach about hardship and the difference between good and evil. You can only show the contrast if you actually have some evil to talk about.
A child dying in the flames she sparked by playing with a bunch of matches while she was home alone. The cats were trying to warn her, now they can only watch from afar as the child and house burn.
A homeless child having a final hallucination while watching (again) a bunch of matches burn while freezing to death outside. Another child dying from hunger because he refuses to eat what his parents are putting on the table. Yes, not the most uplifting stories, but where I come from, everyone knows these stories, and almost everyone knows them since they are about 5.
A child dying in the flames she sparked by playing with a bunch of matches while she was home alone. The cats were trying to warn her, now they can only watch from afar as the child and house burn.
A homeless child having a final hallucination while watching (again) a bunch of matches burn while freezing to death outside. Another child dying from hunger because he refuses to eat what his parents are putting on the table. Yes, not the most uplifting stories, but where I come from, everyone knows these stories, and almost everyone knows them since they are about 5.
Yeah. Now I want to track down that "refuses to eat" story because we're at that picky eater stage!
My feeling was that I would wait a bit longer for the more gruesome story than some of the others.
My feeling was that I would wait a bit longer for the more gruesome story than some of the others.
"The Story of Augustus who not have any Soup" is the english title of "Die Geschichte vom Suppen-Kasper" as far as I was able to figure out.
I very strongly recommend Tolkien’s translation of Gawain and the Green Knight.
the audio version recorded by none other than Terry Jones is extremely good. The humour and sexiness of the translation (no, really!) come through in spades, and his midlands accent is exactly correct and sounds wonderful.
the audio version recorded by none other than Terry Jones is extremely good. The humour and sexiness of the translation (no, really!) come through in spades, and his midlands accent is exactly correct and sounds wonderful.
I think I'd rather recommend Diana Wynne Jones' The Tough Guide To Fantasyland. On one hand, it's more conventional modern genre fantasy derivative of post-Tolkien writers. On the other, it's an actual survival guide, like the OP.
"Gawain" is an example of the source material from which a survival guide could be inferred.
I recently learned that Tolkien's son did some cleanup on the various writings left around after the passing of JRRT. (the phrase was, nothing was added, only removal of any contradictory passages and order). Any tips for finding more of Tolkien's writings, Middle Earth or otherwise?
I don’t have time to right a proper reply right now (May try later) but the real situation is really complicated. Tolkien spent his entire life writing about Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings is only a small part of his output. He also wrote academic output and some other stories. Tolkien himself sometimes wrote different versions of the same tales, sometimes in different styles, often making changes to the characters or plot points. He had no version control. After his death, Tolkien’s son Christopher pulled together The Silmarillian, which is a précis of some of the key stories of the Elder days of Middle Earth. He then published, over several years, books that presented some of the raw material, explicitly pointing out Tolkien’s own contradictions and retcons. This can be fascinating but frustrating, especially when Tolkien abandoned good stories and characters midway.
library search, probably.
lesser-known gems i like are his translations ( of gawain, pearl, and sir orfeo), his critical essays (monsters and critics), and his short stories (smith of wooton major, farmer giles of ham).
lesser-known gems i like are his translations ( of gawain, pearl, and sir orfeo), his critical essays (monsters and critics), and his short stories (smith of wooton major, farmer giles of ham).
I attribute most of my inset practicality to reading and rereading the unabridged version of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales. From those stories I learned so much about humanity, even though they are 'lighter' versions of the tales the very real consequences in the endings had an outsized impact on how I treated the world around me. Also, the Hans stories are a great example of showing kids that sometimes it's just pure dumb luck that people succeed and that has no bearing on the inherent worth of the person. I still have the copy I read as a kid plus a beautiful hardcover edition. They are books I treasure and go back to in a similar way that I peruse my philosophy books.
I really enjoyed the Singing Bones podcast. Each season the narrator talks about the history, origins, and context of various fairy tales and spends an episode per season on the story tellers themselves.
What else could they do to actively make users run away? Sirens blazing?