The Singapore Series: SINGAPORE WRITERS FESTIVAL 2013 (Part 3 con't)

6^th November 2013 (Part 3 con’t)

Happily Ever After – Fairy Tales Screw us Up

7:30-8:30pm

Chamber, The Arts House

Carolyn Camoens moderates.

This event is done debate-style, where two groups of writers will argue for or against the topic of whether fairy tales screw us up. The proposition team comprise of Verena Tay, Harris Jahim and Charlene Shepherdson. The opposition has Paolo Chikiamco, Jason Erik Lundberg and Margaret Supramaniam. Carolyn Camoens moderates the debate. The judges are volunteers from the audience. No, I did not volunteer myself. Before I attended the debate, I already harbour the preconception that fairy tales do screw us up, so there might be a bias. But I kept an open mind during the debate and listen to both sides of the story. Let us see how that pans out, shall we?

Verena Tay from the proposition team started the debate. I have listed down her points:

·         fairy tales prescribe gender roles to female and male characters

·         female characters are usually depicted as young and beautiful and the males mostly handsome and charming

·         fairy tales portray (wrongly) that marriage is the be-all and end-all

·         absentee parents in most fairy tales

·         the role of the fairy godmother

·         portrayal of protagonist as helpless and passively waiting for rescue

·         the rose-tinted idea of ‘happily ever after’

There is a flaw in their argument right from the beginning. They did not clearly state or draw the boundaries for the version of fairy tales they are addressing. Fairy tales have a long history, predating the invention of printing and publishing. It is known that fairy tales were originally not meant for children’s consumption. Fairy tales were created by adults and passed on orally to adults. The ‘trespass’ (if you will) into children’s literature only came later when printing was invented and somebody decided to adapt fairy tales into tales of caution or instruction for children (changes were made to the tales). Therefore, making clear which fairy tales they are referring to will make their argument clearer. I presume, from hearing Verena’s points, that they are referring to modern day fairy tales as we know it, namely Disney’s versions.

Jason Erik Lundberg from the opposition, made his case next. He argued (rightly) that fairy tales were also by French women who shared these tales with each other in salonnières. He also made the point that fairy tales are actually beneficial to the growth of children (I suppose he is referring to Bruno Bettelheim’s psychoanalytical study on how fairy tales helps young children) by teaching them how to “slay dragons”, in other words, how to overcome obstacles in life. His argument is strongly supported by the rest of his team, who follow the same line of argument; that fairy tales do not screw us up, but is essential in our growth.

Paolo Chikiamco, the last speaker for the opposition, drove home the point by contending that there is an objective to the black and white in fairy tales. It is to teach children to differentiate between right and wrong. He argues that children views things as is; black is black, white is white. They do not think about the in-betweens. This addresses the point brought up by Charlene Shepherdson (of the proposition), who mentioned that fairy tales are only in black and white, but do not address the shades of grey, which is how reality is. Reality is not straightforward and thus fairy tales presents us with a skewed perspective. The opposition also added that fairy tales are not real and are meant to be tales (‘tales’ already being the indicator of its fictional quality) to entertain. Paolo also made a great point about fairy tales being the “door jams” to prevent us from closing the doors to the beauty of the world, in other words, to prevent children from growing into jaded cynics. He also asserts that fairy tales fertilise our creative minds and enhances the imagination.

The argument put forward by the opposition team is just too compelling to ignore. They made many good points (which I do agree), brought up many fresh ones, and on the whole, their argument is coherent and cohesive, funny and relatable. They are also impassioned debaters and are very persuasive. It is no surprise that they won the debate. It is also no shocker that the best speaker award went to Paolo Chikiamco. He is amazing (for lack of a better word)!

L-R: Harris Jahim, Verena Tay, Charlene Shepherdson, Margaret Supramaniam, Carolyn Camoens (moderator), Paolo Chikiamco (best speaker), Jason Erik Lundberg, representative from The Arts House.

However, one of the volunteer judge (a somewhat geeky-cute guy), questioned why the hate for Disney. He explained that without Disney we would not have known fairy tales and therefore would not have tried to find out more about fairy tales, thus not knowing that fairy tales are actually gruesome and bloody. At that point, this question made sense and I somewhat agreed to it (maybe I am prejudiced by his cuteness).

I have since given more thought to his question and I disagree with him. I believed that many who watched Disney’s animated fairy tale movies would leave it as it is. Not many would actually bother to dig deeper and look for the origins of fairy tales. Furthermore, Disney actually based their animated fairy tale movies on ‘bastardised’ version of fairy tales, and there are many children literature books out there that prints these ‘bastardised’ versions, which further supports Disney’s version as the ‘real’ version of these fairy tales. Disney’s fairy tales, in all its pastel Technicolor glory will more or less colour viewers’ worldview. How many children do you know today, especially young girls, who dreams of being princesses and are treated as princesses by their adoring parents? All you need to do is watch reality television and you will know what I mean. Disney popularised the ‘bastardised’ versions of fairy tales and viewers tend to take them as the be-all and end-all of fairy tales.

There is no ‘happily ever after’ in real life folks.