
Grimm's Fairy Tales is a work by Brothers Grimm now brought to you in this new edition of the timeless classic.
We also had Grimm's fairy tales, which I loved reading, and nowadays am reading to my daughter, to her delight. Yes, with beheadings and child-eating monsters and witches.
No one is asking you to believe in anything, but it's self-limiting to refuse to engage with works of historical/cultural importance.
> So much is conveyed here about character, time and the natural world, because Cinderella’s piety is natural piety, respect for nature more than conventional Christian belief.
It's something that modern fantasy usually doesn't capture, by being too modern, and by being far too verbose. The latter is one aspect in which Tolkien's Simarillion feels better than his "The Lord of the Rings": The Simarillion leaves all the details out, it has little direct speech, and only mentions what's important. Its style is not as raw and authentic as in Grimm's fairy tales, or as in actual historical legends like King Arthur, but it gets close as times, mainly by avoiding the verbosity that is so common in all modern literature.
She argues persuasively that the conventional origin normally told about the Grimm's fairy tales—-that they were recited by old peasant women remembering the ancient oral folktales of the Germanic people—-is not really true.
In fact the tales mainly came from middle class storytellers. And the two most important sources of the Grimm's tales were two Italian literary story collections from the Renaissance by Giovanni Straparola and Giambattista Basile.
It upended a lot of what I thought I knew about the origins of fairy tales.
Early books: Arrow to the Sun and Grimm’s Fairy Tales and Hans Christian Andersen and The Hobbit - all very stimulating to imagination.
