Little Red Riding Hood Rides Again — and Again and Again and Again

Little Red Riding Hood Rides Again — and Again and Again and Again When I began teaching children's literature a few years ago, one of the things that most surprised me was the gulf between the books reviewers and critics discussed and the ones that were readily available to most children. I could find the books the experts recommended, in libraries or in the rare bookstore that had a reasonable assortment of children's titles. But meanwhile , every supermarket and toy department had its rack of Golden Books and Wonder Books and Tell-a-Tale Books and Pop-Up Books and Puppet Books. These were the books that gift-giving parents and grandmothers had the easiest access to; they were probably the only books that most children owned. Clearly a knowledge of these books was an Important part of my education in children's literature; I decided to investigate them. A glance at the racks showed me that the publishers of these series seemed to be very fond of "old favorites.** Perhaps they understood that the grownups who purchase these books feel safe with the familiar; perhaps they simply realized that "old favorites" are out of copyright and fair game for anyone who wants to make a few bucks. In any case, they had published a disproportionate number of versions of the best known fairy tales. I decided to concentrate on "Little Red Riding Hood," simply because it seemed to be the one most popular title. I found over thirty "Little Red Riding Hoods"; they are all different from each other, and they all offer surprising insights into our attitudes toward children and their literature. They are all based on two early versions — Charles Perrault's "Le Petit Chaperon Rouge," which was included in the first printed collection of fairy tales, the Histoires ou Contes du Temps Passé of 1697» and the Grimm Brothers* Rotkappchen, included in Kinderund Hausmarchen in 1812. But a look at these early versions shows that our ideas about what children ought to hear have changed greatly in the past few centuries. Perrault*s "Le Petit Chaperon Rouge" was a "little country girl,"i and her troubles stemmed from her ignorance of the great world; she "did not know how dangerous a thing it is to stay and hear a Wolfe talk." In fact, the wolf's ability to talk her into what he wanted from her was just as dangerous as his great teeth were. And what he wanted was obvious; Perrault dwells on his heroine's beauty, and says that she is "the prettiest little creature that ever was seen." After that, it seems only natural that the wolf talk Little Red into undressing and coming into bed with him. And once into bed, she comments, not just on the interesting largeness of his eyes, ears, and teeth, but also of his arms and legs. While no other parts of the body are mentioned, it is surprising to realize that men who take advantage of innocent females were not called wolves until two centuries after Perrault told his story. But the end of "Le Petit Chaperon Rouge" is even more surprising. When Little Red says, "Grandmama, what great teeth you have got!" the wolf answers, "'It is to eat thee up.' And upon saying these words, this wicked Wolfe fell upon the little Red Riding-Hood, and eat her up." And that is all — no helpful woodsman, no salvation in the nick of time. But Perrault did provide a moral: This story teaches that the very young And little girls, more surely than the rest — Sweet dainty things, clothed in their Sunday best — Should never trust a stranger's artful tongue. Small wonder if these guileless young beginners Provide the wolf with some of his best dinners. ^ Apparently knowledge of the wicked ways of the world is essential, even for children. The spicy story of "Ie petit chaperon rouge" is a cynic's knowing comment on innocence: innocence is stupid. We no longer believe that it is, and we work hard to protect the innocence of children, not only from wicked strangers, but also from stories in which children are devoured. It is not...