Talk:Grimms' Fairy Tales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pied Piper of Hamelin[edit]

Why is the Pied Piper not listed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apex156 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I guess this is because despite being collected and recited by the brother Grimms, Pied Piper is not part of their fairy-tale collection "Children's and Household Tales". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.186.1 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modernized Fairytales[edit]

I think that there should be some mention as the the modern versions of these fairytales because it will shows their longevity and doesn't make them seem so distant. The article doesn't say much about how these fairytales in particular have affected much of modern western culture either. This article seems very limited as to what affect Grimm's fairytales have on today's societies.

A section on the influence of the collection would be very appropriate. Goldfritha 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't seem to be done, though there is some on the Fairy tale page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.148.201 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howl's Moving Castle[edit]

Was "supposedly"? Sounds like that needs a rewrite -- and reference. Goldfritha 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles[edit]

I have this book in English (1944 Pantheon Books) , should I change all these German titles to the English - or - list both German and English titles. Goldenrowley 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both English and German would be good. Goldfritha 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I note that this page is full of German titles in "red link" -- this being the English Wikipedia, if we make the red links in English we might get a few more help to add the fairy tale pages (in English). Goldenrowley 02:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nose Tree[edit]

As a child, my mother had a book of Grimm's Fairy Tales. One of her favorites from that book was "The Nose Tree". I can't seem to find a book that includes this tale. Does anyone know why it's hard to find? Frotz661 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly The Rose Tree? It's not a German tale but an English one -- but it's very similar to The Juniper Tree. Goldfritha 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's definitely the "Nose Tree". I found some references to it with Google, usually in fairly old volumes. Oddly enough, Project Gutenberg doesn't have the tale, but it does have pretty much all the other tales. Frotz661 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you mean this fairytale: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_lange_Nase "The long Nose" - this fairy is only in the second part of the First Edition of "Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm" 1815 (Nr. 36 KHM 122a)).--Einheit3 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_Household_Tales_(Edwardes)/The_Nose-Tree Irish Melkite (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpurgated?[edit]

I have the 1993 printing of "The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales" from Barnes & Noble press, which claims to be unexpurgated. Would this be a correct statement, in other words, being a translation of the original edition instead of the later watered down versions? Either way, it might be worth mentioning in the article what version modern reprintings tend to follow. Fieari 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

I have tagged Grimm's Fairy Tales#In popular culture with the <expandsect> template because, obviously, there are a million and one adaptions of various Grimm's Fairy Tales. For instance, Shrek uses a lot of stuff from Grimm, and how about all the stuff in pop culture about individual fairy tales? Would that also belong here?Lilac Soul 11:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User request, please consider the interpretations of Augsburger Puppenkiste. I would love to do a small overview, if you believe them to be essentiell. As well as DEFA interpretations. I believe this is also interesting for English speaking readers. Sinnfrei (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which translation?[edit]

It would be nice to have a section discussing the various English translations, and their pluses and minuses. Haiduc 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Facts / Emphasis[edit]

It starts with:

»Collection of German (and French) fairy tales [...] which such tales were not, in fact, German, citing the many English and Norwegian analogies to the tales they had collected, and that the most extensive similarities were to Serbian fairy tales; they pointed to the Indian and Persian equivalents as proof that the tales came with the languages as part of the Indo-European heritage [...] The tales were also criticized for being insufficiently German;«

Here is the problem: as it reads now, it claims in the first sentence that the fairy tales are german and french. It later claims that the fairy tales are similar to that of other countries. 1) French — they did NOT collect french fairy tales, but a few tales of french origin which came with the hugenots into the german speaking area. This is due to the fact, that hugenots were forced out of france in the centuries before 2) other fairy tales: the article lays quite a strong emphasis on »analogies with fairy tales of other countries«; it does not change the fact that they collected the tales they found in their (german) area. 3) the hugenot french fairy tales were only a few and the brothers grimm published their later works withouth these tales (though not consequential), because of the nationalism which arose at that time in germany (later than in france or other countries).

»The first volumes were much criticized because, although they were called "Children's Tales", they were not regarded as suitable for children, both for the scholarly information included and the subject matter.[1] Many changes through the editions—such as turning the wicked mother of the first edition in Snow White and Hansel and Gretel to a stepmother, were probably made with an eye to such suitability.«

That's not adequate: the wicket mother wasn't compatible with that times (burgeois) view of a mother, so they changed it to step-mother. The criticism of not being »german« was pointed at the hugenot fairy tales (therefore they published versions without the tales of hugenot origin. Other critisim was that the tales aren't christian enough, so some changes were made to meet christian belief.

— M7

Chauvinism[edit]

Grimm's Fairy Tales are very, very chauvinistic. Every literature researcher will tell you so. Why won't Wikipedia? Siúnrá (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to guess that it's because people who know the literature researchers to cite have so far failed to WP:Be bold and do so. —Dajagr (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I dont think that is a good coment at all , there a such anice tale.[reply]

I disagree. Rather than being chauvinistic, they reflect the mores of the times. These just happen to be different from those in modern, Western culture. Prtwhitley (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe[edit]

Grimm's or Grimms'? The title and the text contradict each other. Presumably it should be Grimms', since there were two of them. Edmund1989 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and exchanged the Grimms' and Grimm's pages' contents. --Thrissel (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have reverted the change. The renaming may or may not have merit, but it should not be carried out as a cut-and-paste move. Instead, you may submit a request at WP:Requested moves. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent contradiction comes (I think) from the fact that Grimms is the genitive case in German, which has no apostrophe and in any case does not differentiate between singular or plural.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title[edit]

The title of this page should be changed to Grimms' Fairy Tales. In addition, searches for Grimm Fairy Tales and Grimm's Fairy Tales should redirect here. (Comparatively, the comic series is a fairly recent occurence, and can be redirected from this page.) My reasoning is, most people learn about these historical fairy tales very early in their lives, and so will be looking for info based on what little they can remember about the title, i.e., Grimm, Grimms, Grimm's, or Grimms' Fairy Tales. For this reason, this search should be made as easy as possible. This page can then serve as a redirect point for those looking for something more specific or entirely different (the comic series). I would like to take a vote for changing the page title, and if appropriate objections are not raised, I will begin the process of changing it. Thanks. Tell someone (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Grimms' Fairy Tales. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm's Fairy Tales → Grimms' Fairy Tales – As pointed out by two others before me on its talkpage, there were two brothers Grimms, co-authors of the tales, so Grimm's is simply bad English. It should be a redir to Grimms' , not the other way round. Thrissel (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unfortunately, it seems that English reliable sources are evenly split on which way to spell this. And of course, per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be based on what the majority of reliable sources spell it as, not what we here editing Wikipedia perceive as "proper" English. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is an interesting one, and Zzyzk11's comment basically sums it up. I can find a National Geographic page that spells it "Grimms'" but a Google search for images related to "Grimms' Fairy Tales" shows that almost every book ever published uses "Grimm's" (or "Brothers Grimm", which doesn't help). It's difficult to find genuinely reliable sources, though, so I'd say it's probably okay to do the move. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to admit the Google Images outcome is rather surprising to me. On the other hand, a Google Books search gets 159 hits for "grimm's fairy tales"[1] to 368 for "grimms' fairy tales"[2] (the latter admittedly includes a small proportion with no apostrophe). --Thrissel (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to change to Support move. I think a lack of sources that are typically considered "reliable" means that a little bit more latitude than usual should be allowed. This is one time when WP:OR is annoying - it would probably be useful to include something on the spelling issue on the article, but I don't think a talk page is a reliable source even though we're all discussing this in good faith! Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. I note that the current standard English translation of the volume (Ralph Manheim translation, Anchor Books) is rightly titled Grimms' Tales for Young and Old. This is as reliable and modern a source as possible. This article should be moved to follow suit, and the "fairy tales" part should also technically get the axe; it's inaccurate and misleading for a number of reasons, which is why Manheim dropped it. There are, for example, no "fairies" in these tales. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fairy tales" is perfectly accurate. As the Wikipedia article notes: "A fairy tale is a type of short narrative that typically features such folkloric characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. However, only a small number of the stories refer to fairies." (my emphasis) The German Märchen also translates as "fairy tales", not simply "tales". Most relevant is that "Grimms' Fairy Tales" is the common name for the collection. —  AjaxSmack  17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax, I will kindly thank you to not waste my time by quoting other Wikipedia articles to me. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. An actual reliable source (provided by me above), however, outlines quite plainly the numerous problems and inaccuracies with the employment of the term "fairy tales" when referring to the Grimms' Tales for Young and Old and strongly argues against its use (see Translator's Preface, pp. 1-2). Thus Manheim's avoidance of the phrase in his own, currently standard and most modern translation. This is an issue that requires serious consideration and, at the very least, coverage of, rather than a digital handwave to another Wikipedia article. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to ignore my comments if they're a waste of your time. I wasn't using Wikipedia to source an article which is what WP:RS refers to. I was merely pointing out that it it not wholly inaccurate to call the stories of the Grimms "fairy tales". While academics might quibble with use of the term (and use "fairy tales" in scare quotes and then call them "Märchen" in English)[3], Wikipedia is not pedantopedia and title usage should generally reflect common usage. Certainly Manheim's (and others') concerns can be considered in the text of the article but they alone shouldn't determine the title. —  AjaxSmack  04:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a recap seems to be necessary: you've previously claimed the usage was "perfectly accurate" and quoted another Wikipedia article in defense. Then I provided a solid source disputing that, and now you're adjusting your position and supplementing it with a JSTOR search that contradicts your original comments while, at the same time, dismissing the commentary of scholars as "quibb[ling]" and "pedantry". It should be clear enough that märchen is not easily glossed or translated (and certainly "fairy tales" is inappropriate), and we could well use an article on the subject. Further discussion here would certainly be appropriate, as the "use common usage" policy has numerous, logic and neutrality-based exceptions found all over Wikipedia (examples of which are provided below your link). I, for one, would vote for changing the title to Grimms' Tales for Young and Old as Manheim and others demonstrate that Grimm's Fairy Tales is backed by ideological point of view (i.e. that such tales are low-brow and intended solely for children, among various other issues—quite the contrary to the original German intentions), but I am, of course, open to discussion about scholarly consensus versus "popular" use. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tales for Young and Old" may or may not be more accurate, but I think WP:COMMONNAME comes into play here. There seem to be only a couple of printings with that title and dozens using "Fairy Tales". Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with Zzyzx and Absconded Northerner that usage is split, but I think this is a good case of when to simply use common sense. As the nom says, "Grimm's is simply bad English". Jenks24 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the sources are roughly evenly split, go with the correct punctuation. —  AjaxSmack  17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Story of Lies[edit]

The Story of Lies seems to be missing. 92.20.202.5 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grimms fairy tales actually slavic?[edit]

Are grimm's fairy tales actually slavic? Alot of the tales are very similiar to slavic tales. In parts of germany there were slavic people who could have spread the slavic fairy tales to the germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadsmith (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking this question you should take a look at, for example, the Aarne–Thompson classification system. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol[edit]

I came here by Google Doodle --78.173.58.182 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only way to fly.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied[edit]

An awful lot of the text here has been directly copied from Brothers Grimm in this set of edits (complete with images). That needs to be indicated and attributed. Or reverted. I'm thinking since it's a copy from the other page and this page needs a different emphasis that I'll probably revert to a previous version. Victoria (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

Why is this article called "Grimms' Fairy Tales" when "The collection is commonly known in the Anglosphere as Grimm's Fairy Tales"? 63.217.82.139 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q. why no KHM 7: The Good Bargain (Der gute Handel) ??!![edit]

Q. why no KHM 7: The Good Bargain (Der gute Handel) ??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.24.230 (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KHM 151[edit]

KHM 151 appears twice. Is that a mistake? 87.69.142.211 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KHM 151 appears twice in the official version of the collection. It is not a mistake. I ask other people to refrain from renumbeing the stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B118:EA6E:8072:AFFB:F246:BF61 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Later editions and newly-ascribed 'finds'[edit]

There were some comments earlier regarding the prospect of discussing how the work of the Grimms has been addressed in later editions, particularly English-language ones. Along those same lines, there have been instances in the last 30 odd years of additional tales being found, which scholars ascribed to the brothers, generally resulting in publication of new 'Complete' editions, each incorporating the most recemt 'find'. It seems as though reference to these new-found tales and, perhaps, the first printed edition to include each would be a worthwhile undertaking. Irish Melkite (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking most particularly of St Joseph in the Forest, not remembering other specifically - and I may be off in thinking that there were. I do note, something I had not before, that the St Joseph tale was included in the Children's Legends volume, so its 'discovery' may be more that it wasn't ever included in the Complete Fairy Tales, rather than that it was entirely 'new'. Irish Melkite (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually all german[edit]

A large chunk of the fairy tales are not german so can that be removed from the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "Grimm's Fairy Tales"[edit]

I see the move discussion. My copy says "The Complete Grimm's Fairy Tales". My rationale is that "Grimm" refers to the family of two brothers... so... "Grimm's" would refer to the tales by the Grimm family, or the "Grimms". I can see it being "Grimms'" but the apostrophe is awkward in that case and not found on Google ngarms: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=grimm%27s%2Cgrimms%27%2Cgrimms%2Cbrothers+grimm%2C+grimm&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgrimm%20%27s%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbrothers%20grimm%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cgrimm%3B%2Cc0. Bod (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unsourced informations found[edit]

Regarding to the illustration of all editions, with this addition were was material shared, that I can't verify. I only found two websites and they did not really have good informations about the statement. I suggest two options, either it should be rewritten or it should be removed, because otherwise it would be questioned again like this edit shows us the standard example, if the article received a review.

Here are the both mentioned links found on a german website literaturkritik.de and on gadgets 360. In my opinion, the second news reads obvious and can be seen as questionable, because the news stating no author. I hope someone finds time to read this and can decide what we should do. Abani79 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Loo[edit]

The Oliver Loo (2014) translation is probably self-pub, so I tagged it.

I removed the old URL (which was merely a dead link to a notice announcing this book soon to be published, or just published or whatever), and replaced it with a books.google URL. Google tells me it is self-pub (l u l u . c o m published), but if I mention this I then get barred from saving the entire edit, even if it is commented out. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hunt title[edit]

Margaret Hunt title (1884) probably shouldn't be automatically be used as the default title to create articles.

KHM 182 rather than "The Little Folks' Presents" as according to Hunt, needs to be "The Gifts of the Little People", because the plurality of modern folklorists refer to it by that English title. The reason is that this Grimm tale is the representative tale for Aarne-Thompson-Uther 503, and Uther (2004) decided to title it "The Gifts of the Little People" in English, so that has become the 'standard', if you will. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grimms%27_Fairy_Tales&oldid=1194924847"