The Beauty and the Beast you remember has been edited at least twice before it reached you. The familiar shape, the merchant father, the rose, the enchanted castle, the proposal refused every night, the transformation, comes from Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, who published a short version in 1756. She was a governess writing for girls, and she trimmed and moralised an older, longer, much stranger book. That book is Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve's, from 1740, novella length, and it is not really a children's story. It is closer to a manual. Behind both of them stands an ancestor two thousand years older, Apuleius's tale of Cupid and Psyche, in which a girl is married to a creature she is forbidden to look at, sabotaged by her envious sisters, and made to earn him back through ordeal. The structure was old before France got hold of it.
What the story is about, in its older and franker form, is plain once you stop hearing it as a romance. A man loses his money. He owes a debt he cannot pay. The debt is settled with a daughter, who is sent to live in the house of a being she finds frightening and physically repellent, who asks her every single night to marry him, and whom she is expected, over time, to stop refusing. It was written by women, for women, inside an economy where marriages were arranged and a young woman could in fact be handed to a frightening older stranger to settle her father's position. The animal-groom tale is not a metaphor that modern critics imposed. It is a piece of equipment. Its job was to take a girl's fear and walk it, slowly, toward consent.
Two of the sharpest readers of how desire gets manufactured arrive at this story from opposite directions and end up standing in the same place. They are usually set against each other. Here they shake hands, and what they shake hands on is that the ending is the weakest and least honest part.
Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae (1990) argues that nature is not the gentle mother of Romantic poetry but something chthonic and devouring, and that culture is the screen we build to avoid looking at it. The Apollonian, in her scheme, is the made image, the boundary, the beautiful sculpted surface. Underneath it runs the daemonic, the generative and violent force she thinks sex actually belongs to. Paglia is consistently more interested in the vampire, the femme fatale, the dangerous and the perverse than in the safe and the kind, because she thinks the dangerous figures are telling the truth about eros and the kind ones are telling a comforting story.
Read through Paglia, the Beast is the daemonic male, raw and pre-civilised, sexual energy that has not been dressed up. Beauty is the Apollonian principle, the aestheticising eye that wants to resolve him into something it can look at safely. The whole drama is the contest between those two. And then the story blinks. The Beast becomes a prince, handsome, titled, legible, exactly the thing the social order would have approved of all along. For Paglia this is not a reward. It is a defeat. The vital, frightening, interesting figure has been deleted and replaced with a greeting card. The moment the story calls its happy ending is the moment it loses its nerve and chooses the surface over the force. The Beast was the true thing in the room. The Prince is what fear puts there instead.
Judith Butler's Gender Trouble (1990), and more precisely the work on abjection that follows it, comes from the opposite metaphysics. Where Paglia has a roaring nature underneath everything, Butler has no underneath. Identity and desire are not expressions of an inner essence. They are produced by repeated, stylised acts, and they are produced inside a grid that decides in advance which bodies count as possible objects of love and which are cast out to mark the boundary of the thinkable. The cast-out body is what Butler calls abject. It is not merely disliked. It is the thing whose exclusion lets the category "normal" exist at all.
The Beast is an abject body in exactly this sense. The problem is not that Beauty finds him ugly. The problem is that the social grid has no slot labelled "husband" that his body can occupy. He is unintelligible, and the story knows it, which is why it cannot simply assert that she loves him and be done. It makes her perform the marriage first. He proposes every night. She refuses every night, then refuses less, then accepts. The relationship is rehearsed into being by repetition long before any inner feeling is claimed for it. That is a Butlerian engine running in plain sight. And the transformation, read this way, is not love rewarding virtue. It is the abject body being made legible at last, admitted into the category of the recognisable so that the feeling it has already been performing is allowed to count. What saves the Beast is not being loved. It is being correctly perceived. Butler's discomfort would be aimed straight at the relief the reader feels at the end, because that relief is the sound of a threatened boundary being re-secured. The story briefly let something unintelligible be desired, then hurried to make it ordinary again so no one has to keep sitting with the harder thing. Love is the word the story uses. Recognition is what actually happens.
It is easy to file Paglia and Butler as opponents, the pagan vitalist against the constructionist, and a lot of writing has done exactly that. On this story they converge, and the convergence is the interesting part. Paglia rejects the ending because it kills the daemonic and keeps the decoration. Butler rejects it because it launders a disciplinary act, the readmission of an abject body to the grid, as a love story. One says the truth was in the Beast and got erased. The other says the comfort is the cover for the boundary work. Different machinery, same verdict. The transformation is where the story flinches.
The 1740 version flinches less. Villeneuve's book spends pages on the machinery the children's edition hides: the debt, the bargain, a whole bureaucracy of fairies arranging the match for reasons of lineage and politics, Beauty's own divided feelings treated as a real problem rather than a brief obstacle. It reads less like a romance and more like the minutes of a transaction with a romance laid over the top. Leprince de Beaumont's job, writing for her pupils, was to laminate that over into something a girl could be told at bedtime and not be frightened by. Disney did the same operation again two centuries later. By the time the story reaches most people it has been softened twice, and both softenings were done for the same reason the tale was written in the first place, to make the frightening thing easier to accept.
The reason to go back to the earlier text is that the editing is the message. Each pass made the transaction harder to see and the ending sweeter to swallow, which means the thing worth reading is precisely what was sanded off. You see more of it the slower you read, and you read slowest in a language you are still learning, where you cannot skim a familiar surface because there is no familiar surface, only the sentence in front of you doing its actual work. The fairy tale is one of the few places where reading it as a foreigner is an advantage. The defamiliarisation the critics work hard to produce is just lying there for anyone who has to take the French one clause at a time.
Storica's Beauty and the Beast (A1) is Leprince de Beaumont's text in the original French, adapted for a beginner but with the bargain and the nightly proposal left in, which is where the machine is visible. If Paglia's argument about the daemonic lover who should not be redeemed interests you, the obvious next book is Dracula (A2+), which is the same figure with the transformation refused, the Beast the nineteenth century would not let turn back into a prince. And the ancestor of all of it, the girl married to a creature she may not look at, is in the Cupid and Psyche material in Gods and Mortals (A2+). Read in that order you can watch one structure get told three times across two thousand years, growing more honest the further back you go.
I build Storica, a daily reading club for the language you're learning. We adapt classics, with the frightening parts left in, into short daily readings of about fifteen minutes, from A0 up to B2, in seven languages.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。