Ruth Panttaja Cinderella Critique

Critique

"Cinderella: Not So Morally Superior " Critique

In the article, “Cinderella: Not So Morally Superior,” Elisabeth Panttaja argues that Cinderella was not successful because of her patience or virtues, but because she was wittier and utilized magical powers to overcome those against her. Panttaja presents an alternative idea that many had not concluded. Panttaja’s claim has valid evidence revolving around Cinderella’s magical mother and her use of that power. The lack of logical and legitimate evidence for her analysis of the “love theme” and of the success Cinderella has with the prince weakens her overall article.

Panttaja starts her article with addressing issues rising from Cinderella’s mother. According

With her analysis of the story, she is able to provide validity of the article when describing Cinderella and the objectives her mother has for her, marrying the prince. The first evidence of support for her claim is the direct quote from the Grimms Brothers’ version of Cinderella, “....and I shall look down from heaven and take care of you” (Panttaja 286). The quote implies that Cinderella’s mother would always be with her even if it was not in physical form. Her analysis continues with examples of the mother being present as natural elements. Cinderella’s mother is “figured in the hazel tree and in the birds that live in its branches”; the tree takes care of her just like a mother would (453). Another example Panttaja provided is that Cinderella would find safety “in a dovecote and pear tree” (453). Panttaja interprets the mother being present as pigeons, trees, birds, and a dovecote which help her in different aspects of the story. She explains how this magic and power allows Cinderella to marry the Prince and also get revenge on her

She states that the “love”between the two, Cinderella and the prince, does not exist because it is all work of once again, the magic. The magic enhances Cinderella from “deformed” to being able to surpass the beauty of the stepsisters which was “fair.” Panttaja goes on to say that the prince was place “under a charm” (289). Her assumption was made because of the determination the prince had to find his future bride and his repetition of the statement, “she’s my partner,” both three times. She says this is “further evidence” to say that the prince was under a charm, when in reality the evidence provided does not have a foundation in the Cinderella story. Her argument of this assumption is weak because she fails to provide sufficient evidence in order for it to make sense or to be valid. She does add other examples of a bride/bridegroom being enchanted or somehow disguised which are the Beauty and the Beast and Cupid and Psyche. Her assumption then goes from specific to broader terms since each story has different elements to them. Not only that, but she only briefly makes the point of Beauty and the Beast and Cupid and Psyche which not all readers may be aware of. She fails to really explain these two stories and make the connection of the ““alleged” love theme” to this Cinderella story. In addition, she gives these examples rather than