Popular readings of “Rumplestiltskin” testify to the barbarism we still live in, as least, they testify to the lack of sophistication among readers. I am sorry, but Rumplestiltskin is not the villain of this story and he likely never entertained the idea of boiling and eating the newborn prince. He is the only one who says anything remote humane: “I value living things more than all the treasures of the world.” Contrast this with to the greedy king and the woman who traded her unborn child for a chance to become queen… Indeed, she valued being the queen more than life itself. If she had valued life, she could have escaped with Rumplestiltskin three times over, as he entered and left the tower at will.
Rumplestiltskin is the only humane being in the story. Three times he saves the ungrateful and foolish woman from her death, and each time did not ask his name or thank him. Ingrate!
Why did Rumplestiltskin ask the woman to pay for his first favor with her necklace if he does not care for all the treasures of the world? If he can make gold quite easily?
Why did Rumplestiltskin ask the woman to pay for his second favor with her ring? Does the ring symbolize a wedding ring, marriage, something which most dwarves would have never have achieved in the Middle Ages when most people travelled little and knew only villagers and farmers?
Rumplestiltskin requested for the firstborn child in return for his third gift because he valued life more than anything, and, as a man unlikely to ever marry, he sought to have a friend or child by some other means. His was a desperate but wholly forgivable request. His love of life is evident as he sings with pleasure about the child he expected to receive.
What horrors did Rumplestiltskin commit to be perceived as the villain? In the end, he committed suicide: he loved life too much to let it be utterly ruined by loneliness.
The greater villains are the father who risked his daughter’s life with his lie; the king, who thrice threatened to kill the woman and married her only for her gold; the woman, who traded her child’s life for her own, who never thanked her savior and who married the man who threatened her life and cared for nothing but his filthy gold.
Let’s be serious about our Obamas and all men and women in positions of power: they are not the stuff of fairytales. They are murderers and devourers of men. Rumplestiltskin did not grab his foot and tear himself in half; this is merely an allusion to the truth that he was captured by the King’s men and torn in half by horses, or by machine, a fate common enough in medieval Europe.
“Rumplestiltskin” is anything but a conventional work of folklore. It is a folk tale that challenges the most popular conventions of late European and Asian folklore. Moreover, as a tale that asks us to consider the social status of the dwarf and of all visible minorities, and ask us to reflect on the consequences of our dreams…
The following interpretations also work in German and/or Dutch, both of which the Grimm brothers were likely familiar:
RUMPLE: a possible variant of wrinkle – as in skin, or Rumple—-skin. A wrinkle is also a fold, or double. Rumplestiltskin tears himself in two, down the middle, along the spine. Stilt: A stick to walk, to make a short person taller – or perhaps a reference to stylus, the medieval writing instrument—though this word-meaning first appeared in 1807, just as the Grimm brothers collected their tales. Skin: Vellum? Parchment? Material used for writing medieval manuscripts. CONCLUSION: “Rumplestiltskin” is not oral literature, or certainly not a fairy tale.
