Talk:Rapunzel

Rapunzel Oder der Zauber der Tränen

I added a reference to a German film adaption of the story. Is there anyone else familiar with it who would like to add anything? It seems to be obscure, though it was apparantly well-recieved critically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.214.70 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Early discussion

I removed "in spite of its barely covert steamy eroticism".

Try as I might, I could not see steamy eroticism having read the 1857 version in German. However the 1812 version does have references to the prince and Rapunzel living in joy and pleasure, an obvious reference to pregnancy and giving birth to twins. If others find that is steamy eroticism, please re-add what I removed.

I removed "steamy". Wetman 19:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The rest of the article contains analyses I'm not sure belong here, but leave for others to cleanup. Some are interesting, but questionable and I could not find nor interpret them from the original German:

• Eating otherworldly food always puts you in the otherworldly power

• The sorceress was not truly wicked, so much as blindly old-fashioned. She believed, as many still do, that the virtues of virginity could be combined with utterly ignorant innocence.

• When Rapunzel came to be twelve, (and so at the moment of her first flows of puberty)

• combing her tresses and singing like a melusine

• the sorceress let him fall into a thorn bush that scratched him blind.

In the original the prince threw himself off the tower in despair.

• she recognized the Prince as a dusty roadworn tramp

In the original he wandered miserably, eating grass and roots, but no mention of dust or wear from the road.

-Wikibob | Talk 17:26, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

In myth and fairy tales, some editorial connections have to be made, to encourage some wider context. Rapunzel's singing in the forest setting and the prince's infatuation need to be referred gently to melusina: I did this deftly and gently without implying anything about Rapunzel herself. POV connections, by contrast, refer the tale to modern culture politics: that's another kettle of fish altogether. Perhaps none of these connections of this highly allusive tale have ever occurred to the kind of User whose first instinct is to suppress them. The botanical correction is excellent! but do I detect a DRB? Wetman 19:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is a DRB? Deutscher Richterbund? My concerns are those analyses above just look out of place, maybe they could be in a modern analysis section? This story had variations both before and after the 1857 edition, for example the Italian tale Petrosinella, so I wonder if it's encyclopedic to add a section on its history? I could translate the German Werkgeschichte section for example.

Meanwhile there are discrepancies in the article compared to the German:

• rapunzel (Valerianella locusta) was flourishing among the wise herb-woman's simples— where flowers have been added in 20th century tellings

German 1857 version has: der voll der schönsten Blumen und Kräuter stand, and the 1812 version as translated by D. L. Ashliman also has flowers. I do not understand simples, and I cannot see herb-woman as a translation.

Are you using an English translation that uses the terms I'm having problems with? For example: "crone", the original German first calls her a fairy (1812) and then a sorceress (Zauberin, could also be called a witch or enchantress). Rapunzel even names her the old Frau Gotel. This translation by Margaret Hunt 1884 is pretty accurate IMHO.

Should this article be about the English retellings, with their inaccuracies, or the original German tale with its variations? I just don't know.

Finally, has anyone seen the 1812 version in German? Guteberg.de only has the 1857, modified, version.

-Wikibob | Talk 12:14, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

I highly agree with the suggestion that the article should present the overt content of Rapunzel first and separate out the "editorial connections" that "have to be made" into a separate section, which presents it as an analysis of the subtext, instead of privileging it as the analysis. A strong case can be made for an erotic subtext to the tale, but that's how we must present it, as a strong case rather than an undisputed case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Must we? But Wikipedia is not a text dump: the original text is available through a link. An abbreviated and perfectly pedestrian retelling of the story of Rapunzel is unnecessary, since there is a Simple English Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to present the "overt content" without "editorial connections," let me suggest they whet their skills with the Book of Daniel entry, before moving on to render the same service to Book of Revelation and Lolita. Remember, we are all somewhat obtuse: we can't adjust everything to our personal level. If anyone has some further perceptions of the subtext, of "meanings" of Rapunzel, of the "moral" of Rapunzel, of other versions of Rapunzel, of mythic themes in Rapunzel-- those are all interesting in what is essentially a report or brief essay, as all Wikipedia entries are. --Wetman 17:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are familiar of course with Wikipedia:No original research? Like it or not, there is a profound difference between "Rapunzel is a fairy tale where a girl is locked up in a high tower, and she lets up various people by giving them her hair to climb" and "Rapunzel is clearly a sexual allegory." One is a statement of fact, one is a statement of interpretation. That is not to say that the interpretation has no place in the article; but it should not be presented as if the sexual subtext is the undisputed factual meaning of the tale. Your argument that Wikipedia shouldn't concentrate on giving the reader the facts, because the facts are available elsewhere, directly contradicts Wikipedia's actual policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please now insert your own elegant but utterly literal Antaeus Feldspar version of the Grimm text, available from the External links section. Points off for infelicities or interpretive language! --11:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that you are not the referee, who decrees when points are doled out or taken off? I cannot guess what makes you so hostile to actually following the aims of Wikipedia; perhaps you thought Wikipedia was the place for you to post your personal essays and original research regarding the interpretation of fairy tales, and when you found out differently, you simply couldn't deal with it.

Whatever the case, however, I do not follow your orders. I do not come when you come or go away when you bid; I do not accept you as the dictator who decrees where the blanks are that the peons fill in. When and if I have time to refactor out your pretentious interpretation of Rapunzel out from the facts regarding Rapunzel, I will do so. But I do not come at your bidding; I do not leave at your bidding, and just because I reject and retract your insincere offer (offer? command) to "insert [the] utterly literal Antaeus Feldspar version of the Grimm text" in the space you so "graciously" "allotted" for it does not mean that the refactoring does not still need doing, or that you can count on it going undone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm now unsure as to which plant the Brother's Grimm meant by Rapunzel, their own dictionary defines it as one of three species:

RAPUNZEL,  f. name von salatpflanzen, namentlich valeriana locusta, campanula
rapunculus und phyteuma spicata; rapontium, rapänzlin, rapänzele, rabinzlen
DIEF. 484b; rapunzel oder rebünzlein. öcon. lex. 1978 (in zwei arten
rüben-rapunzel und feld- oder winter-rapunzel);

ich pflückte mir säuerling hier und rapunzel,
jung und zart in den korb; denn ich sage dir, kaiser und könig
lobt den rapunzelsalat, wenn öl und essig nur gut ist.

VOSS 2, 100.
RAPUNZELSALAT, m. rapunculi. STIELER 1676. VOSS 2, 100, vergl. das vorige.

1. Valerianella locusta is true Feldsalat, with a very low growing rosette of succulent green rounded leaves when young, when they are picked whole, washed of grit and eaten with oil and vinegar. I've eaten this often in Germany and Switzerland where it's called Nusslisalat. When the plant bolts to seed it reveals small flowers as in this drawing.
2. However, Campanula rapunculus is also known as Rapunzel-Glockenblume, or Rampion, and although classified under a different family, Campanulaceae, reportedly has a similar rosette when young, although with pointed leaves. All images I can find show it in its bolted state with different, bell shaped flowers. Etty's seed catalogue has "Noted in 1633. A highly esteemed root for salad. The seed being very minute, should be sown (in the open air) in April or May, on a very fine soil, and not raked in." The same catalogue has Corn Salad (Verte de Cambrai) in use by 1810. Other sources describe the root as edible. [1] has: "CAMPANULA RAPUNCULUS Roots are extremely tasty. First year roots and tender basal leaves are edible. Blue bell-flowers in June or July."
3. Phyteuma spicata · Ährige Teufelskralle, the third species Grimm lists, is also in Campanulaceae but has yet another kind of flower, again I found no images of its young state.

Even after re-reading the original German I cannot 100% decide between Campanula Rapunculus and Valeriana Locusta! Wikibob | Talk 16:22, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

I entered the two variants between 1812 and 1857 versions mentioned here by User:Wikibob, and I made two new subsections for his thoughts here, i.e. "What is "'Rapunzel'"? and "Sources for Grimm's Rapunzel." It would have been officious to rework Wikibob's words, but the discussion should be in the entry. Too good to miss. A better? new translation is mentioned in External links somewhere. I didn't realize "simples" was an arcane word: I certainly though it evoked the mood. Too fancy... Wetman 20:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clean up

I removed the phrase "[A fairytale] that is often told to children, in spite of its barely covert eroticism." this comes with the blatant POV that it is necessarily bad to tell stories containing "covert eroticism" to children.

As it stands now, the article is badly in need of a cleanup, the "plot" and the "interpretations" sections convey mostly the same information with only minor (mostly unnecessary differences. Ignus 02:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course your changes made the unsourced POV that it is an erotic story even worse. I find it odd that even with all the discussion above about unsourced speculation, original research and so forth that several such statements remained in the article. As part of the clean up of the duplicate info and highly speculative conclusions that had no references of any sort, lots of material got taken out during my edits. If the editors who put that information in wants to actually quote sources and say that such and such an author believes such and such, that's fine. DreamGuy 04:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article seems highly confused; I've been going through it and the "Themes" section is not entirely relevant/the stories cited there in comparison aren't mentioned anywhere else. And all of the publication history and cultural comparisons in the Lead seem like they should constitute their own section of the article, rather than being listed at the top and easily skipped over. Much of the language used seems choppy, the sentences are awkward, and while the grammar isn't necessarily *wrong*, it's not always easy to decipher. Even something simple like this (editing the language, adding a new section, cleaning up the Lead and Themes section) would go a long way towards making the article more comprehensive. FeeSand (talk) 23 September 2019

I'm thinking of doing a major clean up of this article by adding a "Development" section that would cover most of the information at the top and a lot of the information included in the "Themes" section that doesn't really convey any themes, as previously noted. I don't think anyone would have an issue with a major clean up, but I wanted to post first in the talk pages in case someone has some concerns. Elgallow (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright allegation

As with other entries in this "free encyclopedia", I find it disconcerting to read a version of a copyrighted work, and to find the work plagiarized and in some cases copied outright onto this site. I think the readers should beware that one reason for the "free" nature of the wikipedia is that anyone can copy and/or say anything on any subject, and that most of this material is probably poorly cited, not consistent with a professional analysis of the original, etc... [unsigned but by anon user User:70.113.115.140]

What copyright? What plagiarism? The story of Rapunzel is in the public domain based upon being too old to be covered by modern copyright laws, so either you are confused or you mean some specific passages that you didn;t bother to mention. Please indicate which sections you believe to be a copyright violation or plagiarism. DreamGuy 20:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the anon meant the What is Rapunzel section I started in Talk and moved to the article? It's more original research than copy, but I did cite two sentences from a seed catalogue. Just in case I've now paraphrased them. I also quoted fragments from another seed catalogue (Etty's), so I paraphrased there too. The rest is my own work (googling and personal experience!) with a contribution from an anon on the name in Austria. And of course the story itself is public domain including the enhlish translation (1884). -Wikibob | Talk 02:28, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

---

In an article where the phrase "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your golden hair" has been deleted as inessential, it really does seem particularly inane to be informed now that "Donna Jo Napoli wrote a young adult novel Zel based around a sixteenth-century Swiss Rapunzel." --Wetman 3 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Well, yes, that would seem to be the effect of stubbornly intertwining actual fact (most versions of the tale include the line "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your golden hair") and pretentious speculation and opinionation ("The sorceress was not truly wicked, so much as blindly old-fashioned. She believed, as many still do, that the virtues of virginity could be combined with utterly ignorant innocence.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 4 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Every educated reader is aware that many folk tales incorporate a repeated line, like "Open, sesame", that encapsulates the main theme. To miss it is to miss the boat. Norms of comprehension at one level appear like pretentious speculation at another: it's not always easy to know just how much to explain explicitly without appearing condescending. --Wetman 4 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Wetman, I have to ask: are you aware that you come off as pretentious and insulting when you start sentences with phrases like "Every educated reader is aware that"? Even people who agree with whatever follows the "that" are likely to feel disgusted at your pompous attempt to dismiss everyone who doesn't agree as 'clearly not an educated reader'. Is that the effect you want to produce; do you really think that you've done a great job when people who read your words wrinkle their noses in disgust and mutter "What a dickweed; someone who actually could put forth a plausible defense of their view would actually do so, rather than just pompously declaring that anyone who doesn't agree isn't an 'educated reader.'"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. I said that norms of comprehension at one level appear like pretentious speculation at another. There just are some things every educated person knows. If I were running for office, I'd not neglect assiduously to cater to ignorance, you may be sure. --Wetman 10:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of Rampion

I wanted to point you all in the direction of Rampion, which has a tradtional use in european herbology to STOP MISCARRIAGE. which is why the fairy gave the husband the herb. but said: if she has a child, I get it. Jordan 5 October 2005

That's a good thought! This is an aspect that should be worked into an edit with a quote from an herbal.

I've just removed a line claiming that cravings in pregnancy are a natural response to lack of vitamins; this is a theory that is largely discredited, such cravings being attributed largely to the customs of the society. At the very least, if it were replaced it would have to be made clear that this isn't a simple fact, but a theory (and references other than a folklore work given). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this claim that this has been discredited? Goldfritha 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that the existing movie, Rapunzel, does not figure in the wikipedia description of Rapunzel. While it is not such a clasic as the book of the Grimm brothers, it is undoubtedly a remarkably good movie and, in my view, should figure in there. (Zamok) Zamok 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which movie? Powers ^T 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien

I have added the bit about Tolkien's The Silmarillion in the the Adaptations section. Being still pretty new to editing here, I'm unsure of how to satisfy the "citation needed" note that someone added. I guess I could just be lazy and leave it for others, but it would be better if I learned how to format the citation properly. I'm looking over the page intended to help with this and I'll give it a try. Patience appreciated. Trying not to waste anyone's time.

To get rid of it, you need to add a reference. There are several references scattered about the article in "ref" tags. In this reference, you must give a source for the suggestion. Goldfritha 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I am the one making the suggestion, based on my reading of The Silmarillion! However, I could provide a citation (page number, publication date, etc.) for that book, if that is what is needed.

I can't help thinking that the obvious doesn't need to be proven.--2001:A61:209F:FA01:BDFC:92DD:C62C:E809 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Into The Woods!

"Rapunzle and the witch are also featured in the award winning play Into the Woods!" This is in a very awkward and inappropriate place, following the synopsis. It is already mentioned in the Adaptations area and does not need to be there. I will delete it. 75.109.148.221 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know I wasn't logged on. That was me. Sailorknightwing (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

Why is the synopsis written in the past tense? Didn't you learn in school that synopses and plot summaries should be written in the tense called the "eternal present"?--71.202.144.50 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Brother's Grimm

What about the film called "Brother's Grimm"? There was a film titled this where 2 brothers pretended 2 being bounty hunters of the supernatural, however all of the supernaturals scaring the towns were actually acts they created themselves. It was a plot to gain money. But one day they're hired for a job against a REAL supernatural haunting that they discover involves a tower in the forest enchanted by a female inside who's body is nearly decayed with extremely long white hair. When looking in the mirror, however, the women appears young and her hair is black and she is seen moving around. Her spirit is the main cause of the whole situation and I assume that this is a very different but definite varient of Rapunzel herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.176.208 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Cultural reference

Hopefully, I formatted the entry right. I even provided a reference. It's a humorous reference, but a real one nonetheless. :)

K8cpa (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture book adaptations

There are children's picture book adaptations. For instance, Rapunzel, retold by Alison Sage, illustrated by Sarah Gibb, (Chicago: Albert Whitman, 2011), OCLC 662405038.

I don't know whether we frequently, occasionally, or never cover such things on main pages. Not routinely, of course, because illustrators aren't as important as Cinema Directors and Screen Actors. --P64 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"The encounters between the prince and the maiden in the tower are described in quite bawdy language."

"The encounters between the prince and the maiden in the tower are described in quite bawdy language."

From versions about 4 years ago, it seems that came from "The Hard Facts of the Grimms' Fairy Tales"... And is supposed to be about Petrosinella... but I haven't seen anything that's particularly bawdy in the translations I've seen, although, they all seem to be the same translation... SomeDude! (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Schulz link

At the moment the name "Friedrich Schulz" at the top links to the wrong person. At the moment it redirects people to Friedrich Schulz, the German Wehrmacht general from World War 2. I'd do it myself but I'm not the best with editing links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant O'Brien (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Simple grammar refinement

I'll replace 'that' with 'who' in "A film adaptation by The Walt Disney Company was released late in 2014 ... to distance herself from the Witch that raised her." Please advise any discomfort. Cheers. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rapunzel

Rapunzel is a young girl that has got long hair 92.21.88.89 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)