Morphology of the Folktale

by Vladimir Propp, Laurence Scott (Translator), Louis A. Wagner (Editor)

Morphology will in all probability be regarded by future generations as one of the major theoretical breakthroughs in the field of folklore in the twentieth century. -- Alan Dundes. Propp's work is seminal...[and], now that it is available in a new edition, should be even more valuable to folklorists who are directing their attention to the form of the folktale, especially to those structural characteristics which are common to many entries coming from even different cultures. -- Choice

Genres: Nonfiction, Folklore, Writing, Mythology, Fairy Tales, Literary Criticism, Anthropology

158 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1928

About the author

Vladimir Yakovlevich Propp (Russian: Владимир Яковлевич Пропп; 29 April 1895 – 22 August 1970) was a Soviet formalist scholar who analyzed the basic plot components of Russian folk tales to identify their simplest irreducible narrative elements.

Reviews

[s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all] · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dangerous quests, brave heroes and heroines, violent villains, mystical helpers, talking animals and more all populate the worlds of folktales. Finding the academic literature on the subject to be wanting, Vladimir Propp’s groundbreaking 1928 work, Morphology of the Folktale, sets out to identify universal components of narrative functions in Russian folktales in order to better understand their purpose and open doors for deeper structural analysis of the tales. With aims to ‘present an investigation not only of the morphological, but also of the logical structure peculiar to the tale.' For the sake of sanity for this rather academic yet still mostly accessible book, I wrote two versions of the review: the short and the long (plus Star Wars)

The Short Version (you are welcome)
Propp looks at all the prior attempts to categorize folklore and is like “Can you believe this shit? This is ‘chaos’ and some dudes go around acting like a theme isn’t just a collection of motifs. It’s fuckin amateur hour up in here.” And then he creates 31 stages to show how a narrative arc can predictably play out based on the actions of 7 main character types. But then Levi-Strauss said “no way, sir, respectfully you must have a ‘paradaigmatic’ approach looking at the relationships between motifs and cultural implications” and Propp fired back “girl, are you even interested in empirical thought or nah?!”
The End

The Long Version
Propp begins with a look at the history of classification, which is generally structured around a ‘division into tales with fantastic content, tales of everyday life, and animal tales.’ He looks at methodologies such as Wilhelm Wundt’s “folk psychology” with its seven divisions of categories or Alexander Volkov’s 10 divisions of themes to find that they are ‘actually chaos’ with contradictory or unclear divisions and that ‘the division of fairy tales according to themes is, in general, impossible.’ Which is an issue, he asserts, because ‘as long as no correct morphological study exists, there can be no correct historical study.’ He compares it to language and how we must understand parts of speech in order to understand how grouping words changes sentences (‘A living language is a concrete fact—grammar is its abstract substratum’) and ‘not a single concrete fact can be explained without the study of these abstract bases.’ So what is one to do?

While not entirely onboard with the whole thing, Propp does find some hope in the Aarne-Thomspon Index as a ‘practical reference’ but warns that it is also ‘dangerous’ as it ‘suggests notions that are essentially incorrect.’ And while theme might be to broad and difficult for categorization, he finds inspiration in Alexander Veselovky’s study on theme as ‘a series of motifs,’ and that ‘a motif develops into a theme.’ It is here that he recognizes that his study ‘must be concerned not so much with themes as with motifs.’ But I’m getting away from the ideas of Propp here so lets talk about his system now.

‘Fairy tales begin with conflict because we all begin our lives with conflict.’
—Jack Zipes

Propp developed 31 stages of narratemes, or narrative elements/units, that are defined by the actions of their characters as to how they shape the plot. These functions create a predictable pattern as to the narrative arc. It is a rather structuralist approach, one akin to Aristotle’s writings on narrative:

‘A beginning is that which is not itself necessarily after anything else, and which has naturally something else after it. An end is that which is naturally after something itself, either as its necessary or usual consequent, and with nothing else after it. And a middle, that which is by nature after one thing and has also another after it.’

Propp separates the 31 stages into 4 “spheres” that more of less constitute 4 acts of the story (in modern Western culture we usually think of it as 3 acts and the 4th sphere might give someone the idea of a movie that just will not wrap up cough cough Return of the King). So without further ado, here they are:

1st Sphere: Introduction
Steps 1 to 7 introduces the problem and most of the major characters, scene and set things into motion
1. Absentation: Someone goes missing
2. Interdiction: Hero is warned
3. Violation of interdiction
4. Reconnaissance: Villain seeks something
5. Delivery: The villain gains information
6. Trickery: Villain attempts to deceive victim
7. Complicity: Unwitting helping of the enemy

2nd Sphere: Body of the story
The hero decides what is needed and takes off on a quest
8. Villainy and lack: The need is identified
9. Mediation: Hero discovers the lack
10. Counteraction: Hero chooses positive action
11. Departure: Hero leave on mission

3rd Sphere: The Donor Sequence
The hero searches for a solution and usually is aided by a ‘Donor’ character, often magical. Propp notes the story may complete at the end of the third sphere but not always.
12. Testing: Hero is challenged to prove heroic qualities
13. Reaction: Hero responds to test
14. Acquisition: Hero gains magical item
15. Guidance: Hero reaches destination
16. Struggle: Hero and villain do battle
17. Branding: Hero is branded
18. Victory: Villain is defeated
19. Resolution: Initial misfortune or lack is resolved

4th Sphere: The Hero’s return
The optional last part of a story, the hero goes home and is welcomed/rewarded/married/etc. Roll credits
20. Return: Hero sets out for home
21. Pursuit: Hero is chased
22. Rescue: pursuit ends
23. Arrival: Hero arrives unrecognized
24. Claim: False hero makes unfounded claims
25. Task: Difficult task proposed to the hero
26. Solution: Task is resolved
27. Recognition: Hero is recognised
28. Exposure: False hero is exposed
29. Transfiguration: Hero is given a new appearance
30. Punishment: Villain is punished
31. Wedding: Hero marries and ascends the throne

These 31 stages really shaped the idea of narrative structure. They have been altered and many others have attempted similar stages, such as Joseph Campbell. You have likely heard of his idea of the monomyth, the Hero’s Journey or his 17 stages of the arc.

Propp did receive criticism for his work, such as from Claude Lévi-Strauss, though the two had very similar aims in their work. For instance, Lévi-Strauss came up with the concept of the “mytheme”—essentially units of narrative features to compare myths from around the world and cross-culturally—which has a similarity with Propp and he figured a primeval myth not unlike Propp’s assumption of a primeval fairytale. Propp’s look at surface structure of motifs, an approach considered ‘syntagmatic’, is in opposition to Lévi-Strauss’s ‘paradaigmatic’ approach with more of a look at the relationships between motifs and how the paradigms embedded in the text function. Propp has been criticized for a rigid structure that can overlook the variability of individual tales in their cultural context (though he does use this criticism in his introduction of other categorization attempts) and that his focus on written texts ignores the oral tradition. In response, Propp wrote that Lévi-Strauss had ‘no interest in empirical investigation.’

Propp also gave us a character analysis theory that classifies characters into 7 “types.” ‘Functions of character serve as stable, constant elements in a tale, independent of how and by whom they are fulfilled,’ he wrote and classifies them as such:

Character Theory
1. the villain
2. the donor (provider)
3. the helper
4. the princess (or sought-for person) and her father
5. the dispatcher
6. the hero or victim
7. the false hero.

We can look at it this way through the lens of Star Wars because I love me some Star Wars:
The villain in A New Hope is obviously Darth Vader (bonus points if you shouted Grand Moff Tarkin though). The Donor, who is often magical, would be that crazy old wizard, Ben “Obi-Wan” Kenobi. The helper? You guessed it: Han Solo and Chewbacca. The Princess is easy: Princess Leia. The Dispatcher would be the person bringing information that usually starts the quest and we have R2-D2 bringing the Leia recording (but we can toss C-3P0 in there too so he’s not left out). The Hero? Luke Skywalker of course. The False Hero is a little tricky. They are someone who tries to take credit for the hero’s task, or marry the Princess anyways or seems like a hero at first but is not. Think Hans from Disney’s Frozen. Or think Lando Calrissian in The Empire Strikes Back. Sorry, Lando, you were one of my favorite action figures and I friggen love you in Return of the Jedi but you did drop Han into some carbonite and tried to seduce Leia. We get it, we all had a crush on Leia when we first saw that movie. But not cool, buddy, not cool.

So I’m tired of writing now but I think you get the idea. Morphology of the Folktale is an older text with some issues, but it holds up and makes for some good base learning. Now go analyze some plots, I’m going to take a nap.

[Petre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Morphology of the Folktale is one of the major Formalist work that influenced the later Structuralist movement and modern Narratology.

Great work!

[Nataliya Yaneva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Когато бях малка (на разум все още не съм особено голяма), имаше един период, в който с майка ми четяхме приказките от „Хиляда и една нощ“ преди сън. Вече четените маркирахме, като в ъгъла на страницата рисувахме няколко концентрични цветни кръга. Все още непрочетените отбелязвахме с по-малко концентрични кръгове. Дори тогава детският ми мозък си задаваше въпроса за кой дявол е нужно на непрочетените изобщо да им рисуваме нещо. Години по-късно разглеждам този акт като кощунство спрямо книгите, но предполагам майка ми е смятала, че така ми е по-интересно. Родителска педагогика, какво да правиш. Аз често я питах докога ще ги четем тези любовни истории. Явно обаче все пак са ме впечатлили дълбоко, защото по-късно през училищните лета четях не само задължителната литература, а баща ми взимаше от библиотеката африкански, уралски, руски народни, приказки на Пушкин, приказки на прибалтийските народи, приказки от Австралия и Океания… Като цяло съм пораснала с възгледа на Айнщайн: „Ако искате децата ви да бъдат интелигентни, четете им приказки. Ако искате да бъдат по-интелигентни, четете им повече приказки.“

Владимир Проп е направил доста стегнат разбор на елементите на вълшебните приказки, който обаче има по-скоро характера на лаконична класификация. Още в увода е посочено, че трудът е бил доста по-голям, но така е щял да отблъсне неспециалистите, поради което е съкратен. На доста места така и звучи – като нещо съкратено, но не особено добре. Като цяло ме подразни фактът, че цялото изследване е основано на стотина приказки, взети от конкретен сборник, като из текста непрекъснато се споменават примери с посочване на съответния номер на приказката. Очевидно се очаква да разполагаме с въпросния сборник и да сме седнали с него подръка, докато четем за морфологията на приказките. Предполагам това е относително простимо, тъй като книгата е писана през 1928 г. и вероятно не е претендирала за сполетялата я впоследствие международна известност, та затова се опира на популярен за времето си руски сборник. Последното ми негодувание се корени в изключително архаичния и на места почти нелеп превод – годината на българското издание е 2001 г. и малко по-четивен и преработен превод не би навредил никому, бих казала напротив.

Положителните качества на изследването на Проп са по-скоро в практическа, отколкото в чисто любителска насока. Класификацията на елементите на сюжетостроенето, персонажите и техните действия има очевидни приложения в литературата, театъра и киното. „Морфология на приказката“ може да бъде доста услужлив наръчник за всеки, който има нужда от полъх на вдъхновение как ставаше тая работа с развитието на сюжета. Доколкото ми е известно, в часовете по драматургия се изучава задължително. Недоумявах обаче защо имаше някои части, които бяха някакъв вид мета-анализ – анализ на анализ, който всъщност не е поместен. Така например накрая се достига до извода, че приказките поради своята идентичност на формата имат общ източник. Споменава се и непознатата за мен хипотеза, че приказките са се зародили в Индия и след това са се разселили по света. Можело обаче и този единствен източник да е психологически, исторически или религиозен. В крайна сметка Проп не прави допълнителни тълкувания, а оставя дилетанта сам да се бори с този многоглав змей на съмнението.

Изследването на Проп наистина е интересно за любителите, както е споменато някъде из текста, чете се особено бързо, понамества разни хаотични познания или заключения за характера на приказките из главата ви, а и споменатите елементи на различни приказки ще ви накарат да си припомните жаждата да позачетете образци от тази най-ранна литературна форма, с която сте имали сблъсък. Накрая са включени и няколко приказки, за да ви изострят допълнително апетита, а какво по-добро от това?

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Propp's foundational work on the structure of fairy tales is impressive, and it's a wonder that his work didn't find its way into English literary circles sooner than it did (it didn't show up for several decades). Rather than attempting to categorize fairy tales according to their characters or themes ("theme" being a term which he avoids because of the subjective nature of identifying a theme and the differing definitions attached to it), he identifies tales according to the dramatic functions of the characters and actions involved. Slipping below the surface words in this manner, he discovered a remarkable consistency between Russian fairy tales and the underlying structures organizing the narratives. His work is valuable because it triggered a new understanding and method of categorization that allowed for a more "scientific" and systematic approach to studying fairy tale narratives than earlier studies had accomplished. The influence of the work is still felt today.

That's the bright side. Now the other half:

As much as I enjoyed Propp's perceptiveness and ability to dig below the surface words to identify the relationships between the core structural elements of fairy tales, I was a bit disappointed in his apparatus for demonstrating these structures. Using his categories (letters and symbols) to identify specific events in sequences, I attempted to follow -- step by step -- the structures of his examples by referencing his explications of each element. And more often than not, some symbols would appear in the narrative sequences without explanation, and others would disappear without explanation. Creating visual aids is always difficult, and I think he was on the right track, but Propp could have been much more careful in setting up and explaining his system of nomenclature. Because of that, and as much as his work is valued, I think a more careful and clearer explanation would have helped his cause.

[Cynda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Once and maybe still people told each other lives lesson stories often called folktales or fairytales. In the 1920s the Old Ways of storytelling were fading. Vladimir Prop sought to describe the construction of fairytales (translation issue), describing characters and actions that propelled the story. This is seminal work, not a complete explanation. Later Claude Lévi-Strauss would further the work started by Prop. And others would continue the dialogue and the work.

Various collections of cultural groups are edited and published Pantheon Books: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/se...

Various collections for particular audiences are edited and published:

Here is a list of stories collected and edited for children:
* The Ox of the Wonderful Horns and Other African Folktales illustrated by Ashley Bryan
* Dance, Nana, Dance / Baila, Nana, Baila: Cuban Folktales in English and Spanish by Joe Hayes


Here is a list of books collected and edited for women seeking wisdom through through traditional stories:
* Women Who Run With the Wolves by Women Who Run With the Wolves Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype by Clarissa Pinkola Estés
* The Women We Become: Myths, Folktales, and Stories About Growing Older by Ann Thomas

The conversation continues. The next time I do a Shakespeare study, I will read Shakespeare and the Folktale: An Anthology of Stories by Charlotte Artese

How these characters that Prop describes move the plot:
https://youtu.be/Q3spdyqxvnU

Read as buddy read at GR Nonfiction Book Club. My reading friend wanted to reread this book from her university days. We also read classics together.

[Mary Catelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly academic analysis of fairy tales. If you're not merely interested in fairy tales but also variants and things like that, you are very likely to like it.

Note that familiarity with tales, especially Russian ones, helps a lot to recognize what he's talking about. (All the Russian tales are identified by number. I wouldn't mind that so much -- all of Brother Grimms' do, too, though you may need the right edition -- and of course he uses Alexander Afanasyev's -- if I could find a translation that bothered to give me the numbers.)

But the break down into the abstract functions and characters and other elements is fascinating, with some colorful details about the possibilities.

[La Lettrice Solitaria · Rating 4 out of 5]

C'è qualcosa di strabiliante in questo testo. Lo scopo dei formalisti era quello di analizzare la letteratura da un punto di vista logico, razionale. Una analisi che riuscisse a determinare una classificazione prevedibile e sempre funzionante di ciò che si legge. Al di là di queste premesse, che poi furono in qualche modo sopraffatte da altro genere di studi successivi, la Morfologia della Fiaba mi appare come un tentativo riuscitissimo di identificare le funzioni e l'andamento di una storia! Mentre lo leggo, penso a libri famosi, libri che conosco, penso alla storia e trovo che le funzioni aiutino a prevederne chiaramente l'andamento. Questo lavoro è vivamente consigliato a chi scrive, proprio per questo motivo: è affascinante pensare che, in fondo alle nostre menti, sussistano degli archetipi tali che, pur senza la volontà di seguire un determinato schema di andamento di una storia, essa si crei da sé, superando differenze culturali, geografiche, di epoche! Ciò che attrae le nostre menti di lettori segue sempre il medesimo filone, le medesime azioni dei personaggi. I personaggi cambiano nel tempo. Ieri animali, oggi umani, domani robot. Ma ciò che essi compiono segue sempre una linea determinabile. Che si rinnova di volta in volta grazie alla fantasia e all'esperienza dell'artista che torna a rimanipolare quella stessa materia in modi assolutamente diversi.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely 'important,' brilliant, dry as dust structuralism. It pleasingly falls into place in the history of literary theory (structuralism as a better way of understanding literary form than pure historical reconstructions), and is as detailed as you'd expect. It should also be helpful for those who read or write fairy tales, which, for the uninitiated, is a very hip thing to do at the moment. For those who don't want to do history of theory, or fairy tales, this book will be fairly unhelpful. It might even be painful. It should probably be avoided.

That said, the cover is astonishingly well designed. Well done to whoever did that.

[l · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't read much of this kind of thing so maybe I'm overly impressed but I think it's brilliant. It's also incredibly readable. I've had to read some lit-crit let's-decision-narrative-structure-historicism-blah-blah essays that were pointless and convoluted and seemed designed to put everyone off litcrit entirely so Propp's readability gets major points from me.

[BookitoCat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Πολύ καλό.

[Stela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parue en 1927, mais devenue célèbre seulement environ trente ans plus tard, la Morphologie du conte de Vladimir Propp a été pendant longtemps, et continue de l’être malgré certaines contestations et modifications, une vraie Bible du folkloriste. Je me rappelle même aujourd’hui les fréquentes références que notre professeur de folklore faisait, en 1985, à cet ouvrage, aussi qu’il était une lecture absolument obligatoire pour tous les étudiants de la faculté de philologie.

Je l’ai relu avec un grand plaisir, surtout parce que sa rigueur convient à ma pensée, et aussi parce que, bien que je ne sois jamais devenue spécialiste en folklore (loin de ça), je continue à être fascinée par les contes merveilleux dans lesquels je cherche, moi aussi, les traces des mythes.

Le livre réunit en effet trois études : deux par Vladimir Propp et un par E. Mélétinski.

Le premier essai, Morphologie du conte, commence, comme toute étude scientifique, par démontrer qu’il veut remplir un manque dans le domaine : la classification des contes jusqu’à maintenant était imprécise et confuse, parce qu’elle se faisait soit par catégorie (comme celle de W. Wundt qui distinguait entre contes-fables mythologiques, contes merveilleux pures, contes et fables biologiques, fables purs sur les animaux, contes « sur l’origine », contes et fables humoristiques et fables morales, sans préciser ce qu’il entend par la catégorie de fable et employant le terme « humoristique » sans tenir compte du fait qu’un texte peut être traité à la fois d’humoristique et d’héroïque), soit par sujet (comme la liste d’ailleurs très utile faite par le représentant de l’école finnoise Antti Aarne, qui trouvait trois catégories de contes : sur les animaux, proprement-dites, anecdotes, en subdivisant les contes merveilleux en l’ennemi magique, l’époux magique, la tâche magique, l’auxiliaire magique, la force/ connaissance magique, autre éléments magiques, sans réaliser que la proximité des sujets rend parfois impossible la référence d’un texte à tel ou tel type).

En rêvant d’une classification aussi rigoureuse que Linné a fait dans la botanique, l’auteur considère que l’apparente contradiction entre la diversité, le pittoresque du conte et son uniformité s’explique par le fait qu’il a des personnages très nombreuses dont les fonctions, très peu nombreuses, passent de l’un à l’autre (pour Propp le mot « fonction » couvre l’action d’un personnage et son importance dans l’intrigue). Il en résulte quatre thèses fondamentales :

1. « Les fonctions sont les parties constitutives fondamentales du conte.
2. Le nombre des fonctions que comprend le conte merveilleux est limité. »
3. « La succession des fonctions est toujours identique. »
4. « Tous les contes merveilleux appartiennent au même type en ce qui concerne leur structure. »

En se basant sur un recueil de contes russes (fait qui lui sera reproché par la suite comme une limitation), il formule ses fameuses trente et une fonctions, établies à partir de la situation narrative initiale : l’éloignement, l’interdiction, la transgression, l’interrogation, l’information, la tromperie, la complicité, le méfait, le manque, la médiation (ou le moment de la transition), le départ, la première fonction du donateur, la réaction du héros, la réception de l’objet magique, le déplacement, le combat, la marque, la victoire, la réparation, le retour, la poursuite, le secours, l’arrivée incognito, les prétentions mensongères, la tâche difficile, la tâche accomplie, la reconnaissance, la découverte (du méchant), la transfiguration, la punition et le mariage.

L’auteur est convaincu qu’on ne peut isoler plus de 31 fonctions, qui appartiennent au même axe, c’est-à-dire aucune n’en exclut une autre, et chacune découle de celle qui la précède. On peut remarquer aussi que la plupart des fonctions sont en couple (interdiction – transgression, interrogation – information ; combat – victoire etc.) et qu’il est possible de les rassembler par groupes (par ex. celles qui constituent le nœud de l’intrigue, comme le méfit, le secours, la réparation)

De la même façon qu’on applique un tissu à un mètre pour déterminer sa longueur, on peut appliquer les contes à ce schéma pour les définir.

Souvent, pourtant, des fonctions différentes peuvent être exécutées de la même façon (par exemple, on demande au héros de choisir un cheval ou une fille). C’est un phénomène d’assimilation, et le critère pour les différencier est en trouvant la conséquence : il s’agit d’une mise à l’épreuve si la conséquence est la réception d’un objet magique et d’une tâche difficile si la conséquence est obtenir la fiancée.

Si le nombre de fonctions est réduit à 31, le nombre de personnages entre qui se répartissent ces fonctions est encore moindre : seulement sept, identifiés selon leurs sphères d’action : la sphère d’action de l’agresseur (comprenant le méfait, le combat, la poursuite) ; du donateur (préparation et don de l’objet magique) ; de l’auxiliaire (déplacement dans l’espace, réparation du méfait ou du manque, secours, accomplissement de la tâche, transfiguration) ; de la princesse/ personnage recherché (demande d’accomplir une tâche, marque, découverte du faux héros, reconnaissance, punition, mariage) ; du mandateur (l’envoi du héros) ; du héros (départ, réaction aux exigences du donateur, mariage) ; du faux héros (départ, réaction négative aux exigences du donateur, prétentions mensongères).

Propp peut maintenant donner la définition du conte :

On peut appeler conte merveilleux du point de vue morphologique tout développement partant d’un méfait (A) ou d’un manque (a), et passant par les fonctions intermédiaires pour aboutir au mariage (W) ou à d’autre fonctions utilisées comme dénouement. La fonction terminale peut être la récompense (F), la prise de l’objet des recherches, ou d’une manière générale, la réparation du méfait (K), le secours et le salut pendant la poursuite (Rs), etc. nous appelons ce développement une séquence.

Le point final de l’étude est l’élaboration d’une formule unique, un schéma qui a l’ambition de réunir tous les contes pour démontrer « l’uniformité absolue de la structure des contes merveilleux. »

Le deuxième étude, plus court, a trait aux Transformations des contes merveilleux. Une idée formulée plutôt en passant dans Morphologie du conte, que « le conte merveilleux, dans sa base morphologique, est un mythe », devient la prémisse de cet essai. L’auteur fait la distinction entre les formes fondamentales et celles divisées du conte, en suivant quelques principes généraux : est fondamentale toute forme liée à l’origine du conte et/ ou toute forme conservant un élément religieux archaïque ; si le même élément apparaît dans la religion et la réalité, la forme religieuse est primaire, l’autre secondaire (par exemple Baba Yaga, dans son image de maîtresse des forêts, semble inspirée de Rig Veda).

… d’une façon générale, c’est de la religion au conte que se dessine le mouvement et non pas à l’inverse, et… c’est ici qu’on doit commencer des recherches comparatives précise.

A partir de ces principes, il établit quatre critères pour distinguer les formes fondamentales de celles dérivées :

1. l’interprétation merveilleuse d’une partie du conte est antérieure à celle rationnelle (la situation où Ivan reçoit un don de Baba Yaga est antérieure à celle où il reçoit un don d’une vieille) ;
2. l’interprétation héroïque est antérieure à celle humoristique (la scène où le héros se bat avec le dragon est antérieure au fait de battre le dragon aux cartes) ;
3. la forme appliquée logiquement est antérieure à celle appliquée de façon incohérente ;
4. la forme internationale est antérieure à celle nationale et celle-ci à la forme régionale.

Le conte (merveilleux) vient des anciennes religions, mais la religion contemporaine ne vient pas des contes. Elle ne les crée pas non plus, mais elle modifie leurs éléments. Il y a aussi quelques rares cas d’une véritable dépendance inverse, c’est-à-dire des cas où les éléments de la religion viennent du conte. L’histoire de la sanctification de saint Georges avec le dragon par l’Église occidentale nous en fournit un exemple très intéressant. Ce miracle fut sanctifié bien après que saint Georges fut canonisé et cette sanctification se heurta à une résistance obstinée de la part de l’Église.

Par la suite, Propp essaie de faire un inventaire des modifications d’un élément, prenant comme exemple la chaumière de Baba Yaga, l’image de laquelle peut connaître, entre autres, une réduction (quand on renonce aux détails, ne mentionnant plus que c’est une chaumière sur des pattes de poule dans la forêt), ou au contraire, une amplification, une substitution soit interne (la chaumière devient palais ou montagne près d’une rivière de feu) soit réaliste (elle devient auberge ou maison à deux étages) ou une assimilation soit interne (chaumière sous un toit d’or ou près de la rivière de feu), soit réaliste (chaumière au bout du village ou caverne dans la forêt), etc.

La conclusion est qu’il faut toujours « comparer non pas suivant une ressemblance extérieure, mais suivant des parties constitutives identiques. »

Le troisième essai du livre, L’étude structurale et typologie du conte est écrit non par Propp mais par E. Mélétinski, qui souligne l’importance qu’a eu pour le structuralisme l’étude de l’écrivain russe. Il compare ses idées avec celles de Claude Lévi-Strauss, qui a essayé aussi d’appliquer les principes de la linguistiques structurale au folklore, et a considère le mythe un phénomène de langage.


En conclusion, qu’on admire ou on conteste le modèle proposé par Propp, qu’on essaie de l’améliorer ou de le simplifier, il est sûr qu’il a changé la façon de percevoir le texte narratif, en étant le premier à souligner que le récit est une structure à deux plans : un de surface, l’autre de profondeur. Comme le dit Christian Vandendorpe, dans son étude Apprendre à lire des fables (citation extraite de Wikipedia ):

« Désormais, on ne lira plus les récits de la même façon. Loin de voir dans le conte une distraction tout juste bonne pour des enfants, le lecteur se met maintenant à y chercher des "étages" (Barthes, 1966) susceptibles de faire apercevoir des rapports et des effets de sens nouveaux. »

[Intery · Rating 4 out of 5]

През повечето време си мислех колко ли би се радвал Проп, ако беше доживял създаването на TVTropes. И естествено там има статия за книгата, която е определена като "one of the first critical trope-spottings" <3

[Ева Нешкоска · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who would've thought that college reading would be this interesting...

[Levan Chkonia · Rating 5 out of 5]

დიდებული მოაზროვნე,
დიდებული წიგნი.

[Katherine Sas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-deserved member of the classic canon of fairy and folk tale studies. I love me some charts and diagrams.

[Tatyana Naumova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ненавижу морфологию во всех видах, спасибо)

[H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Một tác phẩm đọc để hiểu lịch sử tư tưởng, tức là đối với hiện nay thì rõ ràng nó đã lỗi thời, và phương pháp không còn phù hợp, tất nhiên vẫn có những điều thú vị.

Một trong những điểm mình không thích nhất của Propp là việc ông hình thức hoá đến mức cực đoan. Phương pháp Propp dùng có vẻ là phương pháp phân tích ngữ đoạn (syntagmatic analysis), ông không đề cập đến thuật ngữ này, nhưng mình thấy giống với phương pháp ngữ đoạn trong ngôn ngữ học của Saussure. Propp sử dụng phân tích ngữ đoạn để rút ra 31 chức năng (function) là những đơn vị tối giản, và là một hằng số của văn bản, và ký hiệu hoá nó bằng các ký tự, thiết lập sơ đồ, và mối tương quan giữa các yếu tố, thuộc tính, và chức năng.

Propp gọi công trình của mình là nghiên cứu Hình thái học (morphology), và trong danh từ này đã khu biệt giữa hình thức bên ngoài với phạm trù trừu tượng bao hàm. Đay cũng là một điểm mình phản đối.

Một văn bản kinh điển của chủ nghĩa hình thức Nga, không còn phù hợp nhưng mọi người nên đọc.

[Andegret · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, I had a delightful evening with this book, thank you.
The book is extremely funny in a very particular way - it talks about simple intuitive things in academic and formal words.
It reminds me of that time I wrote a paper on north korean refugees for a class, and I named it "the issue of dprk's defectors in the context of contemporary international relations". I still find this title hilariously academic. My professor was impressed.
The book does the same - it takes the concept of fairytales and describes it using scientific vocabulary. It's beautiful.

Also, this study was written a century ago, so the writing of it feels archaic in multiple ways. For example, the author uses plural "we" when stating a thougt or expressing an opinion, which is a very soviet way to write a study. And the comparisons with other, unrelated fields of science? "We give names to stars we cannot see, so it would be reasonable to assume that there are some fairytale types we have not yet discovered". "A whale is not a fish, but it looks like one, so there surely are fairytales that can be classified as multiple types at once".
That did make the overall tone even more comedic.
I can't imagine a modern-day study relying on such argumentation😂

I don't like rating scholarly papers or older books, but I just have to give it five stars - for my sheer enjoyment.

[Roman Brasoveanu · Rating 3 out of 5]

A harsh reading might find that this book discovers a “total uniformity in the construction of fairy tales” having defined fairy tales according to a narrow definition that could not but find such a uniformity.

Certainly, the discovery of such a pattern (the 31 functions) is insightful and the analysis here, in method, is enlightening. The problem is that specific findings have limited application beyond a subsection of Russian ‘fairy tales’ - themselves only a subsection of the genre of folktales. Very many tales Afanasiev’s collection, which Propp draws from, do not demonstrate the pattern.

The major theses for those interested are these:
“1. Functions of character serve as stable, constant elements in a tale, independent of how and by whom they are fulfilled. They constitute the fundamental components of a tale

2. The number of functions known to the fairy tale is limited

3. The sequence of functions is always identical

4. All fairy tales are if one type in regard to their structure.” p21-23

[Emma Strawbridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

very well thought out methodology for categorizing folktales and contains scheme that would make for a very interesting stat project. the author continues to make the claim that all folktales across the globe fit into his schema which i totally believe except he only references polish folktales so i’m docking a star because this text would be much stronger with some actual evidence.

[Anastasia · Rating 3 out of 5]

*Read for class.

[Lucas · Rating 2 out of 5]

j’ai rien compris

[erich · Rating 4 out of 5]

ну да да великая гениальная работа и прочее но нет ощущения что пропп ни разу в жизни не улыбался

[Anastasiia Kochubei · Rating 3 out of 5]

Это классика для специалистов, но обывателю это чтение ничего не дает. Впрочем, я получила удовольствие от формулировок.

[Vylivacha · Rating 3 out of 5]

спачатку цікава потым нецікава

[Nessa (Tell the Books im Home) · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Propp's analysis is a landmark in the study of folklore"

And with that, we begin.
It focus mainly on Russian fairy tales (part of the Slavic folktales), which has a structural complexity without equivalent on European fairy tales.
It's interesting to know that the Russian fairy tale was able to evolve without influence from the church itself.

The Aarne-Thompson Index (fairy tales are under numbers 300 to 749) came from the need to use some form of classification for the tales, after a study done by ethnographers.

Propp classifies the tales according to their significance and position on the narrative, however, in The Historical Roots of the Fairy Tale, he abandons this study, and analises the affinity that exists between tale and religion.

According to Propp, laughter in the folktale is ritualistically linked with myth and incantational magic, and I absolutely adore this.

In a study made, the listing consisted of about 1200 titles, (!!) with as many as 531 other tales registered by the Folktale Comission of the Geographic Society.
And there could be more, unpublished.

It goes on, deeply about categories and how should folk/fairy tales be organized, and how some have been done in the past, not so correctly (according to Propp), and he explains this very well.
Howcome this one and not that one, when they share the same elements/themes, must be in different categories ?
Ultimately, Propp also feels the Aarne-Thompson Index is incorrect, because, once again, it is set in clear-cut divisions.

This becomes more interesting the more you read on, as he believes classification of fairy tales is of the utmost significance. (but he always finds a problem with it)

I really liked how he talked about the motifs (character/action/etc) and how it can be replaced (although he also finds fault in this for classification, because how can one know how to separate the elements?), it works great as a formula; just replace any of the subjects from motif A + any subject of theme B, and so forth.

Qualities of the heroes + their number + the deeds of the heroes + objects ...
(done so by Vólkov, and even though Propp doesn't know the reasoning behind how Vólkov did it, he agrees there must be a sequence of events for a fairy tale to "work".)

"If we are incapable of breaking the tale into its components, we will not be able to make a correct comparison."

This is why classification is important.
And if you really wanna geek out, Propp includes the 31 steps of the formula and their classification numbers, some of which include:

🙅‍♀️ Interdictions (the action of prohibiting or forbidding):
"don't pick the apples" (230)
"don't pick the golden feather" (169)
"don't open the chest" (219)

🚶‍♂️Someone is absent:
"parents leave for work" (113)
Sometimes children are the ones leaving:
"they go visiting" (101)
"they go for a walk" (137)

🪄 There is trickery:
"dragon turns into a goat" (162)
"witch pretends to be a sweet old lady (265)

It's an amazing resource for anyone studying fairy tales and I also recommend it to anyone writing fiction, as you can take inspiration from the tales and play with the formula.

xxx

[Sofya Tselishcheva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Перечитывала (и очень подробно), потому что готовила по ней доклад в универе. А доклад напрямую связан с темой моей бакалаврской (буду применять методику Проппа для анализа египетской сказки). Очень рада, что могу работать с русскоязычными источниками, хотя перевод на немецкий тоже есть.
Что могу сказать: Пропп нереально точен в мелочах. Это поражает.
Остальные комплименты ему уже не раз высказала Шульман.
Из минусов: стервец использует для кодировки функций не только знаки и латиницу, но ещё и кириллицу....
Поэтому специально надо залезать в немецкиий перевод, где кодировка адаптирована.
Вот

[صوتٌ أبيض · Rating 4 out of 5]

عندما تكون الأول في طريق ما، كل من يأتي بعدك يكون عالة عليك، مهما جُدد وطوّر في هذا العلم يبقى بروب هو الفارس الأول للمضمار.
عمل عبقري جدًا!

[Weronika Osiak · Rating 5 out of 5]

To zmienia patrzenie na KAŻDĄ książke

[D J Rout · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent resource for story creation. You may object to writing to a particular pattern, but you're probably doing it despite your objections, so why not embrace it and learn how to write storyies with plots and patterns that have survived oral transmisson over thousands of years. That is, they have devloped and rtained strong traits that have helped tthem in the evoluton of narrrative.

Enough of this narratologiical bulltwang. Combining the pattersn outlined in this analysis of folk tales will give you good plots, and then you have to refine those plots by learning from other books, like, now that I think of it, Aspects of the Novel.

One of the limitations of the book is that it concentrates on the folk tales available to V Propp at the time, so it concentrates on European folk tales, and many of these come from proto-Indo-European. But, as Joseph Campbell showed, folk tales have broad similarities across all cultures. (Well, across more than what Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa, for example, examines.)

Anyway, mostly for reference purposes, but still interesting and wonderfully free of political bias.