https://doi.org/10.33776/linguodidactica.v2.7861
[ 43 ]
ying with these readings is not only simplifying, but also goes against the very essence of the story.
The short story, as Pisanty points out, is a genre that, given its collective authorship and, therefore,
the lack of a recognized author, we all perceive as our own and, therefore, we also feel free and legi-
timate to manipulate it. In this way, the written versions that we find, made with the best of intentions,
probably to improve their quality and enhance their memory (Herrero, 2008, p. 104), cease to be a
reflection of the universal psychic processes of the community to “assuming specific aspects related
to the psychology of the individual creator” (Pisanty, 1995, p. 34). Likewise, when the short story is
assimilated, in the 18th century, by the system of children’s and youth literature (LIJ), the compilers
give priority to the playful and even pedagogical value and modify them so that they respond to the-
se criteria, which that distances them from their community of origin and their tradition and makes
them a reflection of the time and the motivations of their compilers (García and Bravo, 2019, p. 72).
This might not have been problematic, had the compilers’ written versions been understood to be
just another version of the tale, but the text fixes and petrifies the story, so that some later readers
have understood these versions as if they were the only. Thus, what Herrero (2008) calls the literatu-
rization of the story has been produced, where the compiler should be considered an author and in
which what surrounds the story is modified. Thus, as Herrero points out:
The original situation is modified, including the cultural context. And it doesn’t matter if they move
to another sphere, because in this one they will find new cultural references (literary, historical,
artistic), new situational contexts and even new value schemes. For example, “domestication “ will
no longer appear as a female educational line (Herrero, 2018, p.110)
In other words, the cultural markers that the compiler has included become fossilized and, by incor-
porating them into the story, the story loses the flexibility, the ability to adapt and the link it had with
its audience when it moved from one to another orally, to become an author’s literary text, which, as
with all author’s literary texts, it is necessary to contextualize in its time. The difficulty lies, however,
in the fact that, far from claiming the authorship of these compilers or recognizing their responsibi-
lity regarding the new version of the story (Herrero, 2008, p. 106), we make their work invisible and
attribute the story to anachronisms that would not exist if, in accordance with its living nature, the
story continued to adapt to its recipients and its enunciation context to transmit its wise and healing
message to them. Blacksmith points out:
The reception, we have seen, has varied in its context: there is a different communicative context
(and a different function and objectives). In this new product, authorial text, a new implicit reading
is summoned, a “current” child reader, and it is foreseeable that, after this rewriting, recreation,
cultural distance will be generated from which the author, that writer who concretizes hypertex-
tuality, must be conscious, because in a good number of cases the cultural references that it
presupposes are very possible to have become outdated, obsolete. Criticism, as an intelligent
reading, must account for it (Herrero, 2018, p. 113).
However, critics have not always taken this into account and have focused their assessment of the
tale on the changes introduced by the Grimm brothers to please nineteenth-century bourgeois fa-
milies, or by Disney to please American society in the thirties of the century XX, changes that have
fossilized in multiple versions of anonymous authors that proliferate in kiosks and bookstores, full of