B r i d g e s | 1

Richard Bridges

Understanding Fairy Tales

Professor Heiniger

4/12/2014

Should We Fear the ?

“Puss in Boots” is an incredibly intriguing and interesting which has been handed down for generations, revised and re-released time and time again. This has lead to a modern incarnation of the famous re-introduced to the audience through the lens of the films, notably where he is introduced. The question one must ask when confronted with the longstanding feline tale of a hand-me-down is: What exactly drives this

Cat? What message does he communicate to the audience? The answer is simple: profit.

However we see in the Shrek films that this is exactly the opposite. It is true that the precious cunning hand-me-down cat is a stunning example of the capitalism, but this exemplar of capitalism has, like all fairy tale characters, undergone considerable changes over the course of time. Throughout the course of his history however Puss and Boots has been refined into an entity that instead of supporting capitalism depicts it as an unavoidable evil that could be harnessed in order to better society instead of simply making profit.

It might first be necessary to explain what exactly capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic principle, or perhaps it is better described as an occurrence, that has seemingly always existed as long as anyone has ever made profit by investing their resources into the B r i d g e s | 2 production and sale of the product for profit (Fulcher 2004). It can be summarized and seen rather easily in the average American employee’s life. The employer owns the capital, the employer pays the worker for their time in order to utilize that capital, the employer then makes profit and the workers make a living.

This system however can lead to some problems whether perceived or actual. While it is notably free system, at least for the employer, at times workers can find themselves in situations where they must work in substandard conditions or at insufficient levels of pay to eke out a relatively fruitless existence. This can lead to the workers in this system feeling forcibly controlled or at times even abused in some cases by those employers who instead of looking out for the interests of the workers instead concern themselves only with profit margins (Fulcher 2004).

The reaction to such employers is often negative and at present can be reflected in how radical groups or even academics paint an image of capitalism as a system of exploitation

(Fulcher 2004). For example Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto which portrayed the entire capitalist system as one built on exploitation with reckless abandon for the good of the working class or even in some cases the middle class. It could be for this reason that whoever the original story teller was selected a cat as the main perpetrator of capitalism. by nature are a predatory beast renowned for their ability to stalk their prey. A predator by its nature exploits the weakest inhabitants of the food chain for its own survival and this is well reflected in the way that the cat in Perrault’s tale hunts the rabbits, and in Harry Robinson’s tale hunts both B r i d g e s | 3 ducks and rabbits. Those scenes serve as a constant reminder to the predatory nature of the capitalist beast.

In the story of “Puss in Boots” however Perrault’s portrayal of the system is not necessarily pro-capitalism nor is it necessarily anti-capitalist. However the story has two distinctly capitalist figures, there is the miller’s son who has clearly made an investment in the cat, and then there is a cat, who has much like the son, made an investment in the son’s own general lack of ability. This shows that there are investments made on both sides of the relationship that both parties are participating in this system in some way shape or form.

This story does however clearly demonstrate the usage of a lower class to achieve success. Any analytic approach to the story cannot ignore the cat’s sub-human and subsequently subservient behavior; which implicates a natural division of the classes. In the grand tradition of capitalism the master is made exceedingly rich and elevated to the status of nobility by his subordinate’s efforts with relatively little investment of his own. This decision in story telling was meant as an encouragement to new adherents to capitalist beliefs saying that despite one’s circumstances if one acquires the correct tools and invest those tools wisely, perhaps even entrusting them to people who might be better equipped with to use them, it is distinctly possible to scale the social later and power structure and find a perch.

It cannot be understated however that is only through the cat’s cunning and work that the man becomes a noble and eventual king. At no point does the master actually control the capital or even interact with it after that initial investment of the boots and trust in his subordinate. The first action of the cat is to acquire a rabbit and to give it as a gift to the king of B r i d g e s | 4 the area on behalf of the “Marquis de Carabara” he does this a number of times, earning the trust of the king through the exploitation of the small relatively helpless rabbits.

The profit the cat earns however is not in terms money, but instead in terms of favor.

Earning the kings trust until he finds it certain enough that he could lie his master into noble clothes and in a way that would fool even those who were undoubtedly the most noble in the land. He does so by having his master feign distress. This trick not only gives him the guise of a noble whilst, his cat is handling affairs further along the road, but also gets him into the kings carriage perhaps implying that one could with capitalism buy their way to exclusive meetings with higher nobility or at least into that circle of higher nobility even if it was only a guise.

Upon accomplishing this goal of his he expertly forces groups of farmers to feign at the very least loyalty to this imagined “Marquis de Carabas”, and they do so. This sets up an interesting pattern of exploitation. We have the master exploiting the cat, who then exploits those who are to be considered lesser than the master or the cat, or at least don’t seem to have a predatory cunning about them in the same way the cat does, and the cat who could be seen as exploiting the relationship between his master for his own gain.

The cat’s predatory cunning culminates with the death of the ogre who was at that time the ruling lord of the land until he was tricked into changing into a mouse and of course as the natural prey of the cat was devoured. After this final trick the cat’s master makes his profit he becomes a wealthy lord married to a princess, and the cat in turn is paid with his own lordship.

This act perhaps suggests while the workers make substantial profit for their masters, it is still possible for the workers to become their own masters inside the same system. It is that icing on B r i d g e s | 5 the cake that was intended to incentivize the people to work for a wage under someone else with the vague promise of ultimate success.

Perrault’s story certainly communicates the core ideas of capitalism quite well. Through investing his resources wisely and allowing his skilled underlings to toil for him the miller’s son is made quite wealthy, more so than his brothers who he previously envied for their inheritance, and his loyal servant is given a suitable place to reside and rule over his own domain as a result. This is a stark contrast from Harry Robinson’s version of “Puss in Boots” which has a great many substantial and meaningful differences from the original puss in boots.

Harry Robinson was a Native American story teller who was essentially interviewed and recorded by Wendy Wickwire. The tale as a result is a different experience entirely from

Perrault’s tale which is set in a typical European setting. Often times while Mr. Robinson was clear to explain the tale was happening in Europe the story telling had a more rugged cow boyish feel to it that put a uniquely North American spin on the tale. That being said what is remarkable about this tale is that among the many changes that were made to it one incredibly important and perhaps enlightening difference is that the tale is no longer rise to riches. It is instead a reclamation of riches that had once been lost. This is in stark contrast to Perrault’s tale which was undoubtedly a rise to riches tale with the miller’s son never possessing any real wealth before acquiring the cat that we were made aware of.

In Robinson’s version a rancher, who only owns a horse and a cat, is forcibly removed from his home by a man with substantially more power than him. The rancher fled under threat of death with his two sons to a different place entirely and inadvertently settled down on B r i d g e s | 6 another person’s land. While there he received aid in building a new home for him and his two sons from the owner of the new land. Upon his death the owner of the new land comes out to record and carry out the rancher’s last will and testament. His eldest son is given the horse with a saddle other things that Robinson did not describe while the younger son is given the new house and the cat.

The cat in this story does not start out as specially gifted or intelligent but slowly comes to understand the world in a human way at which point he does not heel to the will of his master in the slightest. Instead he first employs his master to find boots and materials that he would need in order to set his plan to reclaim the lost ranch of his now dead father. This is no small task since the boy is too young and uneducated to work unfortunately, however the boy sets off on a small adventure asking people for their boots until he is given pair by the good will of their former owner. Upon returning home he gives the cat the boots, which he approves of and then sets out to get a lay of the land.

The cat then discovers he will need a few bags or some variety of containers, this was not entirely clear from the story exactly what it was the cat decided he would need; the boy discovers it will only cost fifty cents or so. The boy makes his small investment and the cat is out to hunt. He first uses wheat to lure in some ducks catching, when he returns home his master, who he refers to as king, wants to immediately eat the ducks since they are very poor. The cat refuses however, stating that the ducks were to be given the person who had previously helped the rancher rebuild. The next day he takes them to the fellow who assisted them, who himself was another rancher, and is thanked for bringing them along. His next catch would be rabbits as B r i d g e s | 7 in Perrault’s, and just as in Perrault’s the other rancher slowly gives way and eventually invites the cat’s master to come on a ride with him across the country side.

The cat delivers the message to his master, who he then tricks into taking a bath down at the creek near the road. As his master is bathing the cat throws his clothes into the water. At this point the stories converge and carry along roughly the same path with minimal changes.

The boy is picked up by the other rancher, who then brings his daughters along after stopping for new clothes at home, and the cat rides ahead forcing all the workers leading up to the father’s old ranch to swear or at least feign loyalty to the boy through threats of ill will. Upon reaching the old ranch the cat dispatches the new ogre, who is actually in this described as a gorilla of a man who can still change shape, by tricking him into a mouse and eating him.

After the boy has reclaimed his wealth and come into the home again the cat lays down some new ground rules. Essentially he says now that since he has taken care of the boy and ensured he is well off, cared for, married, and properly clothed and housed he is to afford the cat all the respect he would the master of the house. He is allowed to go and do whatever he pleases and he should be treated nicely and fairly at all times. Then the story ends with the presumption they live happily ever after.

This is an incredibly stark tale in contrast to the one told by Perrault. Where we see in

Perrault’s a pure and straightforward capitalist system what we see here is not so much the opposite but something much more or much deeper. In a way if we view it through a capitalist lens it carries the lesson that the employers need to care for and protect their workers who are the life blood of their industry since their workers have already fueled the career of the B r i d g e s | 8 employers and carried out their machinations for their profit. The fact that the cat and the master are now living under one roof instead of living in two separate areas would also seem to heavily imply a distinct sharing of the wealth never mind that the cat out rightly outlines what can only be described as a sharing of the wealth.

Such a sharing of wealth in this manner, that every benefit one has is shared among everyone else of the same community, is a distinctly anti-capitalist idea. In fact it’s more in line with socialist or communist philosophy which in essence desires that the wealth of society should be dispersed equally among all the people in that society for the benefit of everyone equally (Marx and Engels 2008). Perhaps this variant of the story signals a shift in thinking in the Americas, either effected by the economic experiences of the speaker—who did indeed live through the depression, with that said also the cold war—or perhaps it was simply the beliefs of

Native American society on the newer European American society surfacing. This could even be a spin that is only indicative of its place of origin, in this case Canada which is substantially more open to socialist like beliefs than the US does.

Whatever the case the fact remains that cultural and popular support for capitalist society does exist here in the United States over the more regulated economies of a socialist system. This could likely be explained by our cold war experience here at home with events such as the Red Scare, things such as McCarthyism and the simple well established fact the Cold

War was more a war over ideologues than anything with the lines drawn between the capitalist

West and the socialist/communist East. There is a sense that capitalism somehow protects the freedoms American’s so value and keeps to some degree a restraint on government B r i d g e s | 9 interference (Clurman 1972; Capitalism Institute) . However there is also cultural disdain, which some might say is growing, for the current capitalist system which manifests in radical websites such as “Socialist Party USA”, which expresses the following views of capitalism:

The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position[…]The inevitable product of [the] system is a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.(Socialist Party of the USA)

These ideas are indeed more liberally expressed in the newer version of “Puss in Boots”.

In fact it could be that the great story tellers at DreamWorks found some form of inspiration in

Mr. Robinson’s version of “Puss in Boots” to create their modern vision of “Puss in Boots” that we see in Shrek 2.

The Cat, who is now referred to as Puss in the story, is approached by the King who himself has little power in an already developed power struggle between the Fairy God

Mother’s Son prince charming and the films hero Shrek. The King intends to hire him to assassinate Shrek. This is perhaps, on the surface, the most basic display of capitalism one could possibly imagine, a laborer—in this case a skilled laborer—is being paid a wage for his services.

Much as in the others this is the Master’s initial investment in his subordinate. However in actuality the laborer himself, in this case the cat, is actually the one demanding the fee. Even more disconcerting is that this cat is not being necessarily plane or obvious about what he is B r i d g e s | 10 doing. Scene wise he is clocked entirely in darkness only his predatory eyes and his elegant boots can be seen and he speaks eloquently and confidently. Meanwhile the King, this is an actual king in this story too, cowers in fear recoiling as the cat discerns whether his coin is good or not. Add to that the already questionable morality of Puss, since he is after all being employed as a contract killer, and he is set up as quite possibly one of the darkest characters in the whole film.

From this scene alone it’s easy to get what the story teller is trying to communicate here. This Capitalist is bad, he’s amassing wealth and power on his behalf so that he can then exploit anyone to achieve his goals, if he can already force those people who are ruling the land what is there really to stop him, especially when he is completely ready and willing to harm anyone in his path? The answer is surprisingly simple Shrek, his target, will put an end to this and tame this wild predatory beast for the benefit of his noble cause.

When next we see our tiny dark and potentially deceptive feline friend he is confronting

Shrek in the middle of a forest. He attempts to be flashy and perhaps gives us a distinctly interesting warning, which could in a way be interpreted two different ways, “Fear me if you

Dare” ? This curious choice of words has become an icon of this generations “Puss in Boots”. I believe it is certainly the case that the story teller here intended the lines quite well to suggest that, at least for the audience, fearing this representation of predatory capitalism is in some way culturally risky for them. The story teller here was clearly saying to be against puss here is in fact counter to what is or should be generally except. After all why fear an adorable little cat dressed up all fancy. B r i d g e s | 11

The story teller goes on to vividly depict exactly why one should fear a cat such as “Puss in Boots”. The cat viciously attacks Shrek crawling all over him as if in a comedy skit.

Interestingly the , an animal that is traditionally a symbol of the democratic party in the united states of America, recognizes the threat posed by the cat instantly while Shrek1, who might be considerable as a representation of the common populace of the country, did not recognize the threat dismissing it as “just a cat”. Suggesting that perhaps outside forces have better identified the threat that capitalists could have against the general populace. This initial attack is used to depict just the sheer ruthlessness that a capitalistic force can attack with it, its pure beastial prowess. What’s more the cat crawls inside of Shrek's clothing and bursts forth from his chest no doubt highlighting or drawing attention to the fact that the threat posed by the cat is not simply an external force that one can guard against but it is a force that has swiftly and cunningly infiltrated the common belief systems of our society and it is a force that must be expelled if the common people are to exist in a free and unfettered state.

Immediately after the small though violent spat Puss is incapacitated by a hairball, to which Donkey aptly says “Oh that’s Nasty” this time Shrek and donkey both recoil at the display. This is a remarkable aspect of the new tale. Here we have outright recognition that

Puss is indeed a nasty, deceptively violent and dangerous creature. This is an approach we don’t see in any of the other tales that have been examined. In the previous tales the cat is herald as practically a savior that in some way elevates or returns the actual subject to a higher status than they currently possessed. Here we have an outright juxtaposition of the cat and the

1 To clarify, Shrek is the Anti-King in this film. He is an uncultured, at times slovenly brute, with little tact no real wealth to be spoken of and is likely uneducated, but he carries himself with dignity and for the most part the same level of honesty any other normal person might. B r i d g e s | 12 donkey, who in fact desires to aid Shrek implicitly and as a result him and Puss are at odds throughout the movie until the end, in addition to the fact that he seems to be juxtaposed with

Shrek.

However through sheer force of will and indomitable fight Shrek subjugates the cat who is all too willing to ally and swear fealty to its new master Shrek. This Perhaps suggests to the audience that they must bring the vicious, dangerous and ruthlessly cunning beast that is capitalism under their control and use it to advance their own goals without allowing it a will of its own. This is exactly what happens; throughout the rest of the film Puss is used by Shrek, the masses, to accomplish his goals and direct his struggle against the current regime, in actuality controlled by the . Arguably however he does trick his way into the group by pretending to be that cute adorable cat he appears to be. By the end of the film however he has become integral and reaccepted. Perhaps suggesting that fighting against the capitalist flow is ultimately pointless and instead we should simply try and direct it for the cause of the greater good, without abolishing it.

Though there is a certain implication that Puss has reclaimed his independence by repaying his life debt to Shrek by defending him from palace guards near the end of the movie he continues to follow Shrek around in the subsequent films, excluding the spin off titled “Puss in Boots2” By The end has achieved no additional status though through his aid to Shrek the day is one and Shrek and the King are accepted as the people they really are. Presuming that we do as Shrek does and prevent the cat that is capitalism from devouring the three blind mice out of

2 This is more of a retelling of “Jack and the Beanstalk” than it is “Puss in Boots” and as such has been excluded since Shrek 2 is the only one of the movies that actually features a retelling and a re-interpretation of the character Puss. Puss in the subsequent films is an iteration of the Puss seen in this film B r i d g e s | 13 its nature then we too can harness its power and use it responsibly by keeping its predatory nature from exploiting and consuming the weakest among our society, that is to say the lowest classes. In this way the modern “Puss in Boots” is not a converted to a champion of socialism nor does he stay completely true to capitalism throughout, but instead is carefully held in check by the will of the people for the benefit of the people.

B r i d g e s | 14

Bibliography

Adamson, Andrew, Conrad Vernon, and Kelly Asbury. Shrek 2. DreamWorks Pictures, 2004. DVD.

Capitalism Institute. “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism Institute. N. p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Clurman, Michael. “A Softhearted Defense of Capitalism.” The American Spectator. Text. N. p., 3 May

2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Fulcher, James. Capitalism : A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, GBR: Oxford University Press, 2004.

ebrary. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Communist Manifesto. London, GBR: Pluto Press, 2008. ebrary.

Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. “Puss in Boots.” Write It on Your Heart The Epic World of an Okanagan Storyteller.

Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver, BC Canada: Talonbooks, 1989. 282–315. Print.

Socialist Party of the USA. “Principles.” Socialist Party USA. N. p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.