A reader asked if I have done or know of a critical analysis of The Rough-Face Girl by Rafe Martin. Illustrated by David Shannon, the book came out in 1992. I have not done a critical analysis and wasn't able to find one to share with the reader. This post, then, is the start of my analysis. Here's the book description:
From Algonquin Indian folklore comes a powerful, haunting rendition of Cinderella.
In a village by the shores of Lake Ontario lived an invisible being. All the young women wanted to marry him because he was rich, powerful, and supposedly very handsome. But to marry the invisible being the women had to prove to his sister that they had seen him. And none had been able to get past the sister's stern, all-knowing gaze.
Then came the Rough-Face girl, scarred from working by the fire. Could she succeed where her beautiful, cruel sisters had failed?
And, here's the author's note:
To see good rewarded and evil punished, or justice, is rare. Stories, however, pass on the realities not of the everyday world but of the human heart. One way in which the universal yearning for justice has been kept alive is by the many tales of Cinderella. Indeed, some 1,500 or so version of the basic Cinderella story-type have been recorded so far. In each, the cruel and thoughtless at last get their just reward, as do those who are kind and good.The Rough-Face Girl, an Algonquin Indian Cinderella is, in its original form, actually part of a longer and more complex traditional story. Brief as it is, however, The Rough-Face Girl remains one of the most magical, mysterious, and beautiful of all Cinderellas. Grown on native soil, its mystery is rooted in our own place. I am happy to pass it on to children and parents today.
In my analyses of books labeled as folktales, myths, or legends, one question I ask is about the source for the story being told. So, what is Rafe Martin's source? His note refers to an "original form" of the story, and it also refers to a "longer and more complex traditional story." He doesn't name his source.
Back in 1993, Betsy Hearne published an article called "Cite the Source" in School Library Journal. It it is her Source Note Countdown, which she created to help people review or analyze a book like Martin's. (Write to me if you want a copy.) It came out a year after his book did, so perhaps it is unfair to apply her countdown to his book. It could apply, however, to subsequent printings of it. On her countdown, we would say his note is #5, "The nonexistent source note." She wrote:
The worst case is easy to describe. The subtitle or jacket copy of a book makes a vague claim to be a "Korean folktale," for instance-which is faithfully picked up and authoritatively echoed in the Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication (CIP) statement, there to remain forever engrained as fact. The source of this tale is Korea. It's a little abstract, isn't it? But, it's the closest we'll ever get to context, thanks to sloppy thinking on the subject of persons who may have exerted the most meticulous effort on text, art, publication, and distribution."
Poking around online, I may have found the source Martin used. "The Invisible One (Micmac)" is in The Algonquin Legends of New England or Myths and Folk Lore of the Micmac, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot Tribes by Charles G. Leland, published in 1884 by Houghton, Mifflin and Company. In the preface, Leland writes that Reverend Silas T. Rand, of Hantsport, Nova Scotia, lent him a "collection of eighty-five Micmac tales". I found a copy of Rand's book, titled Legends of the Micmacs published in 1894 by Longmans, Green, and Co.
I think Rafe Martin primarily used Leland. His version and Leland's end at the same place, but Rand's is much longer. I think Leland chose to ignore the second half of the story Rand gave him because it did not fit with his idea that this is a Cinderella variant. In the Rand version, half the story is similar to the one we see in Rafe Martin's book, but the other half is a different story entirely. It doesn't end with the happily ever after married couple.
What I share in these next sentences is much-condensed. In Rand's version, the married couple have a son. He's a little boy who has a maul (hammer). When left unattended, he smashes a bunch of things, including a moose leg that is in the wigwam. The husband (invisible one) is out hunting, and when his sister (seems like she lives with them and has told the wife they must take care of the moose leg) sees what the little boy has done, the three (Rough Face girl, invisible one's sister, and the son) set off to find the husband. They find him sitting beside a load of moose meat. His leg is broken. He tells the rough face girl to take their child and go live with her father because he can no longer support her. She leaves. He tells his sister to go get an ax and kill him because he will never be the same again. She does. See how different the complete story is? There's more. You can read it yourself if you wish. My point is that the original story -- from Rand -- is much more than what ends up being given to young readers as a Cinderella story. I think it points to the problems in trying to center European stories and bend stories told by people who are not European into ones that look like, in this case, Cinderella stories. And of course, we can ask questions about Rand's source. At the very end of his, he writes that it was "Related by Susan Barss, and written down from her mouth in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in the winter of 1848, and translated from the original, May, 1869, by S. T. Rand. Who was she?!
Below is a table of notes I am working on, doing my best to compare the three versions. The fourth column is for my comments. At some point I will do more with these notes. For now, I share them with anyone interested in Martin's story and I welcome your comments about the notes below or what I've said above. If something doesn't make sense, let me know! And as always, I appreciate your feedback on typos.