This is related to the trickster tales that are fairly common in folklore but not as frequent in literary tales - i.e., tales of characters who live by their wits and fool stronger but dumber individuals into serving their own ends.  Perhaps the best known literary model of this would be the Uncle Remus stories of Joel Chandler Harris; we can see elements of the trickster as well in "The Brave Little Tailor" and in "Clever Gretel" from the Grimms' collection.
        The Victorian illustrator George Cruikshank objected to the story's amorality, in particular to the way it rewards the cat's fraud and trickery; however, similar objections could be made to almost any other trickster tales (and other tales that don't involve tricksters, including Perrault's "Hop o' My Thumb" and the English tale "Mollie Whuppie," both of whom trick an ogre into killing his own daughters).  Cruikshank's criticism thus reveals his ignorance of the folk tradition (along with his reformers' lack of a sense of irony).
        What is it that Puss does that is so "bad"?  He convinces the king that his master is rich, enabling the master to win the princess; and he uses deception to destroy an ogre, almost always in folktales a creature of evil.  But the elevation of the poor to wealth is a staple of fairy tales.  Note here that the male hero is genuinely lower in class, unlike in "Cinderella."
 

Return to Fairy Tale Page