Why does he need the boots anyway?

Here's a bit of free advice. If you're the country's most powerful and wealthy wizard, and some talking cat comes into your castle and suggests that you couldn't possibly turn yourself into a mouse, don't do it. Okay, yeah, I know Puss is supposed to be a crafty little bugger, but in this new audio/printed book version that my son has been listening to of Puss in Boots, I keep balking at that one. I know, you're probably thinking: what the TALKING CAT doesn't give you pause, but the fact that the cat tricks some fool wizard into turning himself into a mouse, then eats him, that's the part that gets your goat?

Yes.  Actually.  Perhaps it's just me, but somewhere along the way, I figure if you got to be the wealthiest most powerful wizard around your neck of the woods, you would have enough brains not to turn yourself into a mouse in front of a cat.  Particularly a cat that just asked you to do it.  I mean that one should practically go up on the evil overlord list don't you think?

And it's kind of been niggling at me for a while now.  So I went to check out the original.  But of course, my French is terrible, so I'm going to miss out on the subltey there.  But thankfully, we've got Sur la Lune.  So I go to check out the lovely, annotated version of the tale there.  And it's not a wizard.  In the original, it's an ogre.   Interesting.  That means the person who chose to update and produce this version of the tale decided to change that little fact.  Now, reading the original and comparing it to the version we got for my son, I can see a number of differences along the way.  Some are small, like the fact that in my son's version Puss only goes out and captures the partridges as an offering to the King, and doesn't "court" him for his master the way he does in the original.  It's a difference for sure, but more of an abridgement, which when you consider it's aimed at a fairly young market (like my three year old) you can understand.  And in my son's version Puss never hides his master's clothes, they just kind of skip that part, and rescue the miller's son and go get him new clothes.  Changes to be sure, ones that trim back the subtle nature of the story.

But here's the thing: an ogre isn't a wizard.  They aren't perfect replacements one for the other.  Ogres, traditionally, are big brutish, generally portrayed as dumb, creatures.  (And Sur la Lune's annotations on this tale back me up on that.)  They are creatures who simply have supernatural power, so one expects that tricking them should be a possibility. Wizards, on the other hand, generally speaking had to earn their power.  They are, to my knowledge and understanding, portrayed as wize, learned fellows.  I mean, do you think that Merlin would be falling for Puss's "I bet you could turn yourself into a mouse" line?  I think not.

So it makes me wonder.  Why make such a change at all?   About the only guess I can come up with is: do kids even know what an ogre is anymore?   Did they swap out something they figure no one in the US is likely to know enough about, as this kind of monster has mostly faded from the general public's mindset in a way that trolls, or dwarves haven't just yet.  On the otherhand...isn't it because of these fairytales, like "Snow White", and "Three Billygoats Gruff", that we still have that cultural connection with these monsters of old?  So by changing out the old european monster which might not be familiar, we've pushed it further away from the general consciousness.   And I'm not sure what making it a wizard adds to the story.  Except to make eye twitch every time I hear or read it. 

What do you think?  Silly overreaction on my part?   Can you think of a good reason to make that change?  If you were to produce a modern version, would you change out the ogre for fear that modern children would have no idea what it is?  (And I know I'm speculating that as the reason.)

Why does he need the boots anyway?

Here's a bit of free advice. If you're the country's most powerful and wealthy wizard, and some talking cat comes into your castle and suggests that you couldn't possibly turn yourself into a mouse, don't do it. Okay, yeah, I know Puss is supposed to be a crafty little bugger, but in this new audio/printed book version that my son has been listening to of Puss in Boots, I keep balking at that one. I know, you're probably thinking: what the TALKING CAT doesn't give you pause, but the fact that the cat tricks some fool wizard into turning himself into a mouse, then eats him, that's the part that gets your goat?

Yes.  Actually.  Perhaps it's just me, but somewhere along the way, I figure if you got to be the wealthiest most powerful wizard around your neck of the woods, you would have enough brains not to turn yourself into a mouse in front of a cat.  Particularly a cat that just asked you to do it.  I mean that one should practically go up on the evil overlord list don't you think?

And it's kind of been niggling at me for a while now.  So I went to check out the original.  But of course, my French is terrible, so I'm going to miss out on the subltey there.  But thankfully, we've got Sur la Lune.  So I go to check out the lovely, annotated version of the tale there.  And it's not a wizard.  In the original, it's an ogre.   Interesting.  That means the person who chose to update and produce this version of the tale decided to change that little fact.  Now, reading the original and comparing it to the version we got for my son, I can see a number of differences along the way.  Some are small, like the fact that in my son's version Puss only goes out and captures the partridges as an offering to the King, and doesn't "court" him for his master the way he does in the original.  It's a difference for sure, but more of an abridgement, which when you consider it's aimed at a fairly young market (like my three year old) you can understand.  And in my son's version Puss never hides his master's clothes, they just kind of skip that part, and rescue the miller's son and go get him new clothes.  Changes to be sure, ones that trim back the subtle nature of the story.

But here's the thing: an ogre isn't a wizard.  They aren't perfect replacements one for the other.  Ogres, traditionally, are big brutish, generally portrayed as dumb, creatures.  (And Sur la Lune's annotations on this tale back me up on that.)  They are creatures who simply have supernatural power, so one expects that tricking them should be a possibility. Wizards, on the other hand, generally speaking had to earn their power.  They are, to my knowledge and understanding, portrayed as wize, learned fellows.  I mean, do you think that Merlin would be falling for Puss's "I bet you could turn yourself into a mouse" line?  I think not.

So it makes me wonder.  Why make such a change at all?   About the only guess I can come up with is: do kids even know what an ogre is anymore?   Did they swap out something they figure no one in the US is likely to know enough about, as this kind of monster has mostly faded from the general public's mindset in a way that trolls, or dwarves haven't just yet.  On the otherhand...isn't it because of these fairytales, like "Snow White", and "Three Billygoats Gruff", that we still have that cultural connection with these monsters of old?  So by changing out the old european monster which might not be familiar, we've pushed it further away from the general consciousness.   And I'm not sure what making it a wizard adds to the story.  Except to make eye twitch every time I hear or read it. 

What do you think?  Silly overreaction on my part?   Can you think of a good reason to make that change?  If you were to produce a modern version, would you change out the ogre for fear that modern children would have no idea what it is?  (And I know I'm speculating that as the reason.)