Starting with snow white

Snow White
which]
 
was clearly the best known prose version in 1930s America,” but he 
was already building from a tale which had resounded in the United States across 
multiple media—literature, stage, and silent film (McGowan 71). Although he might 
only have referenced the literary version as a “source,” in fact, he had this “classic” as 
well as the beginnings of a new American 
Snow White 
tradition
 
to mold and reform, 
and 
both strains of influence had already captured the American imagination. Understanding 
the tale’s prominence, and especially that of the “classic” Grimms’ version, Disney, as a 
fellow storyteller, venerated that earlier “classic” in his retelling. In fact, “Before 
production began, Disney called his staff together for an after-hours meeting and acted 
out all the parts as he imagined them (
Encyclopedia of American Studies
). However, his 
vision widened beyond the Grimms’ version. McGowan asserts that the “production 

---

119
material highlights that the Disney team consulted a variety of other versions of the story, 
such as Joseph Jacobs’ ‘retelling’ in the collection 
Europa’s Fairy Book 
(McGowan 71).
Further, the animator’s work drew upon American versions (from stage and screen), and 
still other popularly recognized source material. Karen Merritt notes that “as the 
stenographic transcripts of the brainstorming sessions make clear, the Ames play [and 
within it, the Merington play] was just one of a shelf-ful of inspirational sources, 
including the Studio’s own animated shorts, silent and sound films and film stars, radio 
and vaudeville performers, operettas, and even Shakespeare” (“Marguerite Clark” 17).
This blending of source material for his 
Snow White 
version “echoes the Grimms’ 
process of collecting and retelling folklore,” shaping the many available versions of a tale 
according to their own artistry (McGowan 81). Thus, Disney’s process both employs and 
looks beyond the tale’s earlier tradition and methods, toward alternate types of source 
material, allowing the folklore he presented on screen to speak to a wider audience. 
This expanded bedrock of research, as well as the particular attention paid to 
earlier American versions of the tale demonstrate Disney’s recognition that he could not 
emulate the Grimms’ tale in an American context. I would not argue with Zipes’ 
contention then that Disney “cast a spell over this German tale and transformed it into 
something peculiarly American” (
Fairy Tales 
203). However, I would note that many of 
the changes upon which Zipes shed a spotlight—heightening the romance of the tale 
(from the start), presenting a “love triangle,” of sorts; expanding the impact of animals 
“as protectors”; giving the dwarfs a more significant role; reducing the number of the 
Queen’s visits; and awakening Snow White with a kiss—were first implemented by 

---

120
Merington, Ames, or both (
Fairy Tales
204). Thus, ascribing these changes specifically 
to Disney negates the American developments of the 
Snow White 
tale that preceded 
Disney and prioritizes this creator’s work in the very way in which Zipes claims Disney 
himself to have done, in a mode of self-veneration (
Fairy Tales 
206). In other words, 
insofar as Disney’s marketing may have promoted his own tale, so too do the critics and 
scholars who recognize 
only 
his version’s alterations. By observing the larger American 
trajectory, one can see that Disney indeed made the tale “peculiarly American,” acting in 
accordance with and expanding the folklore of his precursors (