I would be incredibly disappointed if it would be impossible to live in a world where one can be happily married, and continue a special relationship with either or both of your parents. I personally don't fully embrace all of Freud's teachings, I think very few people do nowdays, but the Beaumont version of Beauty and the Beast shows an almost disturbingly stong relationship between Beauty and her father. She turns down marriage proposals so she can stay at home with him, and he nearly dies when forced to be absent from his favorite daughter.
But even in this relationship we see part of what is lacking in the traditional Freudian view of the fairy tale-for them, all the responsibility and growing is put on Beauty herself, not the men who are incredibly needy and each pretty much die when she's not around, forcing her, in Griswold's words, to "shuttle around between needy males" who only stay alive at the end when they all live together. So one wonders if anyone ever actually successfully separates their needy attachment to Beauty.
Griswold points out that one could also interpret the story as a warning to men not to force himself on a woman, but to be a gentlemen and wait patiently for her to say "yes". I'm all for that interpretation too!
Illustrations by Walter CraneAnd it's not just Freudians who see Beauty as the only character in need of growth-the back cover of the latest Disney DVD release of Beauty and the Beast reads, "With the help of the castle's enchanted staff, Belle soon learns the most important lesson of all-that true beauty comes from within." Excuse me? At least in the Beaumont version, the Beast is perfectly civil to Beauty (except for threatening her father with death for picking a flower, which is all explained in the Villeneuve version no one's familiar with), but how can the promoters of the Disney version ignore the fact that the Beast needs to learn far more about love and inner beauty than Belle?