In a collection of stories in which many have a princess or prince as prize for someone's dedication or goodness, I found "The Fisherman and His Wife" to be ironically refreshing. The other day I was talking to a colleague about the content of this (fairy tales) class and he found it quite intriguing; he said it must be fun to read stories always with a happy ending. I suppose the line "...and they lived happily ever after" is the stereotype most noted and bought into with this genre.
I, for one, have never been fond of literary happy endings. My students often pick on me because every novel I have them read always has a depressing ending, often with someone dying. I will never forget one class absolutely assuming that The Catcher in the Rye's Holden was no doubt going to die because I would "NEVER assign something that didn't end that way." The shock value was pretty funny with that one in the end. I suppose I'm just a realist and I like my literature to reflect that, instead of love at first sight, rags to riches ridiculousness (while at the same time keeping a small space available for the hope that we all must inevitably value to keep some sanity). That being said, I was infuriated each time the flounder told the fisherman to go home because his wife's wish was already granted. WHY DOES SHE KEEP GETTING WHAT SHE WANTS?? The abrupt ending with the two back in their pigsty pleased me to no end, quickly making this my favorite in the series. I know that there are unhappy endings for the evil characters in some of the other stories, but the structure of this one leaves no unrealistic positives either, which I can appreciate. Even though the husband understood his wife's greed, he still suffers with her in the end--I half expected him to have gold start falling from his mouth. **insert eyes rolling**
Apart from this story, I was rather bored with the same old tales of happy endings. Loved ones are not always reunited, the ugly are not always transformed into the beautiful, kings do not usually ride up to steal off with young girls to make them queen after viewing them once. And once the big, bad wolf eats you, you can't substitute yourself for stones, no matter how diligent a seamstress your mother may be. Simple-minded men don't make suitable spouses for princesses or queens and children rarely outwit or conquer their abductors. For me, it's all glorified propaganda. Be good and kind and obedient and beautiful and all will work out well for you, the Grimms seem to say. If this is the purpose, then a compilation such as this is the way to go! (But what kind of adults do children who believe these things grow up to be?)
All this to say, I think the answer of whether or not reading variations of a tale or lumping only one version of each into one anthology is dependent on what the reader needs from those stories. For me, it is frustrating to see them all in an anthology, with the same old motifs in every other one, especially the endings. . However, if you are someone who likes looking at a common theme among different tales, then something like the annotated Grimm works well. I much prefer read the same tale told from different perspectives, cultures, or historical contexts. It is intriguing to see what is left out or added and try to figure out why. The endings are often different, even if only a little bit. Even if they may be unrealistic at times, at least there are differences that can give my inquisitive mind something to debate.
As for categorization like Aarne's and Thompson's, I see no fault in it. I think that would be like finding fault with the categorization of anything that can get complicated. I can't see it used by anyone who wasn't a scholar or aspiring scholar (or simply interested) in that field; but for these it would be invaluable. Perhaps it would take away the genuine nature of the tale for those who read simply for pleasure or thematic interest, but I doubt those are the readers looking at Aarne and Thompson.