Name – Sanika Phawde
Class- Integrated Seminar: Visual Culture
Name of the instructor- Maya Pindyck
Date- 3/20/2016
Assignment: Research Paper
———————————————————————————————————————
RESEARCH QUESTION:
How do monster archetypes in children’s story books and popular culture, influence the conventions of societal perceptions?
———————————————————————————————————————
As someone who grew up in love with reading books, with a special undying love for children’s storybooks and a burning desire to have a job like Dr. Seuss, I have always considered children’s books an extremely powerful tool for communication, teaching, entertainment, and more often than not, life advice. While I don’t necessarily like the concept of every story ending in a clearly defined moral statement, I believe that every tiny physical or personality attribute owned by the characters (from the pig tails of the female protagonist, to the furry paws of the monster), setting or theme of the story actively conveys a message that tends to register as a perspective or opinion in the minds of the impressionable children.
By means of this essay I intend to explore how monster archetypes in children’s storybooks and popular culture, influence the conventions of societal perceptions. I have substantiated my viewpoints, using a few of the children’s stories in books and movies, that I grew up reading and watching, unconsciously picking up on the social commentary narrated between the lines.
My sources for this paper are children’s storybooks, the movies based on them, along with research papers, journal articles, and scholarly papers providing analysis of, and opinions on the books or movies, along with thoughts on the perceptions and definitions of the term monster in the society, the evolution of these meanings, the potency of visual associations created in these books and movies, the archetypical characters in children’s storybooks that consist monsters, and also texts that speak of narratives that break away from the use of these character tropes.
I also hope that once I understand the various elements that constitute a powerful narrative in a children’s story I will be able to use that knowledge to come up with better narratives, and character compositions in my own short stories, and be that much closer to my aim to be a children ‘s book writer and illustrator.
———————–
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term monster (for kids) in the following ways:
“
1 : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
2 : a strange or horrible creature
3 : something unusually large
4 : an extremely wicked or cruel person “
(” Monster”)
As someone who grew up in India, I learnt very quickly to associate the term monster, with horned men with fangs and facial hair- the demons from the stories from Hindu mythology that my grandmother used to narrate to me every night before I went to sleep. These monsters often had red faces and liked to kidnap princess, and eat farm animals, or kill the reincarnations of important Gods. My grandmother would end every monster story by telling me that monsters weren’t real and that all the stories in mythology were actually about people were famous, during ancient times and got written about, dramatically. As I grew up, I realized that a monster was something that was universally feared and appeared in many shapes and forms, fueled by imagination. The easiest thing to fear is the unknown. We fear the unknown consciously in the inexplicable panic that dark rooms incite in most people, and unconsciously in the way that certain sections or members of the society are “other-ed” by the majority or the powerful, because they don’t understand them. These prejudices then seep into popular culture and media like septic waste infecting innocent minds who consume them. This cycle repeats itself over generations till the hateful metaphors and intentional demonizing is no longer obvious and opinions turn into stereotypes or worse, “knowledge”. Before you know it hateful propaganda finds its place in children’s stories and when you try to trace it you realize that it seems to have been in there since the beginning of media.
Patricia Smith from the University of Buffalo writes that “Monster narratives help us share an experience of horror and address our real anxieties, from wars and economic disasters, to insane political situations, climatic ruin and other issues in the news”. (Smith, “Monster Culture. “University of Buffalo)
She substantiates her argument with the ideas and research of David Schmid, associate professor in the Department of English and author of several books about “monsters”, both real and imagined says that the concept of “monster” has been used in many historical, geographical and ideological contexts to “dismiss and demonize that which is considered marginal, deviant and abject.”
He says that monsters are cultural constructions of the terrible that “define what it is we subconsciously fear and what it is we’re told to hate or love.” He adds that the very definition of the word, Monster changes over time and with each generation.
—————
In his article , How Picturebooks Work,: A Semiotically Framed Theory of Text-Picture Relationships, in his journal, Children’s Literature in Education, Lawrence R. Sipe states, “According to many writers the essence of a picture book is the way the text and illustrations relate to each other, this relationship between the two kinds of texts-verbal and visual texts- is complicated and subtle.” (Sipe, 1)
Illustrations that accompany text come laden with associations, connotations due to the baggage of visual vocabulary and history that they carry. As a result of this they have a deep impact on the minds of children. Not only do they frame opinions and shape perceptions, but by virtue of being visual images, they make these opinions seem trustworthy, believable, and most of all make them memorable. I still remember the colourful illustrations in the children’s storybooks that were read to me as a child.
—————————
“But the purpose of the story is to teach and please at once and what it teases is how to recognize the snares of the world”
– Umberto Eco ‘The Island Of The Day Before’ (Cattanach, 1)
Ann Cattanach in her book, Children’s stories in play therapy, speaks in context of the techniques of narrating stories in children therapy and her ideas not only help to reinforce my opinion of the potency of storytelling but also help understand the enabling powers of monsters in children’s literature.
Ann talks about how the relationship that the audience establishes with the character to present on point of view first in the story. Is stronger than that with any other character of the story. She also emphasizes that a powerful story is not that which is true or involves human characters, society or landscapes but the one that is the most believable.
“Believe him who tells his story first.” goes an ancient Arab saying.
Similarly, the first narratives, lessons, and most importantly visual associations and vocabularies developed by children, stay with them until they are explicitly proved wrong or different, or changed by life experiences and observations.
One of the children Ann worked with, Sally used the symbol of being consumed to express what it felt like to be controlled by a monster. This provoked Ann to delve deeper in the subject, and research enough to establish that story narratives are based on symbol systems. Often in children’s books and sometimes in television shows things are implied by association. Information that might be considered mature, brutal, or serious is often abstracted into a lighter context intended to generate the same emotion, tension, or angst, that helps progress the story-line and makes the triumph at the end seem sweeter and more worthy.
Often in kids, stories and picture books help them consider the meaning of their lived lives and experiences in a way that is not technical and confusing but more instinctual. This happens due to our tendency to compare our life experiences with those of the characters in the book. (Cattanach, 1-17)
Monsters have always been popular in children’s’ literature and from the various monster archetypes systems she mentions, the one that I find most important is the one she mentions first involving a protagonist, a scary consuming monster, and a pet monster who protects.
Below are a few examples.
Movie/Book Evil Monster Pet Monster
————————————————————————————————–
Monsters Inc (2001 film) Randall Boggs, Mike Wazowski
Henry J Waternoose III
Gremlins, Joe Dante (1984) Stripe Gizmo
Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland Queen Of Hearts Mad Hatter
(2010 film)
WALL-E (2008) Autopilot Eva
Casper (1995) Carrigan Crittenden Casper
Paul “Dibs” Plutzker
Cars (2006) Chick Hicks Mater
———————————————————————————————————————
This archetype has been extremely popular in children’s popular culture, through the ages because of its presumed ability to enable children.
Consuming monster stands for qualities, physical and moral attributes that we are meant to despise, avoid, fear or escapes. The scary monster is often irredeemable which justifies its destruction at the hands of the protagonist. The terrifying monster stands for anything that is unknown, terrible, incomprehensible and hence irrational. The consuming monster is often by virtue of what you, or the reader or the protagonist is not. It is the ‘Other’.
The pet monster is meant to teach kids how to make friends, why it is important to make friends, be compassionate, kind, loyal and empathetic. It is meant to teach them to fight loneliness by reaching out to, or allowing new people into your life. The pet monster is also meant to make the protagonist feel good about himself, by being a loyal, flawed, pet, a fierce or clumsy, well-meaning sometimes unsuccessful protector. It is the supposed to make the protagonist feel special on having been selected to befriend by the pet monster, and tolerant for having accepted it into their life.
The protagonists exist so that the readers can live vicariously through them. The protagonists are meant to encourage the idea of embracing change in life, as they themselves go through massive character developments during the course of the story. They enable the children to experience things that they may have to go through or have already been through in life, so that they can be prepared to cope with them. In this regard stories can be compared to simulated experience meant to enable a training in dealing with life. The frightening monster stands for the unknown that one must be cautious of. The protagonist stands for any given individual who may read the book and have to endure the burdens of life to become a better, braver and generally more capable person. The pet monster is around to make the journey less arduous, terrifying, lonely, and to make the reader feel loved and safe.
While all this sounds perfectly wholesome, acceptable and even healthy, it is only after a closer look that we realize that it couldn’t be far from it. What breaks the illusion of this perfect Utopian technique of life education through storytelling is the fact that the people writing and narrating these stories are human, and thus susceptible to prejudices, biases, and their own fear of the unknown. As a result the stories don’t tell children to despise what is evil but to despise what the authors consider evil and condemnable. Since children’s books are high impressionable, and are introduced to children during the time they are first learning to form their own opinions about their immediate environments, it is dangerous to project and impress prejudices onto their easily influenced minds.
Often monsters in book tend to teach us to loathe not just moral attributes but also physical ones by associating or certain physical features with or introducing them in the context of malicious and villainous characters. This is reflected in society through subtle or all out rejection of members of the community possessing those attributes. I can also be suggested that story books reflect society’s disgust towards certain human features or qualities, and glorifies other by means of the vocabulary of physical features, mannerisms and body language of the characters in the story.
———————————————————————————————————————
The Duchess, The Cook and The Duchess’ Child, Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, Lewis Caroll (1865)
The Duchess is a “VERY ugly” character who resides in wonderland. Alice meets her, after she leaves the company of Absolem the caterpillar. Alice is curious about her house, enters it without her permission but what she encounters is extremely far from anything she could have expected.
The Duchess lives in the house with her cook, what we assume is her baby, and a footman. The cook seems highly unhinged, violent, loud, malevolent and incoherent, screaming the word, ”pepper” over and over again as she throws more and more pepper into the air, as though meaning to add to the concoction she seems to be cooking or boiling in the pot, but not really caring that it is getting everywhere. She also screeches, throws and smashes dishes against the Duchess, her baby and Alice. The Duchess pays her no attention as the dishes continue to shatter against her back and the floor. The cook only stops her incessant screaming and dish throwing when the Duchess begins to sing, at which point she turns into a peaceful lady who fits the disposition expected from her attire, and gently begins to dance and hum along to the Duchess’s song. The spell breaks when the Duchess hands the baby to Alice and shuffles out of the room. At this point, the cook goes back to throwing plates at the baby and pepper in the air.
This scene whips our minds into a state of frenzied delirium by engaging multiple senses at once. It is described as extremely noisy, what with the cook screaming “Pepper!”, the child, and Alice, sneezing as a result of all the pepper being thrown in the air, the pathetic mewling, crying, sneezing infant, whose voice Alice describes, sounds like grunting, The Duchess talking loudly over the voice of the cook screaming, seemingly unperturbed by her antics, and Alice questioning the Duchess, her curiosity getting the better of her.
The scene is also extremely sensory, you feel the pepper flakes falling against your skin, the child continuously sneezing in the Duchess’s face, the description of the dirty dusty house, along with the plates clattering clanking and shattering. In addition to all the disgusting imagery, a sense of revulsion conveyed in Alice’s narration, as she judges the characters and strives to rationalize their behavior, what really makes lifts the scene to a completely new astral plane of jarring delirium, is the complete stripping of expected social conventions and construct from the environment and narrative constructed. The Duchess talks fondly of abusing her child, and shows no surprise or anger, when her cook throws crockery at her and her infant. She sings affectionately to her baby but her words are far from loving.
She says:
Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes
he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.
I speak severely to my boy
I beat him when he sneezes
for he can thoroughly enjoy
the pepper when he pleases
You tend to feel an equal measure of sympathy and disgust at the mewling and grunting, cacophonous infant.
Instances of sudden mood swings are sprinkled generously throughout the scene. Rational relationships expected of characters, enforced by social construct in our society are completely turned on their heads in wonderland. And while we grapple to wrap our minds around the new “general order” of the land, the narrative and dialogues charge on without exposition, the characters continue to have confusing conversations jumping into what seem like unrelated topics. This inability to understand everything occurring in the scene tends to fill the reader with panic. For some reason this delirious panic, is rendered further unreal by the idea of a grinning cat sitting on top of a cupboard and knowingly looking down upon the scene, silently reveling in the chaos.
In this scene, the Duchess, her child and the cook fall into the category of monsters:
The Duchess: The first thing we are informed about her is that she is very ugly. Her description isn’t very graphically defined through words and so every reader tends to conjure up their own version of the duchess in their minds, dictated by their personal definitions of the word “ugly”. What is mentioned about her physicality is her short stature and her disproportionate body, that is much smaller when juxtaposed with her abnormally large head. Since we associate her with our own ideas of “ugly”, she becomes revolting for whoever reads about her.
“Alice did not much like keeping so close to her: first, because the Duchess was VERY ugly; and secondly, because she was exactly the right height to rest her chin upon Alice’s shoulder…”
Her short height is emphasized by the comment that she is just short enough to rest her chin perfectly on Alice’s shoulder, and the imagined intrusion of personal space, adds to the sense of disgust. Since we are experiencing the scene from Alice’s point of view, the mental image of her being uncomfortably close to someone she finds so strikingly unpleasant and grotesque, makes us feel uncomfortable on her behalf. Also, amidst at environment of such strong disgust, the physical attribute of being short, acquires an element of unpleasantness as well. Or perhaps it was associated with a character like the Duchess because it was considered unappealing and hence, in harmony with her general image and vibe.
What highlights her monstrous nature is lack of concern for her child, as it goes against the general nurturing image of a mother. Her proud admittance of her child’s abuse only emphasizes this. Her house is a mess, and her general unclean-ness, or lack of care for it, only add to her unpredictability. And we tend to fear that which we cannot rationalize.
When she first meets Alice in her kitchen, she appears aggressive, nervous, and not disposed to interact. The second time, she meets Alice, at the Queen’s crocket party, she is flirtatious chatty and seemingly determined to charm her for reasons that are left unknown. She also repeatedly places her chin on the shoulders which is as jarring as the time Alice first imagined it happening. Alice begins to suspect that perhaps her previous ruthlessness was induced by her irritation because of the crying sneezing child, and all that pepper. Regardless, she still harbors no concern for her child, especially now that it has turned into a pig.
The cook: The cook is deemed monstrous because the book subjects her to adjectives like loud, unclean, and violent. Her body language is threatening, and her speech, incoherent. Her disregard of a sense of respect to hierarchy, unpredictability, mood swings, and lack of concern for the child, also further alienate her.
Child: The child starts off as a sniveling, crying mess, an element of annoyance but its unexpected transformation into a pig is confusing and also condemns it to an association with monstrosity, going by the definitions and adjectives used to define the term ‘monster’, that were discussed before.
————————–
Gremlins, Joe Dante (1984)
Gremlins was a PG fantasy/horror film, produced in 1984, about a gadget salesman looking for a the perfect Christmas gift for his son in a store in Chinatown, who comes across a seemingly adorable creature known as ‘mogwai’, happily locked in a cage, and singing. The owner of the store reluctantly sells him the creature accompanied by tree ominous warnings. The three rules meant to be followed around the creatures are soon broken, and chaos ensues. The single ‘mogwai’ multiplies, and the new creatures soon turn into evil and vicious Gremlins, raging havoc though the city, while the first ‘mogwai’, Gizmo, remains loyal to the humans and helps them end the menace.
Patricia Turner in her book, Ceramic Uncles and Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture, (1994) talks about how Gremlins, reinforces or promotes the harmful propagation of “negative African American Stereotypes”(64). An online blogger, pr0jectvegan, discusses her arguments and proclaims that the movie evidences, and “alludes to the growing fear of the urban underclass, during the 1980s with programs like Affirmative Action and welfare.” (pr0jectvegan, “The Racism We Never Noticed in Gremlins.”), with its creatures growing dependent and wreaking havoc on the community.
Gremlins devour fried chicken with their hands, listen to black music, break dance, and wear sunglasses after dark along with newsboy hats, a style common among black males in 1980s. When Gizmo is first introduced to us, he is depicted locked up in a cage, singing to his heart’s content, an image that can be loosely tied to the ideas about “the happy slave”. His Chinese “master” explicitly states that he isn’t ready for the world. If he was released all hell would break lose. Here the cage represents order and Gizmo or the slave represents chaos. The only good ‘mogwai’ in the film is cute furry and mostly white. The other are “larger reptilian looking demonic creatures” with darker bodies and a lesser percentage of white fur. They make their way into suburbs break into houses in a neighborhood not meant for them. There are three rules that the film deems most important about the ‘mogwai’. They must not get wet, or be given food after midnight. They also hate bright light, and too much sunlight results in their death. The first two rules are symbolic. If they are fed, aided, and treated well, they will grow dependent on the community and multiply. The last rule gives the people making the film, the chance to show gremlins waiting till the sun goes down to run rampant in the city breaking into homes wearing sunglasses at night (pr0jectvegan, “The Racism We Never Noticed in Gremlins.”).
The film was an instance of hateful racism that was surprisingly not even realized. Also the fact that it was tagged PG made it all the more dangerous to society because it caused these disgusting racist stereotypes to influence impressionable young minds, packaged as a family entertainer.
————————
Monsters Inc: Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, David Silverman:
Mike and Sulley, the two protagonists of the film, Monsters Inc., are the champions of the cute monster trope, and have triggered the creation of an avalanche of cute monsters newly introduced into children’s popular culture. What elements or attributes are associated with a monster meant to come off as endearing and friendly, while maintaining the theme of them being “the other? Friendly monster are usually depicted sporting a large amount of light or bright coloured fur, big paws, or faces, bigger eyes, have smooth or soft edges, and are often large, slow, and/or clumsy. I could go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps the monsters are bestowed with these features so that they may remind children of their own stuffed animals, plush toys blankets, and colourful rooms.
In Monsters Inc. both Mike and Sulley tick most boxes on this list of endearing physical attributes. Mike has a large lime spherical body consisting one ginormous eyeball and an eyelid covering it. He also has thin short arms and legs extending from his spherical torso. He is extremely non-threatening, short, goofy and fiercely loyal to his best friend, Sulley to whom he also acts as an assistant. He is likable because he is funny, clumsy, awkward with his love interest, bad with office paperwork, and sticks by his best friend at all times. Sulley, is an accomplished ‘Scarer’, once famed in all of the fictional city, Monstropolis for being the best ‘Scarer’ with a massive fan following. As a Scarer his job requires him to scare children when they are asleep in bed at night, collects their screams and brings them back to his world to power Monstropolis.
Although we know that he is in the habit of regularly creeping into children’s bedroom and scaring them, we are made to understand that this is just his job and that he is doing it for the good cause, of providing energy to his hometown. This insinuates that he is a patriotic, good Samaritan. He eventually discovers that children’s laughs are far more potent and resourceful than their screams, and collapses an existing system to establish a new one, that is based on making children laugh. He is big, blue soft and furry. His fur is turquoise blue with purple patches. The two horns on his head are mere stumps, and can’t really hurt anyone. He has a loud booming laugh, reminiscent of Santa Claus. He spends the entirety of the movie first being afraid of, and then trying to protect, a little girl child. He is impossible to fear or despise.
While it can be argued that Monsters Inc, successfully breaks down or even abolishes this sense of “othering” with monsters, if you reassess the context in which this “othering” has been abolished, you realize that things are not as they seem. Monsters Inc does not allow for othering not because it promotes tolerance but because the “monsters” here follow a lifestyle, and exist in a social construct that is the same as the one we live in, or to be further specific, the working upper middle class of the Western society lives in.
These monsters possess the same physiology and toilet fixtures as humans. Toilet paper sticks to their feet after using the toilet. They work at a corporate institute, under an obnoxious and always interrupting boss, and a cranky secretary. What makes them further endearing is the daily monotonous office life that they are implied to be living, complete with star employees, grumpy assistant, faceless security (quite literally) and mailroom officials.
Nothing about them is different from what the majority of the audience and the creators are used to and hence there is nothing that will out them as the other, apart from their physicality, which make them only more lovable because they resemble stuffed toys. Well except for the two antagonists, Randall, and Waternoose, who are made to look formidable, detestable and evil by means of dramatic lighting, sound effects and physical attributes such as a Salamander like body, multiple insect like legs, a half creeping, half sliding movement, the sleazy and sly voices, the tendency to disappear at will or change colours unpredictably, and tentacles.
Since the monsters here, the only kind of monsters that are portrayed as deserving and capable of love, have the same mannerisms, language and even accents as the creators and majority audience, the message suggested by movie, whether intended or otherwise, is that a monsters, outcasts, or “others” will only be accepted, viewed as equal or considered capable and worthy of compassion or humanity, when they adopt the appearance, or way of life of the powerful “majority” society.
If monsters define the unknown and the fear it incites, then this movie redresses the unknown and places it in a “comfortable” environment. It seems to prove the human tendency to trust only the familiar. If the monsters’ madness and wildness is a culture or socio-cultural context, then the movie shows that they can be defined “safe”, “civilized”, “sophisticated”, “progressive”, only when they abandon it to accommodate a lifestyle characteristic of the humankind, to be specific western society
——————————————————————————————————————
From my research of character systems in narratives, I can safely deduce that ‘Evil’ in Children’s literature has enabling powers, that monsters have been created to exploit ever since the human race realized that characters that are unknown unpredictable and non-redeemable can be manipulated to teach lessons. Today we are well aware of the importance of monsters and unpleasantness in tales. However there are better ways to enable children and people using the unknown.
Scott, Anthony O. , in his article, “Where the Wild Things Are: The Miyazaki Menagerie.” (The New York Times 12 (2005)) pulls into discussion the concepts of re-defining evil, and re-defining monsters and instead writing antagonists as complex characters with grey personalities, resulting in an age of a new breed of evil. The author stimulates this discussion by using Hayao Miyazaki’s film, Spirited Away, a highly revolutionary film replete with unpredictable characters, personalities, contexts and social constructs, often depicting rules of nature captured as characters or constructs(2).
The article speaks of Miyazaki creating worlds and universes that follow the laws of nature and not human world. His world and characters cannot be teased out and categorized. Their personality traits cannot be used to establish a definite demarcation between that which is good and evil. In his stories it is impossible to assign a source or a sense of ownership of the evil or good to a particular character or element. His monsters, and characters are complex systems.
“His work presents instances of comparatively more relevant, and relatable manifestations of evil.”(2)
Miyazaki’s film forces the audience to acknowledge their personal definitions of monster, evils, and to reconsider, rethink or redefine these powerful words.
“But the route he chooses toward happiness can be troubling, perhaps especially to an American audience that expects sentimental affirmations based on clear demarcations between good and evil.” (4)
In his article, Anthony O Scott talks about how Spirited Away, provides a refreshing break from the single dimensional personalities that were composed of a vocabulary not only highly moralistic qualities, but also, negative adjectives, irredeemable qualities, entities that were crafted to ensure that the majority audience felt comfortable and justified in hating them.
“The division of the world into heroes and villains is a habit Mr. Miyazaki regards with suspicion. “The concept of portraying evil and then destroying it – I know this is considered mainstream, but I think it’s rotten,” he said. “This idea that whenever something evil happens someone particular can be blamed and punished for it, in life and in politics, it’s hopeless.” Like the natural world, which follows its own laws and rhythms – “it does what the hell it pleases,” in Mr. Miyazaki’s words – human nature is not something that can easily be explained or judged.” “(1)
Personally I prefer narratives and character systems like the one is Spirited Away when compared to the traditional archetypal one explained before. The unpredictable characters who are as good as they are bad and seem to be as confused about their existence as any of us, are far more believable, realistic and relatable regardless of their fictional species. Their experiences, and character developments inspire me, and familiarize me with, or prepare me for the state of the world around me, far more than the traditionally good and bad heroes and villains ever did.
Also since the societal construct in the world of the story is starkly different from that of the human world it provides no room for judgements, biases, or propaganda.
As Scott says in his article about the narratives in Miyazaki’s films, “their strangeness comes equally from the freshness and novelty he brings to the crowded marketplace of juvenile fantasy and from an unnerving, uncanny sense of familiarity, as if he were resurrecting legends buried deep in the collective unconscious.”
Spirited Away had its confused, lonely melancholic monster unsure about the very purpose of his being .When I watched this movie, I remember thinking that No-Face was the most existential monster I had ever come across.
It is time we realize that we don’t need characters we can relate to, admire and worship, and ones we can feel good communally hating, based on the way they look or the way they talk or live their lives. We need characters going through the same mental turmoil, chaos and anguish that we are subjected to since the second we are born. We need despicable characters that confuse us, and “good” characters that we realize we are afraid of and cannot find it in ourselves to be trust.
We need “a blend of moral complications that are incited by ordinary acts of selfishness, vanity and even kindness.”
I believe that films like Spirited away are evidence of the fact that in this age, it is time to veer away from traditional archetypal story line in monster stories that put an unendurable amount of pressure on the readers to be good and perfect all the time, generating doubt, and guilt when they are unable to live up to the goodness of their fictional heroes. Instead I believe that it would be wise to adopt more innovative, realistic alternate story lines, and narratives with characters that do not perfectly fit into the molds of stereotypes created to fulfill one purpose or forward a singular aspect of a linear storyline. Such cookie cutter characters are not just dull. They are also dangerous, because they coax generations of innocent and naïve children into the rat race lifestyle, and imply that they must find their label early, and spend the rest of their lives trying to conform and fit themselves within its confines.
It is immoral to enforce and propagate prejudices through children’s literature, and the only people who profit from this are the ones already in privilege, and have vested interests in maintaining the prevalent status quo, between the marginalized and the powerful.
————————-
Interestingly, the way certain characters are perceived changes through the ages, because international events and occurrences influence thinking and movements of thought. Morals, and definitions of what is ethical and what is not changes as well, although not drastically. As a result of this, characters that epitomized, or stood for something when they were initially created, decades later, symbolize something else.
Auerbach, Nina’s paper, “Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child”. Victorian Studies (1973), acquaints us with a unique idea- An unconventional observation of Alice as a “fabulous monster” and shows how transitions in conventions of societal perceptions, impact on the way characters are read and considered.
Alice’s questioning, her eagerness to know everything, her rejection of the ridiculous, her compulsiveness to be right, that was once deemed naïve, innocent and curious, now paint a character who can be seen as non-inclusive, narrow minded, snobbish, and even arrogant.
Initially, Alice, the little blonde girl from a wealthy family with a ribbon in her hair was written as the epitome of Victorian innocence.
However later, scholars and literary enthusiasts began to discuss the chaotic juxtaposition of this innocent child with a terrifying land of threat, misconduct and confusion inside her. In the midst of old world ideas such as he who is knowledgeable is treacherous or sinful, the very precocious Alice, who also stands as the champions of good, purity and innocence, and purity is an abomination. She has turned into something as inexplicable as the land in her mind. And in this way she comes to personify the very “unknown”, that she attempts to combat. As we follow her through her journey, over the years, Alice gradually becomes wonderland (16).
The once naïve angel is a “fabulous monster” in a different time and societal structure.
—————————-
I hope that this essay draws attention to social biases, prejudices, and perceptions that influence the representation of irredeemable evil, “villains”, and “monsters” in children’s books, and how they impact societal beliefs, and reinforce prejudices. If this extremely potent power of manipulating visual imagery to control the power of suggestions and associations, to plant ideas, advice and opinions in young impressionable minds is teased apart, explained and made obvious, maybe the constructors of these narratives will be more responsible about the message they are propagating through their work. Also, people who read this essay, will hopefully be alerted to the fact that children’s books like any other visual media are also instances of carefully crafted media devices, and will possess the ability, to decide for themselves which portrayals they agree with and choose to support and which portrayals they do not.
Children’s books are often one of a child’s first brushes with visual language and visual culture. Their power, and impact must not be taken lightly or for granted.
———————————————————————————————————————
Bibliography:
- Auerbach, Nina. “Alice and Wonderland: A Curious Child.” Victorian Studies1, The Victorian Child (1973): 31-47. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
- “Definition of Monster – Merriam-Webster’s Student Dictionary.”Definition of Monster – Merriam-Webster’s Student Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
- Caroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland. N.p.: Macmillan, 1865. Print.
- Cattanach, Ann. “The Purpose Of A Story.” Children’s Stories in Play Therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1997. 1-17. Print.
- Gremlins. Dir. Joe Dante. Perf. Zach Galligan, Phoebe Cates, Hoyt Axton, John Louie. Warner Bros, 1984. Film.
- Melson, Gail F., and L. Gail Melson. Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of children. Harvard University Press, 2009.
- Monsters Inc. Dir. Pete Docter, David Silverman, and Lee Unkrich. Perf. John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi, Mary Gibbs. Pixar, 2001. Film.
- “The Racism We Never Noticed in Gremlins.” Johnny Pozzini. N.p., 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
- Scott, Anthony O. “Where The Wild Things Are: The Miyazaki Menagerie.” The New York Times. N.p., 12 June 2005. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/movies/where-the-wild-things-are-the-miyazaki-menagerie.html>.
- Sipe, Lawrence R. “How Picturebooks Work: A Semiotically Framed Theory of Text-Picture Relationships.” Children’s Literature in Education2 (1998): 97-108. Web.
- Smith, Patricia. “Monster Culture.” Monster Culture – University at Buffalo. University at Buffalo, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
- Turner, Patricia A. Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture. New York: Anchor, 1994. Print.
- ————————————————————————————————————
