March 15, 2003
AUNTIE VIOLENCE
April 19, 1991
I can't wait to see if the inevitable next edition of the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" video game, in addition to the Shredder (or as smaller kids pronounce it, "The Sweater"), Rock Steady, and other comic and cartoon enemies of the Shell Shockers, will feature an appearance by the Turtles' newest and potentially most deadly foe--The People Who Assume I'm an Incompetent Parent.
Their names are irrelevant, as are the names of whatever organizations they've created, thrown together in basements or living rooms furnished with plastic covered furniture. Of late they seem to be mostly women, although that gender is not a requirement. And they've been around certainly for as long as I can remember.
They are clever, you must give them that. In the past they've managed to outwit Bugs Bunny, take the fight out of Race Bannon, and blow Space Ghost right into null space. And now...they've set their sights on the Multimillionaires of Mayhem, the Toitles.
There they were, two women with the exact same kind of expression worn by the head of "Parents Against Funny Cartoons," who made a brief appearance on "Tiny Toons" protesting the violence of the "Anvil Chorus" (right before she got smeared by an anvil--wish fulfillment in action.) They managed to bag some airtime on "Entertainment Tonight" so that they could launch an assault against the excessive violence in the subterranean world of the Turtles.
They're worried about what children might learn from the Turtles, we are told. They're concerned that kids might pick up violent ways from the Turtles. They will be encouraged to take action against their playmates and karate-chop them to kibble. And so the Turtles must be stopped.
Their main ire was aimed towards the new Turtles film (which I have not yet seen). Actually, it was backlash from the first one which, again, drew charges of being much too violent. No blood was shed, of course. No gore splattered across the screen. But it was too violent for the children.
And makers of the new Turtles film stated how they had made sure to tone down the Turtles for their latest screen venture. They wanted to make sure that protesting parents didn't have to be worried that children will be corrupted and badly influenced.
My question is...which children?
The children of the protestors? Now, of course, as parents they have the right to prevent their kids from going to see a Turtles film. They have the right to make sure their kids don't watch the Turtles cartoon show. Or buy the cereal, or the frozen pizza. If I were going to lodge a protest against anything, it would be against the Turtles dessert pie, which is not only an assault against aesthetics, but looks like it has snot coming out of it.
And these women, with my blessing, can stop their own kids from ingesting or digesting Turtles to their heart's content. I acknowledge this.
What they do not seem to acknowledge is that I have the right, as a parent, to bring my kid to a Turtles movie and let them watch the chop-sockey action. They assume that any competent parent would agree with them, and if the parent doesn't agree with them, then the parent must be incompetent and protected from themselves.
Or perhaps they're concerned that my nine-year-old daughter is going to go out after watching Turtles and beat up on their kid. Maybe it's first-strike mentality--stop violence at its source (TV, movies, etc.) and we can eliminate all violence in children.
Protesting parents will occasionally cite studies that show kids watching, say, "GI Joe," then picking up guns and playing "GI Joe"-like games, and claim cause and effect. On the face of it, it seems simple enough logic: no more GI Joe, and therefore no more violent play. If children are shielded from such "entertainment," they will be nice and polite and never get into any sort of physical trouble.
Unfortunately, this logic fails to pass what I refer to as the Yeah So test. This test functions as follows:
STATEMENT: "Children watch the Turtles and start doing kung fu stuff."
RESPONSE: "Yeah? So?"
STATEMENT: "Well...don't you see that it means that kids will start jumping around and acting like the Turtles? That they'll play violent karate games?"
RESPONSE: "Yeah? So?"
The attitude is that violent play is learned from Turtles. Or GI Joe. Or Bugs Bunny.
It's not. Method of play may be learned, yes. But violence--that cuts far more deeply.
What was playing in the Triplex during the French/Indian War? Was John Wilkes Booth chowing down on Twinkies before he killed Lincoln? Did Saddam Hussein watch a videotape of "The Terminator" 20 times before he launched missiles or assassinated citizens? What was on the tube when Cain killed Abel?
If it's not Turtles vs. Shredder, or GI Joe vs. Cobra, then it's cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.
You can argue that violence is part in our society. You can argue that violence is an inherited trait. You can argue the whys and wherefores of violence, write entire papers on it, make a career out of analyzing it. But arguing that TV, movies, books, etc., cause violence is specious. It is, to my mind, unfounded.
Some of the most violent, most obnoxious children I know have parents who make it a point never to let those kids watch Turtles or "junk," and discourage any sort of violent play. It's as if the violent energy, unable to channel itself, explodes out of every pore into malicious mischief.
I know one woman who survived the concentration camps of World War II, and was so anti-war and the tools of war that she never bought her son anything remotely resembling a toy gun. So what happened? The kid would pick up a broom or a mop, aim the handle at his friends and shout "Bang! Bang!"
You think kids are taught violence by the Turtles? What about when they see adults eagerly discussing boxing, or hockey brawls, or war. Enjoying it, revelling in it. Maybe the Turtles say that fighting is cool, but so do adults, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the adults have more influence than Turtles do.
I had never forgiven the protectors of morals for "protecting" me from my favorite Saturday morning shows when I was a kid. Knocking all the cartoon superheroes off the car and replacing them with puerile shows like "Hong Kong Phooey." Carving the action out of classic Warner Bros. cartoons, a maneuver I still don't comprehend because the parents who want the mayhem out of Bugs Bunny cartoons grew up with that mayhem. So what are they saying about themselves? That the mayhem unhinged them? Then we shouldn't listen to them because they're crazy. That the mayhem didn't unhinge them? Then what are they complaining about?
If I was going to complain about violence at all, it would be that there's not enough. If there's anything I find offensive about the entire concept of comic book violence, it's that it shows actions without consequences. People get punched and spring right up, cartoon-like, with no effect. If we're doing our youth any disservice, it's depicting scenarios where we don't show what really happens when someone gets injured. Clean and tidy brutality. (Which is why I always enjoyed "Remington Steele." When Steele would make the mistake of punching someone in the jaw, he would invariably clutch at his fist and curse himself out for doing so. And for good reason.)
But you don't see people lobbying to see more blackened eyes and bloodied noses. No one goes on "Entertainment Tonight" and states that the next time Leonardo hits someone in the head, we should show that individual suffering a concussion. No, they are saying that the violence should be toned down to an acceptable level.
Acceptable violence. Is that like acceptable deaths? How much violence can we live with? More to the point--how much nonsensical railing against the entertainment media are we supposed to live with?
Cartoons cause violence. Comics cause violence. Books, magazines, radio shows, television, records, rock concerts, all cause violence. And they should all be stopped.
I got one for you: Some nut goes on TV and claims that, throughout the history of humanity, millions of people have been maimed, tortured, and killed in the names of various gods. Therefore, organized religion should be abolished in the United States.
Oh, the hullabaloo we'd hear about that! And rightly so. This country was founded on freedom of religion. To try and eliminate it strikes at the core of what America is all about.
Of course, it's also about freedom of expression, just as much as religion. And that that annoying freedom of expression extends to movies, TV, books, and even Turtles.
Totally awesome, dude.
Peter David, writer of stuff, was once watching "The Agony and the Ecstasy" on TV and his youngest daughter asked what the film was about. He replied, "It's about an artist named Michelangelo." "Oh, I know about him," she said. "Really? What do you know about him?" he asked. And she replied sagely, "Michelangelo is a party dude."
Posted by Glenn Hauman at March 15, 2003 10:12 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingDoes it seem at all prophetic when you dig some of these up? Peter is still working on a new Turtles comic, right?
God, I love that last line of your daughter. "Michelangelo is a party dude". Hehehe.
Be careful when writing the new series, Peter! Don't have one of the turtles "flick" their foes away like like an insect.
Then you'd be in real trouble.
Don't have too much of a go at anyone who's against violence or anything they deem offensive, their methods and ideas may well not produce results but at least they're seeing the world around them and doing what they assume will change it for the better.
Sadly violence is an inate trait of humanity that we've yet to evolve beyond, the very violence depicted in the cartoons that shock these people didn't just appear on the tv magically, the violence is already inside us and is simply depicted on screen, ideally with the consequenses, often without. And everytime some well meaning induhvidual attacks producers of this violence they themselves are drawing from the violence inside themselves and using it anyway.
That's my 2 cents anyway, I can spare it, I'm British so it's no use here. Unless you invade, you're not planning to invade are you?? >backs slowly away in face of suspicious silence...<
It seems to me that the problem here are the watchdg groups that obviously have too much time on their hands. Maybe if they sepnt the time with their kids that they do telling other parents to do with their kids, maybe things wouldn't be so bad.
I think this whole watchdog group thing happeened because old society ladies were gossiping to each other and then they decided to impose their views on others. (Anybody remember the annoying old bat's radio show on A League of Their Own? I thank Penny Marshall, whereever she is, that she only showed that show *once*
I watched GI Joe, Transformers, Both versions of the Ghostbusters animated series. (You don't think proton packs or in the other version, a "de-materializer" as violent? check the subtext) I've seen Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, NYPD Blue, Buffy, Angel, The evening news. I've played violent video games, such as Doom and Mortal Kombat. Metal Gear Solid, NFL Blitz, Spider-Man and Freedom Force. So, am I going to go out and use violence on a person because I've played, say, Mortal Kombat? Oh, I guess I'm a danger to society!!
I'm not making light of the tragedies that have occurred because of violence, but I do think that these watchdog groups need to look at their own record as parents. Not to tell other parents that they're doing it wrong.
On a lighter note, please read my column at www.comicsnet.vze.com or www.comics.cjb.net
Amen, and thank you. Lately I've been wondering if anyone else sees the selfishness of these "blame third parties, not parents" groups.
Way back in high school, our mandatory Government Class had a textbook with a section "discussing" such watchdog groups. To say it was biased against children's entertainment would be an understatement. In fact, its examples of "violent" cartoon episodes weren't just slanted, they were fictitious. I don't think the writer had ever seen the shows in question.
So, of course, during the discussion of that chapter I pointed out that I babysit, therefore I watch these shows with my charges, and this entire chapter is filled with lies. Why should we believe anything we see in the rest of the textbook?
After that, I honestly believe the only reason I didn't get thrown out of the class -- or flunked out -- is most of the kids in our class got excited about researching the book's other "facts" to see what else might be inaccurate, and that was the most enthusiasm she'd managed to generate in her entire teaching career.
As for myself: my parents solved the "questionable media" matter pretty handily. We had one television in the house; it was in the living room, and visible from the dining room and the kitchen. Also we had one computer, located in the "study", which also happened to be visible from the laundry room. There was no such thing as privacy from our parents' eyes while using either device.
And, since I haven't axe-murdered anyone in the decades since, I'd say that my parents didn't need Mrs. Grundy and Big Brother to do their thinking for them.
Right on. It's been a couple decades since I was a child, but I distinctly remember being able to differentiate between Wile E. Coyote and real life. And since I do not consider myself one of America's smarter citizens, then every child should be able to see the difference.
On a related note, I remember certain "friends" telling me not to watch Married...with Children because I would take Al Bundy's example and be mean to women, tarnishing any future possible relationships I might have. Well, here I am, happily married to a woman I've been with for six years.
It isn't about what you see on TV, it is about the kind of person you are. TV, movies, and videogames aren't going to have any kind of effect on your personality.
Posted by Jim Lawless:
"Be careful when writing the new series, Peter! Don't have one of the turtles "flick" their foes away like like an insect.
Then you'd be in real trouble."
He could have a villian named Clint Flicker. ;)
One of the really annoying part of this whole thing is that many of them probably have never really SEEN what they're against. Same with the people who were opposed to Dungeons & Dragons for much the same reason, whithout having a CLUE about how the game actually helps built team work and encourages moral behaviour (ie if you follow the rules of the game and your character is chaotic evil, you generally don't last long.) But the opponents don't want to hear that.
Also have agreed with Peter for a long time about our 'violence' not being violent enough. It doesn't act to discourage people from indulging.
Well, there was that one time, when I read "The last Avengers Story," and in a gamma-irradiated fury tried tearing my cat in half.
But other than that, my taste for violence is indulged by watching violent stuff, not doing it.
Peter,
I am a father of 5 and a grandfather of 2. In raising my kids (and now my grandkids, OY!) I have tried to influence them towards good behavior. There have always been certain shows that I would not let them watch. Some of these shows were violent in nature. Some carried messages I did not approve of. As a parent, I have always felt it was my duty to police my own kids.
From time to time, I would be contacted by one organization or another asking for my support in censoring some show or dealing with the violence in another. My response was always the same: "I don't let my children watch those shows in my home. What other parents do is their own business." I would quite frequently hear the counter arugement of "Yes, but what about when your child goes to a friend's house? What's to stop them from watching for example The Playboy channel?" My response to that would always be, "Nothing at all. Just like there's no way I can prevent them from smoking, drinking, doing drugs or killing someone outside of my influence in their lives on a consistant basis."
My kids didn't all turn out perfect little angels. They had their problems. But I sure as hell don't blame those problems on what they saw on TV or in the movies. They are individuals. They made their own choices. Sometimes those choices were not the wisest things they could have picked. But as a parent, I take responsibility for raising them. I don't try to shift the blame to MTV or whatever.
We're trying a different track with our grandsons. One is 6 and the other 3. When they express an interest in a particular show, we discuss it with them. (well, the discussion with the 3 year old is fairly one-sided, but you get the point.) We ask why they want to watch it. In some cases we will give in and allow them to watch the show, with us present. This allows my wife and me to gauge their reactions, answer any questions that come up and explain how nothing in that show is actually real. It's a lot of work. Frankly, just saying "NO, you can't watch it because I said so." is a lot easier. But we've noticed that our older grandson is asking less and less to watch those shows.
Sorry I got so long-winded. :)
I recall a short story I wrote that evolved into an essay on the subject of violence in the media. Even if I never considered PD's concept of making the violence more unpleasant and thus harder to stomach, I was always of the idea that in all fiction, every action must have a consequence. Doesn't mean we can't have violence, of course - only that we have to show what proceeds from it; the lack of this awareness bothers me as much as it apparently does Peter David.
I've never been against violence as a storytelling tool; I'm simply more willing to approve of it when it's used in the proper context (and I believe there is one). It can be used and misused, like any tool. As long as you don't start throwing lives away like used Kleenexes (a situation which I frequently see a LOT of in comic books etc.), you're reasonably in the right as far as I'm concerned.
A couple years ago, I saw part of an episode of Tom & Jerry and quickly changed the channel once I became disgusted with the amount of humorless violence it had. All I could think of was "My parents let me watch this crap in my formative years?"
Nature vs Nuture. Some things affect some people more than it does others.