Welcome back to the Randomizer!
This week will show the intended article that was meant to
be shown 4 weeks ago, but due to cock-ups was replaced by the 27 Club.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some time ago I was wondering what to do next for the blog, sitting
at my computer trying to find different subjects to cover and watching Flight
of Dragons on the side for research. Yea, I might be a nerd/geek but sometimes
you have to be serious with your research, even if it means watching Flight of
Dragons. God I need a life.
Then one question popped into my mind: Is Fantasy strictly
for children?
At first thoughts, you'd have thought yes. There are many TV
shows, films and books of the fantasy genre that are tailor-made for the little
buggers. Power Rangers involved a group of teenagers (or what was passed off
for teenagers) fighting against spontaneous evil forces to do evil things
because they were evil. Pokemon and Digimon involved monsters that evolved to
develop greater powers with their human masters. And it is well regarded that
J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' was written more for children then for adults.
It's surprising isn't it? Power Rangers was mentioned in the same paragraph as
The Hobbit.
But at the moment, there are some fantasy stories that are
made specifically for an adult audience. The more obvious one is Game of
Thrones. It has the more usual fantasy elements: DRAGONS, big clashing armies,
setting on another world. But it contains something that you never really find
in fantasy: sex. And lots of it. When was the last time you saw sex ever in a
fantasy show?
Another fantasy series that seemed more made for mature
audiences is the very influential and probably carbon-copied Lord of the Rings.
Here, the stakes are raised higher because the whole world is threatened by the
evil dark lord Sauron. And it falls to one small Hobbit called Frodo Baggins to
take the One Ring and chuck it into the fires of Mt. Doom, so Sauron can
finally be sent back to the darkness (more commonly known as The Only Way is
Essex)
So why do we associated the term 'fantasy' with children in
the first place today? To answer this question, we'll be going back through the
annuals of history to try and discover if fantasy is really for children, or
whether it evolved to become that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasy in the past has been noted as fairy tales, and some
scholars believe that the original fairy tales were meant for adults instead of
children. Zipes states that they were first written down in Italy, but were
first institutionalised in 17th century France by many writers, one
of which included a man named Perrault whom we shall turn to soon. He claims
that the literature was made as a means of developing polite behaviour in the
high society. But they also could have been intended to question those same
standards as: "social behaviour could not be dictated, prescribed and
controlled through the fairy tale, and there were subversive features in
language and theme" (1994: p. 11-14). This means that people could not be
directed by the tales and might go against the high society of France at the
time. He also says that: "This is one of the reasons why fairy tales were
not particulary approved for children" (1994: p.14). If children heard
these fairy tales, it could mean that they will interoperate them and possibly
rebel against the system. Fight the power!
It was in that same century that Madame le Prince de
Beaumont adapted the original story of Beauty and the Beast for young girls to
learn from and develop manners (wonder how different this could've been if she
had Twilight at her disposal.....if the man sparkles, tap that). This could be
considered to be the true point as to where fairy tales for children came
about. However this was only for children of the upper class still. Sooo, how
did these fairy tale stories become available to a wider audience?
It is possible that the next step of this ideology came with
the recreation or collection by the most charming of storytellers, The Brothers
Grimm, and I use the word charming quite loosely. They brought the stories
together into their book, called Kinder
und Hausmarchen (Children and Household Tales) and published in 1812, over
a hundred years after the stories were first written down. Noted by Ashliman, the
title might imply that these tales are appealing to everyone under one roof
(2004; p.5), so even then, the brothers could've thought that these stories are
for everyone.
The brothers became very popular as their work on these
fairy-tales became widespread throughout the world. But does their work really
focus solely on the children? If the title of their work was aimed at the
entire household as Ashliman claims, have fantasy and fairy-tales EVER become solely
part of the childhood mindset?
Let's look into this with one of the biggest child-fantasy
franchises in the world: Disney. (Those with no love for Disney, it will get
better for you in the long run. If it doesn't, seek a therapist).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a basic fact of life that Disney is one of the first
things we are weaned on as children and grow up remembering classics like Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast and the Little
Mermaid, some of which were adapted from the Brothers Grimm in the first place.
Walt Disney or other famous masterminds made changes to the narrative and other
elements to make them appropriate for child audiences (not withstanding racial
stereotyping since obviously America still has a few issues to iron out).
However, it must be kept in mind that these stories are
older then we actually think and probably passed down orally rather than
written out because not everyone could read. So in some cases, I will be using
the Brothers Grimm version as a first point of call. And what were those "original"
fairy tales about?
Firstly, I will make it my task in comparing the deaths of
the Evil Queen in Disney's 'Snow White' and in the Brother's Grimm version, Schneewittchen. And both versions are
pretty dark.
In the Disney version, after the Queen in disguise believes
to have poisoned Snow White is chased by the Seven Dwarfs. She comes up to a
mountain side and eventually finds herself trapped, but attempts to send a
boulder down onto the dwarfs using a log of wood. Unfortunately, Thor the God of
Thunder thinks otherwise and sends down a bolt of lightning, destroying the
rock she's standing on...and sending the boulder to crush her instead. That
must have been unpleasant to clean up afterwards, though the vultures didn't
seem so fussed by the look of things.
Now in the Brothers Grimm version, She thinks she's kill off
Snow White successfully and asks the mirror who the most beautiful person in
the world is. The mirror says that the new queen is the fairest in the land.
She gets sent an invite to the queen's wedding and eventually goes. It is at
that castle she discovers that the young queen is in fact, Snow White who
obviously survived the poisoning from the apple. The Evil Queen is sentenced to
death...by dancing in red hot iron shoes until she drops and snuffs it. Well,
if she was going down, she could have done Gangnam Style! The only problem is
she couldn't do the jumping leg bits.
So far, both deaths are pretty gruesome. Disney's version is
quite dark because it actually pushes the buttons of killing the main
villainess, giving the audience what it wants: Her to be dead. Even though her
death is off-screen it doesn't need to be shown. We can imagine what she'll end
up as. In comparison, the Grimm version doesn't sugar-coat her death, blatantly
giving it to us on a plate as a more graphic depiction that maybe adults can
take on the chin? Hmmm. Another question would be which death is stronger of
the two? It's difficult because each one is so specifically dark in each of
their respective manners. I think the Disney version is slightly stronger
because the visuals seem more effective then the Grimm version. With the dancing
to death, you can kind of make it slightly comical as to which dance the Queen
will be doing when she dies. I don't think the Macarena works much, because you
have to jump to your right and it's difficult to do that in iron boots.
Let's try another example of Cinderella and focus on her
stepsisters.
In Disney's version, the sisters take it in turn to try the
glass slipper on, but fail to convince the prince that they were the ones who
danced with him. Cinderella of course does just that since the slipper fits her
to a tee and they live happily ever after. Aww diddums :P.
Now to destroy your dreams. In the Brothers Grimm version,
the sisters try in turn to put the shoe on, but go for extreme measures egged
on by their mother. The first sister cuts off her toe while the other cuts off
her heel, and still both fail to live with the prince because of two pigeons
who were conveniently in the area. It get worse. The sisters try to get back
into Cinderella's good graces when she is married. But the pigeons decide to
peck each of their eyes out and curse them with blindness for the rest of their
lives.
Says something about The Brothers Grimm doesn't it? Maybe
they were vampires and had a taste for blood. Wouldn't surprise me, it was the
19th century so maybe Bram Stoker found some proof that they were
actually bloodthirsty blood-suckers and burned the evidence because no one
would believe him. But I digress.
There have been written versions of Cinderella before the
Brothers Grimm got their hands on it. One of which was done by Charles
Perrault, which included all the classic motifs in the story: The Fairy
Godmother, The Pumpkin Carriage and the inclusion of the glass slippers. The
sisters in the end beg for forgiveness for their shitty treatment of her and
Cinderella actually forgives them for it, going one step further and embracing
them. Personally, I'd tell them to fuck off.
So is this how far Cinderella goes? Well obviously....not.
As with any fairy tale, Cinderella's origins go a long way. But there are some
claimants that say they are the oldest. One of these stories actually comes
from Egypt in the 1st century BC, called Rhodopis.
Once upon a time, Rhodopis (originally Greek) was sold into
slavery with an old man and servant girls. The girls made her do all the work
as they just lazed about, so Rhodopis made friends with the animals instead.
After a day's work she'd sing and dance, leading to the old man to give her a
pair of beautiful slippers, which pissed off her fellow girls. When the Pharaoh
held court near where the girls lived, Rhodopis was given extra chores so that
she couldn't go. When her slippers got wet from an annoyed hippo, she took them
off to dry in the sun. A falcon decided to nick one and she kept the other
close at hand. The falcon chucked the slipper near the Pharaoh and he decided
to investigate who the slipper fitted. The girls tried to pass themselves off
as the one, but all of them failed. Rhodopis, hiding in the rushes, was spotted
and asked to try it. Obviously the slipper fitted. The girls were in uproar
saying she wasn't even Egyptian. The Pharaoh countered by saying: "She is
the most Egyptian of all...for her eyes are as green as the Nile, her fair as
feathery as papyrus, and her skin the pink of lotus flower....Now you girls get
back into the kitchen and make us both a sandwich!"
Ok that last sentence wasn't true :P. I don't think
sandwiches existed in those days. Someone correct me if wrong and call me Dave.
So it's interesting as to far how some of these stories can
be traced back to over 2000 years ago. It begs the question as to how far some
of these well known fairy tales actually go back. Of course some, like the
Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Anderson, were known to be written in the 19th
century (and maybe equally as depressing). Yet in the last 75 years, we now associate
those fairy tale stories with Disney, not the graphic nature of the Brothers
Grimm or with Egyptians and Greeks. Why is this?
Maybe it is because of the calculated risk Disney took in
making a feature length production that happened to be a fairy tale. No one had
ever attempted such a feat before, since cartoons at the time of the 20s and
30s were mostly under around 10 minutes. It was seen as Disney's folly and even
his wife was disapproved of it. Yet the gamble paid off and Disney had a
popular production under his belt, albeit obviously changing the original story
to at least not give children or anyone nightmares. Overtime, more fairy tales
came into his fold like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty which have grown greatly
in popularity over the years and became considered to be classic Disney films,
especially some of those released during the Disney Renaissance era in the 90s
like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.
My final question would be if the changes made to these
stories helped in bringing audiences to see the films in the first place. If we
were to take Snow White as an example, I believe if Disney had left the ending
intact from the Brothers Grimm version, the film would have been weaker and not
work as well as it did on screen because some material from books do not
translate well on screen. It would have finished off Disney if he kept
"true" to the source material and not kept his target audience in
mind. But he did make sure that the Evil Queen finally got her comeuppance in
the end.
The successes of the fairy tales allowed Disney to become
connected with children and family entertainment. It's become a fact of life
and will remain so for a long time. The films Disney have made over the years
have successfully struck a cord, appealing to worldwide audiences around the
world. With the success of Snow White, Disney became THE undisputed King of Animation,
dominating the world and allowing creation of new popular productions to be
made. It is because of those reasons that those fantasy films helped to make
Disney such a recognisable force in the world, and it's thanks to the initial
success of Snow White and subsequent productions of other stories that Disney
will always be forever associated with fairy tales.
Note that I said family entertainment. Reading The Brothers Grimm and Folklore, Kay
Stone (p. 59) points out the impossibility that adults would come to see Snow
White, yet it was successful. So what does that say about Fantasy being just
for children? It comes across as a contradiction because if adults are flocking
to see the film even though the endings are changed, that means anyone can
enjoy fantasy films right?
This forms the basis for my next question...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Adults can enjoy the genre as well, why then is Fantasy
aimed at Children?
I will first look into Saturday Morning Cartoons, because
this forms an interesting argument into answering this question.
Predominately made in the 80s and early 90s, these cartoons
had little kids in their grasp, bringing them into different fantasy worlds and
including them in the usual war of Good vs. Evil. And what other little detail
did these shows have in common? Merchandise. These shows used a number of toys,
bedding and other promotional products to help promote their series and keep
themselves going for a number of years.
Shows like Transformers, He-Man and Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles used fantasy settings around Earth to create fantastical adventures in
defeating incompetent villains on a daily basis and use commercials for their
toys so that kids can create their own adventures around their house and
destroy the living room while they're at it. I wouldn't try it, not unless you
have insurance hiding somewhere.
You may notice the one word I am using a lot is kids. The
children's market have been become a very exploitable source of revenue as toy
companies in partnership with TV production studios focused on changing the
face of children's television. Even movies were made around the same time to
help promote such things. In the original Transformers animated series case, it
was planned to completely replace the old toy-line with new characters. Well,
that worked so well in the grand scheme in things, like when one of them is
indirectly responsible for allowing Optimus Prime to die. Ha.
Henceforth my next question is: Are Saturday Morning
cartoons responsible for making the fantasy genre just for children?
In one way, the answer is yes because those shows were
obviously aimed at children, not adults. Even though parents complained that
the shows were glorified toy commercials, it didn't stop the flowing of money
coming into the companies hands so they can continue to make these shows. On
the other hand, there are many adults who enjoy the series as much as children
do, and hold it in such high regard. I remember watching a documentary from the
2007 film dvd about how the fans were so against the original design for one of
the characters that it was radically changed. I'm not entirely sure which
character that was changed.
I for one still have the original 1986 Transformers movie on DVD and get some enjoyment from it still even
after since I first brought it on VHS which I got rid of ironically because I
was trying to grow up. Doesn't work. Should've kept that really....least I have
the DVD so all's well!.
Another example of debunking the theory is Star Wars.
While the original film was in production, it was considered
by members of cast and crew to be a children's film and not taken very
seriously. Adding to this comes merchandise, as a selection of toys were
created for kids to buy and comic books were made to help promote the film when
released. (On a tangent note, I actually have an old comic book I had got from
my cousin's friend of the original Star Wars story :)). And nowadays recent
material like Star Wars: The Clone Wars
TV series have been shown on Cartoon Network, predominately aimed at children
to teenagers. Similarly, the tie-in film with that series was called a Saturday
Morning Cartoon by some critics, like Claudia Puig and the recently passed
Roger Ebert, who described it as: "a 98-minute trailer".
But as the original Star
Wars film become immensely popular, it developed into a massive phenomenon and
still holds a special place in people's hearts (a VERY special place it seems
with all the controversies brought up, like Han shot first!). Adult fans dress
up as the characters and can play the video games as much as the children do.
They even actually make their own fan films set in the fictional universe, or
going a stage further, creating their own lightsaber duels. How far can these
adults go? Well, there are some who actually attempted to MAKE lightsabers.
Which probably worked well.
So again, there is great passion from adults on something
that wasn't aimed at them in the first place. George Lucas apparently
envisioned this movie on the documentary Empire
of Dreams as a call-back to the science fiction movies of his youth, like
the original Flash Gordon serials of
the 1930s.
The final piece of this slowly easily done puzzle is looking
at J.R.R Tolkien's first novel, The
Hobbit. The book that introduces the world of Middle-Earth in the first
place, The Hobbit is widely
considered to be a children's novel. Poveda stated that:
This work does not aspire to achieve the emotional or moral
intensity of The Lord of the Rings
(2003-2004: 8)
So what this means is that The Hobbit is not as deep as its successor series in terms of
bringing out the emotional conflicts. It is a simple book of adventure and
journey to get their home back from a DRAGON, called Smaug. His parents must
have been cruel. Oddly enough, the book's first review actually came from a
publisher's son called Rayner Unwin whom said it would be "appealing to
children aged 5 and 9". Well that is a good way of knowing your book is
good enough for kids.
Unlike the Transformers
and Star Wars, merchandising wasn't
invented in the 1930s for such popular literature at the time. The book was
simply popular on its own without the need for promotional products. But with
the The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
released last year (and still a great film), of course there comes the
merchandise with toy figurines made and book annuals for kids to sample on and
make money for the corporations.
But again like the others, there are adults who do enjoy the
books as much as children do. Jon Michaud (writer for the New Yorker), actually believes that it is superior to The Lord of the Rings, stating that
"it was a perfectly balanced meal of its own-one that left you feeling sated
instead of gorged" (2012: New Yorker). For some, they find more deepness
in the story. Theresa Russ Ph.d states that: ...there's something more poignant about the pull to home,
the way Bilbo is lifted out of everything he knows (2012: Ventura County Star)
The deepness here is the longing for going home, which is a
major theme in the book and film. Bilbo of course misses home, but so do the
Company of Dwarves. They had lost their home in the first place and are
determined to get it back.
One quote that sticks to this part of this article is posed
by Corey Olsen, a Tolkien professor. When asked about if The Hobbit was a children's book, he answered:
It is true that The Hobbit was written with an audience of
children primarily in mind, yes. But what of that? Why should we assume that a
book intended to be enjoyed by children should necessarily be beneath adults?
This assumption is never true of good children's books. In The Hobbit, Tolkien
deals with many complex and important ideas, and by the end of the book, in
particular, he has gone into some pretty deep waters (2013: Houghton Mifflin
Hardcourt)
Here it is meant that any children's book can be enjoyed by
the adults as well, if the books in question are received warmly. Olsen claims
that The Hobbit does have some complexities despite it's simple structure, with
notions of greed and temptation intercut with the characters. As I was watching
the film again, Bilbo states that DRAGONS hoard gold and Smaug basically took
over the Lonely Mountain (where the dwarves lived) just for the gold. But it
does also show that Dwarves can be as greedy, as the old
King-Under-the-Mountain became obsessed with the gold his people amassed over
the years. So the characters have quite three-dimensional personalities, more
then you can say for Transformers and other shows.
Speaking of those shows, I also believe this quote not only
relates to the Hobbit, but also to the same media I talked about. Yes, those
materials and other programmes were intended for children or other reasons in
mind. But as I've shown, adults have become thoroughly interested in these
fantasy media, and this will continue because adults will find something in a
fantasy world that connects with them or arouses their interest.
So as this sections shows, certain fantasy shows and films
MIGHT be tailor made for children, but the adults are just as passionate for
such material, such as getting a kick out of the fantastical characters and the
stories of Good vs Evil. In addition, not only is the notion of fantasy only
being for children contradicted, but it does connect with what I mentioned with
Disney in the first section. If adults have a vested interest as much as
children does, it reveals that the whole genre of fantasy can appeal to
everyone.
Or does it?
One fantasy series at the moment that is definitely NOT for
children is Game of Thrones. I have gone into quite a bit of detail of Game of
Thrones last fortnight so I'll try not to divulge too much. In the series and
books, Game of Thrones has a lot of fantasy elements like DRAGONS, a massive fucking
wall, mythical creatures and lots of armies. But the series does hold a great
deal of realism in its world and keeps some elements that make this world more
relatable to us.
First, and most obviously, is the inclusion of sex. The
subject is never mentioned when two characters fall in love in a fantasy novel
to the best of my knowledge. But in Game of Thrones, it is all over the place.
In bed, in a church, on a ship, in a tent etc. Maybe that's what inspired that
Nickelback song 'Next Go Round' (If you'll excuse me, I'll just go clean myself
after mentioning Nickelback and Game of Thrones in the same
paragraph...........................................................................................................there
we go). Has there really been a proper fantasy book or series that has full blown
sex scenes before your eyes?.........and erotica doesn't count in whatever
answer you have.
Second, the gore. Keeping with the realism of a war-torn
world, blood is all around. And I quite enjoy it to an extent, especially where
some of the battle scenes are concerned. Blood is necessary in a series like this
because it keeps to the realism that people will draw blood when killed, and
not just shot with an arrow. But it can be over the top with the tearing off of
limbs like that priest who got eviscerated in the King's Landing riots. So I
wouldn't defend it so much.
Finally, the characters. In most fantasy series, it's a
clear cut world of Black-and-white, where we know who the good guys are and who
are bad (those wood-elves in The Hobbit are still dicks though). But in Game of
Thrones, it's all a grey area. No one character is completely good or evil,
they all have a mixture of different traits to give them believable personalities
and make them more human. Catelyn Stark is a good example. She loves her
family, but excludes Jon Snow because he isn't her son.
If a child saw Game of Thrones, it would cause problems with
the parents. Children are not mature enough to understand how the human body
works or probably accepting that the line of good and evil isn't always
clear-cut. It would more than likely traumatise them with the amount of deaths
shown and learn stuff before their time. It's our contemporary society, to
protect children from such things until their old enough. It is a thin line to
cross because children will be curious about their body and life in general,
but a series like Game of Thrones must be kept away from them at least for the
time being until they are ready.
Granted, Game of Thrones is the exception if fantasy can
appeal to everyone because of its content. But I'd still stand by my point
because it seems very rare to have the inclusion more realistic concepts in the
fantasy genre. Each fantasy setting do
make a connection with many people, whether they have turtles with Italian renaissance
names, giant robots that turn into vehicles, and journeying into a different environment
on another world of orcs and elves and Brian Blessed lookalikes. They appeal to
our imaginations in a grounded way for us to escape to and live out, before
reality drags us back in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasy then is a universal thing for each and every-one of
us, not just for children. And if we ask the same question that we asked the
beginning of the article: Has Fantasy evolved into something for children?
Yes it has because over the years, the connection has become
like a Chinese Finger trap: very hard to break. But adults of today will always
find a place in their hearts and minds to hold such memories of childhood
stories, even though they're no longer designed for them. JRR Tolkien wrote an
essay called 'On Fairy Stories' and he sums fairy-tales for children up thus:
At least it will be plain in my opinion fairy-stories should
not be specially associated with children. They are associated with them:
naturally, because children are human and fairy stories are a natural human
taste (though not necessarily a universal one); accidently, because fairy stories
are a large part of the literary lumber that in latter-day Europe has been
stuffed away in attics; unnaturally, because of sentiment about children, a
sentiment that seems to increase with the decline in children. (Tolkien)
He believes that fairy-tales shouldn't be just for children
because even though fairy-tales (and in my eyes fantasy) are perfectly tasteful,
they have become judged to be part of a child's world and not that of an adult.
Tolkien goes on to say that the old folk tales are changed instead of being
preserved, resulting in those stories becoming ridiculous and uninteresting for
all concerned. In changing views on how we perceive childhood, it's not a
surprise how we as adults try to create a protective fence so to say around
children, or maybe even around ourselves.
But maybe the simple fact is even though we grow up, fantasy
will always be there for adults to read, watch, and learn about as we already
know from what I have found out. And it will never go away.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's it for this
week and I hope I haven't burned your brains out hehe. In light of recent
events that have happened this week, my next subject matter will look at
Margaret Thatcher. Hopefully we all might learn something. Or not.
See you all soon!
