Toys, books, clothes, brands…the “kid” market has seen epic growth in the past 50+ years. And during that time people have made entire careers in research, test marketing and quality control for all of those products and services.
So you would think that they would be pretty good at this by now. That they could identify mistakes and problems that would be immediately obvious to the parents who are buying this stuff.
And for the most part they are. But I tend to think they’re a little too busy arguing over exactly how many eye slants should be available for a Mii or whether the clasp on the American Girl doll’s Kelly bag truly replicates the original. Because sometimes the less subtle details slip through the cracks…
OR maybe it’s just getting what you pay for. The good people at Nintento and American Girl are probably hiring all of the best “talent” and the less sexy jobs are filled with mediocre professionals who don’t care enough to bring their A game to the drafting board.
This would explain some rather disturbing things that I’ve found in our toy box lately.
First – the cheap My Little Ponies that I recently bought for Eleanor (you know how she loves her Ponies). These mini-sized versions are more novelty item than toy and don’t include the luxurious magenta manes that make the original ponies so beloved by little girls all over the world. Instead, they are 100% plastic. Kind of like My Little Pony action figures.
They look pretty normal right? Well – that’s what I thought until the boys got hold of them and proceeded to snap off their manes.
But here is the disturbing part: the ponies aren’t broken. The pony hair seems to be removable. It snaps right back on.
So then I thought it might be a mix and match manes thing… Not so much. The manes are pony-specific. So what does this mean? Why is that fun? How does removable hair figure into play? Do little girls play “Pinkie Pie goes goes to her chemo treatment?” Chemo ponies don’t seem like a big seller to me…
Joking aside – it’s just cheap construction. Probably involving sweat shop labor in a third world country.
What bothers me more is a disturbing trend I’ve found in some children’s literature. We have at least two books that turn Darwin’s survival of the fittest theory on its head.
Now, I understand that if you are going to read books about animals who walk, talk, wear clothes, go to school and live in houses with central air, you have to exercise some suspension of disbelief. But I also think that the writers should be somewhat responsible about it.
If a children’s book author decides to “go there,” then I honestly believe that they should be thorough and consider the implications attached to everything from turns of phrase to illustration details. Sadly, it seems that poor choices and flat out hack writing prevail.
Two books in particular keep me up at night. One of which is The True Francine by Marc Brown.
Those of you with children who watch (or those of you who are young enough to remember watching) Arthur, the popular children’s show may be familiar with this series and the characters in it – all of whom are animals.
I won’t even get into how they live in the same community yet manage to maintain all bunny/all monkey/all mouse/etc. families without any inter-species marriages, because my head might explode. But I will say that this 28 page book manages to contain two instances of text that any child might call into question.
The first is ridiculous. Look at this group walking to school, discussing the teachers they might get:
All animals right? So are the teachers you see them imagining in those thought clouds. But then Buster (a bunny) makes this joke:
HUMAN blood. Does this mean that the word “human” can be interpreted as referring to all sentient creatures, or that there are human farms on the outskirts of town and the animal kids are concerned with “human” rights?
THEN, we learn that Muffy (a monkey) who is teacher’s pet tells Mr. Ratburn that “the cat ate her homework.”
I wonder what Sue Ellen thinks of that…
There is also a strange mention of Francine’s pet gerbil, but I think that’s enough about this anthropological nightmare.
The other book is one from Rosemary Wells’ Max and Ruby series:
This one takes a different approach to animal characters by asking us to assume that only bunnies made the Darwinian leap. And there are plenty of birds, frogs, and other small garden animals wandering around to add weight to that.
But in both the books and the animated series, we see a creepy assortment of human dolls in the bunny house.
Every time I read Max Cleans Up, I’m struck by this anomaly and wonder where the real humans are. Obviously, they exist for the bunnies to use them as models for their dolls, but they don’t actually appear in living form.
Is this some kind of Planet of the Apes thing where humans are a slave race and maybe Max and Ruby are too poor to afford one of their own? I think not since there are plenty of scenes outside of their home, and you would expect to see some hulking humanoids doing manual labor or carrying bags for their bunny masters.
The other possibility is that the human race is extinct, yet cherished in cuddly form by bunny children, much in the same way our human children love dinosaurs. Either way – the issue is not addressed. Am I the only one who finds this weird?
Most other mothers I talk to are more concerned by the lack of parents in the Max and Ruby household and the fact that young Ruby is single-handedly raising her little brother with only sporadic help from a loving, yet somewhat dotty grandmother. In fact I’ve read two posts on this subject so I think that it has been adequately covered.
Ultimately – it comes down to editing. And there is an obvious breakdown in the system here. Bald ponies are a risk you run when you buy cheap plastic toys, but one would think that publishing companies would have a bit more integrity.
So you can add another concern to the list of disturbing things our children are viewing. Step aside guns, there’s a new threat in town. Evolution is the new violence.
Kate, if this isn't the topic of a dissertation, I don't know what is!
Pearl
Those ponies without hair are SUPER creepy.
Those bald ponies are concerning… but I am having plastic-smell flashbacks to the original ponies… lets not say when.
Max and Ruby are still my favorite – but I am glad I'm not the only one thinking their toys were a bit creepy! 8)
I think the sexy eyes of the pony are more disturbing than the removable hair. The My Little Ponies that I remember from my youth were innocent looking creatures!!
Charlie and Lola don't have visible parents either, but that is one thing that bothered me about Max and Ruby, I have no idea why.
The ponies, that's just odd. Maybe they were tested by little boys and it's purely functional, just think how E would feel if they were really broken!
Oh and why don't you pick up Maurice Sendak's In The Night Kitchen, that would be a post in itself!
I guess every generation going back to the brothers Grimm have their scary creepy literature that supposedly teaches something valuable (God knows what). Just give me Good Night Moon…that's something safe to go tosleep with
I don't know. I think those ponies are kind of rocking the bald look. Very 21st century. Go on with your bad selves, hairless ponies!
What's the world coming to? Removal ponies? That's messed up.
First, those My Little Ponies – what the hell happened to them? They are weird – especially with the manes snapped off. And as you pointed out – why do they snap off anyway?
As for the books, I have to say that I think many kids books – new and old, are messed up, if you look at them closely. Look at nursery rhymes too: rock a bye baby (baby falling from tree).. ring a ring a roses (bubonic plague).
With kids books, I'm not sure whether authors think, oh well, kids won't notice strange things going in in the plot, or whether they do it deliberately? I'd be interested to know.
And don't even get me started on Max and Ruby…
Excellent post!
Have to agree about the baldy ponies! My oldest is a big Arthur fan, and it always bigs me that he has a dog! Kind of like Mickey/Pluto!!
Those chemo ponies are too, too funny! I'd say you ruined the memory of my childhood toys, except they've pretty much all been ruined already by the TV show "Robot Chicken." In this case, they redid the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as "My Pretty Pony Apocalypse Ponies." To the tune of the original theme song. Which I now can't get out of my head.
Scott and I have had one or two conversations about Max and Ruby's missing parents. You had me laughing a lot in this post. I can't stand cartoons unless it's a Pixar movie. Then I'm all in.
I've been catching up on your posts. I'm sorry I haven't been around. I've been seriously neglecting the blogosphere.
You crack me up. I know, I know, it's creepy. AND funny. What about "I Love You Forever." That is the creepiest book ever written.
When he rocks his mother? She stalks him across town? Weird.