Sometimes people overreact to literature. That is because often people are very stupid. Sometimes though it’s because they missed the point. Someone once told me that they didn’t like a particular children’s book because at the end, one of the characters shared his gift with the others so they were all equally special.

“Why should I teach my children that they have to share what they’ve earned?”

I was a little taken aback and didn’t really say anything. What I should have said was, “So they grow up able to interact appropriately.”

The book is not promoting communism or mud-brick living. It is aimed at little kids who are inherently selfish and need to learn the basics of sharing and cooperation so that they can be part of civilization in the future. I thought it was pretty obvious, but clearly I was mistaken.

On the other hand we just bought a copy of Jack and the Beanstalk for M. She quite likes it and refers to the giant as Daddy. Fair enough, the giant is a lot bigger than everyone else in the story and I am a lot bigger than everyone else in M’s world.

Anyway, Jack grows a huge beanstalk which he then climbs up to discover a giant’s castle. He then breaks into the giant’s castle and steals everything that is not nailed down and flees when the giant wakes up. I’m not sure this is a positive message to be sending to impressionable minds. Luckily we have the watered down version. In the original material, after breaking in and stealing everything, Jack also kills the giant.

I can imagine the future “Beanstalk Defense” being used in court.
“Your honour, my client was read Jack and the Beanstalk as a child and so the idea of breaking into someone’s house and stealing their stuff and then killing them when they try to get it back is something that was an accepted part of their world from a very early age.”

Comments (3)