Debate Traditional children's stories: bad influence?

So I got to thinking, after seeing this article - the things that children grow up hearing are actually just as violent as television is. When you think about it, the subtle allusions to violence that occur in most children's stories can't really be much better than the in-your-face bloody things seen on evening TV. And violence is just the start of it - there are all kinds of potentially "inappropriate" influences in the things that most people consider acceptible for young children.

I mean, take classic stories like Snow White, Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood. In Snow White, the story begins with the Queen ordering that Snow White be killed and her heart cut out as proof - pretty gory when you think about it. In Cinderella, you've got a situation of verbal and psychological domestic abuse and neglect (Cinderella being mistreated by her stepsisters and stepmother). On top of that, there's a strong message that a girl can't achieve anything on her own, she has to be pretty and kind and attract a husband who will rescue her. (Also, I seem to remember something about the stepsisters getting their eyes pecked out by crows in the original version, but maybe that was the classic Beauty and the Beast instead.) Little Red Riding Hood... well, I recall something about the Woodsman cutting open the wolf's stomach in the end. Lovely stuff.

So anyway, my basic argument is that it's human nature to incorporate violence into the stories we tell our children - it's not just something that happened overnight with the rise of TV and videogames. What does everyone else think? Are classic children's stories a good influence, or are they contributors to the violence and desensitization that everyone likes to blame on the modern media?

 

I won't consider them as "contributors to the violence and desensitization", i mean we don't really hear things in the news about people going out and cutting out peoples hearts because they read about it in Snow White.
Although there is voilance in these stiry it's only in minute amounts, since we're not hearing graphic details of how this voilance is commited (well, maybe except in Cinderalla, although i don't think i've ever actually sat down and read that story), then i din't think there is really that much to worry about. The plot of thses stories is usually about the strugle of the main character (who is usually portraied as a very nice and civil person, whether this is to say only good things happen to nice people i'm not sure) and how they end up living happily ever after with their prince/knight/whatever.
Violance and death seem always to be a part of every story from fairy tales to even Disney, were theres usually at least one character dies (sometimes two, usually one good character and the main villian). I guess this could be a way of the story tellers saying that Death is as much a part of life as living itself, and how it can set off a chain reaction that will lead to a certain event, usually vengance.
Personally i can't really see how these fairy tales can cause that much trouble to the young mind, since most of the story will follow the central character, and even though a horrible fate has been ordered by the main bad guy, it more or less never happens, and it's never in very much detail. So i can't really hold them responsable for the voialance that we have today.

 

Ok, I'm just going to end this all right here.

As a child, I viewed and read TONS of violent media, including fairy tales, videos OF fairy tales (non-Disney also. I tell you its a bit of a shock when the little mermaid gets ready to kill someone), movies at my age were pretty gruesome (Terminator 2, Batman, Jaws...)

I have never commited a school shooting, or even had much in the way of physical fights.

Conversely, Sean, the son of my dads friend, has been completely isolated from violent media and even television in general, and once out of nowhere he said "I'd take my knife and kill them all." Sean was about 5 when he said that.

And Kain, reread the article. There's more violence in fairy tales. This can include murder, consumption of human beings and self mutilation.

Fairy tales are fine.

My suspicion as to what is a cause of the rising violence levels? Sloppy parenting. There's no discipline anywhere. Children, at age 8, should NOT be swearing like sailors and smoking.

 

1. One must realize when most of these stories were written. These aren't brand-spanking-new stories.

2. One must look at the big picture. Does the moral of the story surround death and destruction, violence and gore? Usually not. Most often, these are tales of overcoming huge obstacles. The violence is a bit of flavor.

3. What are the parents doing? As was said before, most acts of childhood violence can be attributed to sloppy parenting, which is then blamed on video games, music, not reading the Bible (speaking of which, just how much violence is in THAT story?)

 

Well, i think we're exaggerating when comparing children stories to violent games and TV.

I mean, a kid listens to cinderella or snow white ONCE. And usually the violent parts are brief. So, compare say, 30 or 200 minutes of children tales (heh) with violent media 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, etc.

And let me tell you something. When I was a kid, my uncle read us children stories, not only the classical Disney, but also written by Hans Christian Andersen. And Tolstoi.

Those stories usually have a moral, a lesson to teach. Compare it with Dragonball Z, power rangers and the like, where the only way to get rid of the world's problems is by killing the bad guys.

What I've seen is that violence has become so USUAL that people stop caring about it, and only become shocked at things much more violent than they have seen. For example, videogames. First was Street Fighter, then Mortal Kombat, and a couple of years ago, Grand Theft Auto.

When I was a kid, not all videogames were violent. Actually, few were. There was Q-bert, and Star Wars (sure, there was a human pilot in those darned spaceships, but all we saw was a spaceship getting blown to bits), jumpman, Spy Hunter... Sure, there were also Bad dudes and Contra, but it can't be compared with today's videogames. And society as a whole was much less violent 15 years ago than today.

From the article, I quote:

And you simply can't compare something you HEAR about (where you can only IMAGINE stuff), that something you see with your own eyes, and even in 3D with photorealistic graphics (or worse, live video).

In my opinion, Dr Adam Fox either has an agenda, or he's just plain stupid.

 

So how come I'm not a rampaging psycho killer due to my repeated viewings of violent movies?

Same here.

Power Rangers did have moral lessons at the end of each episode. Furthermore, there were no moral tidbits at the end of Terminator 2. Why am I, along with most people I know, not extraordinarily violent?

I played games that are more violent than yours. Why am I not a psycho?

So why am I not psychotic? I shot people full of lead in first person shooters, I ran over people in Carmageddon, I saw people utterly slaughtered in the Terminator and Aliens films, yet I'm not slaughtering people today. I watched, read and played everything people blamed for the downfall of society (comics, violent movies, violent video games, Goosebumps books) yet I'm a completely normal individual.

Or as he said in the article, he wasn't entirely serious.

 

Media influence is not deterministic, DOH!

Thanks for the straw man.

 

But you change the goalposts on this debate and ignore parts of the article. Regardless of brevity there are still much more violent acts in fairy tales and nursery rhymes according to the study. A moral doesn't just suddenly remove those violent acts... I mean, depending on which version of Little Red Riding Hood you get, the wolf EATS the grandmother and is later CUT OPEN WITH AN AXE.

And there are illustrated storybooks!

...Come to think of it, was there even a moral in LRRH?

 

Humans need to learn a bit of violence and agression in order to survive. Take for instance the Masai tribe in Africa.. Only the more assertive and agressive children survive because they demand for more milk from their mothers (due to this their mother's produce more milk to feed them). The Masai children who are not agressive in this way end up dying off. So, perhaps it's an adaptive, genetic thing for us humans to teach our children some agression.

But, violence in large quantities, with no way for the kids to get rid of this agressive energy, might lead to regression and other problems. Yay for psychoanalysis

 

I think the moral was something like don't talk to strangers, or you'll get eaten by a wolf that looks like your grandma.

Anything and everything can contribute to a child being violent! Violence is part of human nature, really. I think that it is up to parents to teach children the difference between reality and fairy tales/video games/TV shows/etc. and to show their children that violence isn't always the best solution.

There's no way that violent children's stories are in any way more responsible for violent children than anything else. Suppose a bunny rabbit makes a child angry and then the child decides to get violent on Mr. Bunny's cute little bunny butt? The smallest things can set some people off, and a lot of what a person does is instinct, when it comes to violence.