That's a kind of fluffy article, is it not? I don't interpret it as trying too hard to find a profound truth about life, it's a slightly long-form quip.
The buildup sections on nostalgia and the sometimes questionable quality of many cartoons in that time period don't seem too controversial to me, but it's not heavyweight analysis.
The one bit of meat where the author takes a bit of a stand and states the opinion that makes up the headline is where I don't agree.
I thought I'd write only a few lines on this, but I found at the end that I failed in that regard.
But maybe all this is doing the kids a disservice. The toons are totally engaging, but they’re consumption-only transactions—no action-figuring needed.
Any archived and recreated media is consumption-only.
I shall state my opinion that if these shows only had one redeeming value, and I don't think things were that dire, it would be that they were something the kids loved.
That's what inspired untold hours of make-believe and put together stories, not the fact that some TV shows' writers did not have the means, the permission, or in some cases the desire to do a better job with something.
It's a perfectly common and easy idea to put forward, that something good came because of some completely uninspiring failure or some so-watered-down-it's-homeopathic extraction of one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
It's the sort of cliche I imagine someone writing down with that smarmy smug brow from a Dreamworks animation poster.
Give a kid a story or characters to love. It's human to want to make a world out of the things one loves. You can do all sorts of gimmicks like sawing a multimedia presentation in half by junking the audio, or you can try to find good raw materials for learning what goes into making a story. For the carnivorous readers out there, I'm advocating teaching a kid how the fictional sausage is made, not ripping the bratwurst out of the bun and telling them the empty bread and grease imprint is a learning experience.
Telling a story that leaves the audience wanting more can be sufficient motivation to put together new ideas or mentally assimilate tricks or devices that could be useful later.
Note that a story can leave them wanting more without it being itself wanting.
I think there can be a perverse benefit to seeing exemplars of poor or shoddy work as cautionary examples--a form of literary autopsy as to the cause of a story's death, but overall I wouldn't put as much emphasis on that little silver lining.
Providing good examples that show what it is like to use a sound plot structure, storytelling devices, and allusions to other works can reveal that there is so much a storyteller can do to make words or pictures turn expectations on their head or to evoke emotions and the senses.
I think minds can still be creative when given something good to start with.
Is it necessary to credit widespread child malnutrition if a famous gourmet chef came up from a hard childhood where he frequently went hungry?
by Kraps (?) » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:11 pm
"We can't all ride the Ferris wheel!"
but holy jeepus, what a run.
What could they spend all that money on?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to rent a moon?
And extras! Lots and lots of extras!
