Super Why Not
Okay, that's it. I can't take it any more.
My son watches Super Why on PBS almost daily. It's a part of our breakfast lineup, in between Sid the Science Kid and Clifford the Big Red Dog. The Kinglet loves it because he's big on the alphabet, and the show features lots of spelling games and letter hunts and whatnot. But to me the show is vapid, hypocritical, and, and, and damn-near sacrilegious. I mean, in the sense that classic stories are sacrosanct.
In each episode, some member of the Super Readers gang encounters a life-dilemma. Should I eat this cotton candy even though my tummy hurts? Should I give my friend one of my basket-full of apples even though I want them all to myself? The character doesn't know how to handle it, so he or she calls all the Super Readers to their secret library lair, where they cast a magic spell to pull down a book that can give them advice on how to solve the problem. Then they hop in their flying machines and fly INTO the book, where they will see how classic storybook characters solve their conveniently-similar dilemmas.
Sounds like a parent's dream show, right? Teaching kids that valuable wisdom can be learned by sharing adventures with colorful characters inside a book?
Yeah. No.
For one thing, the Super Readers never just watch the story unfold. The Super Readers are always a catalyst to helping the storybook characters get by. It's the Super Readers that convince Jack to sing the Giant to sleep, or the Little Mermaid not to be ashamed of her fish tail, and so on. The storybook characters always insist that they can only act in one way, because that's what's in the story. But by changing the story, the Super Readers introduce new ideas that help bring about a happy ending.
Which begs the question: if the Super Readers never entered the book, how could the book ever reach a conclusion? The classic storybook characters would all be moping around without ever solving a problem because without the Super Readers' magical powers they would be bound by the dictates of their given stories.
But even if you ignore that little paradox, Super Why presents versions of the classics that are not just truncated or watered-down, but out-and-out WRONG. For example: in the Super Why version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the little boy can't convince the villagers that there is actually a wolf hulking around until the Super Readers convince him to throw a party and invite the wolf to come show himself and make friends. Or in today's episode: Hanzel and Gretel regret eating part of the witch's house and desperately want to tell her they're sorry, but the witch won't come to her door when they knock on it.
When I see these episodes I want to throw something at my television and shout "No! That's completely missing the point!" Because, of course, the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf was a LIAR who got eaten because everyone was tired of giving the benefit of the doubt, and Hanzel and Gretel were naive little throw-aways who almost get eaten by a child-killer-canibal. The stories may be dark, but the lessons they teach are valid. Don't lie. Don't eat strange people's houses. Don't be stupid.
Reinventing the stories and attaching new, feel-good morals does a terrible disservice to children's literature. It's reprehensible. It makes me want to write anti-Super Why letters with words like "disservice" and "reprehensible" in them and, and, and... post them on my blog. If it weren't for my child's love of letters and it's convenient time-slot, I might even think about changing the channel.
So, there.
My son watches Super Why on PBS almost daily. It's a part of our breakfast lineup, in between Sid the Science Kid and Clifford the Big Red Dog. The Kinglet loves it because he's big on the alphabet, and the show features lots of spelling games and letter hunts and whatnot. But to me the show is vapid, hypocritical, and, and, and damn-near sacrilegious. I mean, in the sense that classic stories are sacrosanct.
In each episode, some member of the Super Readers gang encounters a life-dilemma. Should I eat this cotton candy even though my tummy hurts? Should I give my friend one of my basket-full of apples even though I want them all to myself? The character doesn't know how to handle it, so he or she calls all the Super Readers to their secret library lair, where they cast a magic spell to pull down a book that can give them advice on how to solve the problem. Then they hop in their flying machines and fly INTO the book, where they will see how classic storybook characters solve their conveniently-similar dilemmas.
Sounds like a parent's dream show, right? Teaching kids that valuable wisdom can be learned by sharing adventures with colorful characters inside a book?
Yeah. No.
For one thing, the Super Readers never just watch the story unfold. The Super Readers are always a catalyst to helping the storybook characters get by. It's the Super Readers that convince Jack to sing the Giant to sleep, or the Little Mermaid not to be ashamed of her fish tail, and so on. The storybook characters always insist that they can only act in one way, because that's what's in the story. But by changing the story, the Super Readers introduce new ideas that help bring about a happy ending.
Which begs the question: if the Super Readers never entered the book, how could the book ever reach a conclusion? The classic storybook characters would all be moping around without ever solving a problem because without the Super Readers' magical powers they would be bound by the dictates of their given stories.
But even if you ignore that little paradox, Super Why presents versions of the classics that are not just truncated or watered-down, but out-and-out WRONG. For example: in the Super Why version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the little boy can't convince the villagers that there is actually a wolf hulking around until the Super Readers convince him to throw a party and invite the wolf to come show himself and make friends. Or in today's episode: Hanzel and Gretel regret eating part of the witch's house and desperately want to tell her they're sorry, but the witch won't come to her door when they knock on it.
When I see these episodes I want to throw something at my television and shout "No! That's completely missing the point!" Because, of course, the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf was a LIAR who got eaten because everyone was tired of giving the benefit of the doubt, and Hanzel and Gretel were naive little throw-aways who almost get eaten by a child-killer-canibal. The stories may be dark, but the lessons they teach are valid. Don't lie. Don't eat strange people's houses. Don't be stupid.
Reinventing the stories and attaching new, feel-good morals does a terrible disservice to children's literature. It's reprehensible. It makes me want to write anti-Super Why letters with words like "disservice" and "reprehensible" in them and, and, and... post them on my blog. If it weren't for my child's love of letters and it's convenient time-slot, I might even think about changing the channel.
So, there.