The point I’m making is that a book or movie is not a “safe environment.” Environments are complex things and children have wildly different life experiences, and processing negative emotions like fear and sadness happen outside the confines of the viewing or reading experience.
I understand the point you’re trying to make. But I do disagree with it. And I thought that your hypothetical example-- that it’s bad for a kid to experience Bambi’s mother getting killed because they may just have a drunken abusive parent that will beat them if they ask about it-- was over the top and missing the real point.
I don’t think that trying to completely shelter kids from any and all emotional trauma is ultimately good for them. Introducing them to some of the more painful realities of life in a safe, controlled environment I think is an important step in their emotional development. It’s like an inoculation-- we get a weakened, safer version of the virus, so we learn how to deal with the real thing if we’re exposed to it later in life.
I think you’re the one missing the point. I’m not saying “this is why it’s bad for a kid to see Bambi’s mom die.” I’m saying “this is why we can’t make blanket assumptions about a child’s capacity and opportunity for healthy emotional development.”
In all of human history, these have only been milestones for a couple of generations in a handful of specific Western countries.
Maybe I am missing your point. So you’re saying:
What is your proposed alternative, then? Do you think that children should be sheltered from all emotional trauma in the fictional entertainments they experience as much as possible, or do you think they should be more closely monitored to gauge their particular mental and emotional state before deciding on what they’re exposed to? Do you agree with the emotional sanitization of the upcoming live-action Bambi movie?
In any case, regardless of what your actual point is, I still thank that your hypothetical example, that a kid experiencing Bambi’s mother get killed is bad because they may just have a drunken, abusive parent that witll beat them for asking about it, was not a good way to get your point across.
True, I didn’t make my point very well with that example. What I was trying to say was that, in a larger sense, kids these days seem to be experiencing traditional markers of developing adulthood, experiences that allow them to make mistakes, have succcess, and learn about life in general, later and later in life. Childhood seems to be extended these days to an unhealthy degree.
Reminds me of a button I saw at a science fiction convention
"My name is Bambi
You Killed my mother
Prepare to Die!"
Disney should do an animated version of “Come and See”. If you know, you know.
I don’t think there’s anything to agree or disagree with. If the movie is enjoyable then the movie is doing its job. If a parent feels like little Johnny really needs to see some deer murder to toughen up and become a big man or whatever, it’s not like the original doesn’t exist anymore.
I’m not taking a stand on whether children should be “completely sheltered from all emotional trauma” in fiction, so your repeated use of that phrasing in our conversation feels like a strawman. There are no simple answers here, and “kids these days!” dialogues tend to be about imposing our extremely limited personal perspectives and lived experiences on everyone else.
I’m comfortable saying that I think it can be healthy if the child has the capacity to process it.
I’m sorry the example was ineffective and got you hung up. I’m glad your life experiences have taken you to a place where considerations like that do not feel relevant.
In regular every day use, your environment is your surroundings. If you’re at home, school, the movie theater, a park, etc., etc., that is your environment. I’m not a child development expert, so feel free to expand on when you mean by environment.
That seems reasonable and I guess that’s why we have parental discretion. Parents are free to decide what to expose their children to.
Bambi is all my time favorite Disney movie. From what I can remember we don’t actually see his mother die do we? I remember his mother telling him to run, then hearing a gunshot and then he’s alone. The best parts of the movie are his interactions with Flower and Thumper. Just remembering some of their conversations makes me tear up - in a good way. I don’t know if it’s their voices or what, but I become very emotional during certain scenes. " That’s alright, he can call me a flower, if he wants to". Look up the scenes on YouTube. They are so sweet.
As strawman is an intentional distortion of an opponent’s viewpoint in order to win an argument. I’m not trying to win an argument or pull some sort of ‘gotcha’, I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. What I said was:
Those are two different viewpoints I was asking about, and I would tend to agree with the second one much more than the first. I was trying to sound you out on what you do actually believe as an alternative, because I thought you were being kind of harsh to the OP when you said this:
So I was just asking, if you’re that opposed to the OP’s viewpoint, what is your alternative?
Now, this is feeling like a bit of a strawman to me. At least, it’s dripping with sarcasm. Can we dial back the rhetoric a bit? I consider you one of the more reasonable posters here, which is a high bar considering the quality of minds here (myself excluded, perhaps 
), and I’m not trying to make an enemy of you.
There’s dumbing down and there’s dumbing down…I worked at a video store from 2000-2002, and one week a kids’ movie came in, and animated Titanic film. I thought the back cover copy was hilarious, as it stated that nobody dies, and everyone goes off on great new adventures. Just looked it up, and I think this is it, reportedly one of the worst movies ever made as per this writeup.
An “alternative” implies that there’s a right or wrong in the initial assertion, which is that it’s good for kids to be exposed to trauma in fiction. I don’t have an alternative because the concept is much too nuanced to say “it’s a good thing” or “it’s a bad thing.” I’m arguing, instead, that it’s bad and, yes, dangerous, to make broad assumptions about what’s healthy for all children when it comes to stuff like this.
I have a friend who read Watership Down way too young. It gave her nightmares for weeks.
It probably played out like this: I know how smart she is and I’m sure she was both reading and comprehending well above her grade level. Watership Down is a deeply disturbing novel underneath the rabbit violence, and she was apparently capable of absorbing at least some of it. But she was too young to process it, even with a decent support system at home. So, nightmares. Trauma. Not the kind that teaches you life lessons, but the kind that disrupts your life and potentially creates problems down the road.
She laughs about it now, but I’ve heard her talk about it on multiple occasions and she only brings it up when the conversation is about bad experiences. The book left a mark.
And it only left a mark because of all the positive factors in her life! Good education that developed her natural talents, access to a library, free time for reading, etc.
If she’d been a little older when she read it, or if her compression had been a little less developed, it probably would have hit her differently.
That’s what I mean when I say you can’t make blanket statements. Nuance is terribly important.
You’re right, and I would have edited it out but I saw you were already responding and knew I’d have to take my lumps for it. I appreciate you calling me out and I apologize. It was unacceptable.
Yes, it is a nuanced issue. I completely agree with this, and I wasn’t making broad assumptions about what’s healthy for all children; at least, I wasn’t intending to. For that matter, I don’t think the OP was, either.
When I asked you:
This is in line with my viewpoint. I have two kids with very different personalities and temperaments. As parents we definitely made choices as to what kinds of information to expose them to as they grew up, and at what ages, depending upon the state of their individual intellectual and emotional development at the time.
I think what is a broad assumption is to decide that we should try to sanitize all forms of children’s entertainment so that all are exposed to life’s realities as little as possible. I’m not saying that’s your viewpoint, I’m saying that seems to be what the OP was expressing concern with.
We try to shelter our children from things we feel they’re not ready for yet, but we need to prepare them, too. We can’t shelter them from everything. At 13 I read The Shining, a book that my parents most definitely would not have approved of at the time. I was shocked, not so much at the supernatural stuff, but at the vulgarity and ugliness of the language and behavior of the adult characters. Though, regarding the supernatural stuff, I was afraid to open the shower curtain for a couple weeks afterward.
No apology necessary, I just didn’t want us to get in some sort of feud or misunderstanding unnecessarily; I didn’t think our viewpoints were all that far off.
See, I think this is the strawman, or the product of one. I don’t think anybody (outside of unserious groups that are advocating ideologies rather than in the interest of children) is actually trying to bowdlerize the world.
Instead, we get something like the decision to make a change in one movie, and then lots of performative handwringing by conservative groups that the libs are softening our children and something should be done, and then conversations like this one where we’re asked where we stand on a “sanitizing all content” debate that never existed in the first place.
For every decision to unmurder a deer there are a hundred video games and cartoons that are much more explicitly violent than anything Disney ever made or ever will.
Well, I think attempts to ‘bowdlerize the world’ (nice phrase, BTW) do happen more often than you suggest. And on the conservative and liberal sides of the coin; I don’t think any one ideology is more or less guilty of it. Conservatives have had burnings or library bannings of books like The Catcher in the Rye or To Kill a Mockingbird.
I did briefly mention video games in an earlier post in this thread. Yes, video games are much more explicitly violent, but in a cartoonish way (cartoonish meaning the buckets of virtual blood that quickly lose any shock value, not the style of graphics) that has little or no emotional context attached to it.
Contrast that with the scenario: a parent decides their child is mature enough to see the original Bambi. The child is emotionally invested in Bambi and his mother, and feels real grief at the death of the mother. Hopefully the child and parent talk this over afterward, and the experience helps the child to process and understand the feelings related to the potential loss of a loved one. I’m not saying that’s the best or the only way any and every child should have an early exposure to trauma. I agree, it’s nuanced, and every child and situation is different.
When does Bambi go into the public domain? Someone could make a movie that’s identical to Bambi, until the bit where his mom is shot and he meets his dead. This time we get an elaborate training montage as Bambi and his forest friends prepare to take revenge on the hunters. Bambi trains all winter, and in spring as the forest awakens he prepares to reap his bloody vengence upon the humans encroaching on the forest.
Call it Bambo: Wild Hunt.
Every year I read the book Sal and Gabi Break the Universe with my class. It’s a tremendous novel, full of laughter and science fiction and identity and character growth and heartbreak. Almost all kids have adored it.
A few years ago, though, one kid was slacking off. He wasn’t completing the reading, so during our weekly discussions, I’d have him go to the back of the room and read. Week after week. At some point, I looked back and just saw him lying down and staring at the ceiling.
When I talked with his classroom teacher (I’m an AIG specialist), she told me, “His mother died over the summer, and he’s sometimes pretty upset about that.”
And that’s when I made the connection: a central plot of the book is that the narrator’s mother recently died, and he keeps (sort of) bringing her back from the dead. This poor child in my class wasn’t slacking off; he was desperately trying to avoid overwhelming grief.
So, I don’t think you’ve framed the question very well, and I can’t answer it as framed. But I will 100% say that sometimes a child isn’t in a position to confront certain traumas in fiction, and we gotta respect that.
Disney caught a lot of flak back in 1942. There is a legend about when making Lady and the Tramp at the end when the dog paddy wagon is upset and falls on Trusty the bloodhound, Jock the Scottie looking sadly at where he was last seen. Seeing this, Unca Walt said, “Wait – the dog dies?”
“Well, yeah.”
“I got in enough trouble with Bambi’s mother! Bring him back!”
He was added, leg in a cast, in the final scene.
My husband, a clinical psychologist, made a similar complaint in a psychology forum and was lambasted for being “ableist.” No, we have a situation where young people are increasingly unable to cope with life, but the problem isn’t a lack of parental death in kid’s cartoons. It’s complicated, but it involves parents sheltering children from risk and accountability, indulging their desire to avoid anxiety triggers, and failing to teach them problem solving and other skills needed for resilience.
ETA: It’s not all parents. There are a number of external factors contributing as well.