World Famous Comics: Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence
Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence
By: Gerard Jones Publisher: Basic Books Average Rating: Binding: Paperback Label: Basic Books Number of Items: 1 Number of Pages: 272 Publication Date: 2003-05 Release Date: May 06, 2003
Children choose their heroes more carefully than we think. From Pokémon to the rapper Eminem, pop-culture icons are not simply commercial pied pipers who practice mass hypnosis on our youth. Indeed, argues the author of this lively and persuasive paean to the power of popular culture, even trashy or violent entertainment gives children something they need, something that can help both boys and girls develop in a healthy way. Drawing on a wealth of true stories, many gleaned from the fascinating workshops he conducts, and basing his claims on extensive research, including interviews with psychologists and educators, Gerard Jones explains why validating our children's fantasies teaches them to trust their own emotions and build stronger selves.
Solid All in all Jones' arguments are coherent, strong, persuasive, and based in reality. Too often, in their zeal to `do right', people on both ends of the political spectrum rush to foolish conclusions, often unsupported by science, such as the endless streams of studies that merely repeat the fallacies about violence in the media and violence in reality, despite not a single causal connection being shown. Jones states: `One thing the study pointedly does not show is that children became less aggressive because they saw less violence.' And he similarly disposes of the idiotic arguments that fake violence desensitizes people to real violence, using 9/11 as the perfect example of that not being so, by quoting children who described their horror at witnessing a real violent act that looked like make believe, thus doubling its horror. He even goes back to the modern genesis of this `desensitization' argument, the Kitty Genovese case in 1964, where a woman was murdered and dozens of people heard her scream for help but did nothing. Jones brilliantly shows that this was not, in fact, due to her neighbors being desensitized to violence by living in a violent neighborhood, and thereby not caring, but being far too sensitized to violence, to the point of being paralyzed with fear over interceding in the crime. That incident, like Columbine, the Oklahoma City bombings, 9/11, and even the 1920s Leopold and Loeb `thrill killing' case were not harbingers of violence, but freakish deviations from the norm. He also shows how violence in the media usually peaks after violence statistically wanes, thereby powerfully supporting the argument that violence in the media reflects and follows reality, not the other way around. Because of these and many other insights I heartily recommend Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, And Make-Believe Violence for all people, not just parents. It takes well-researched and argued analyses like this to sometimes ground the well-meaning, but hell-bound, worst elements in our society from killing fleas and gnats with machine guns.
Invent a controversy, then cash in This book is not worth the paper it's printed on. The whole point of this book is to create a tempest in a teapot so that the author can move inventory. Don't waste your time.
True Premise , False Conclusion Of course children need great methods of dispersing anger (drive discharge psychological model), however as our household saying goes "you can't shoot people or pets". With TODAY'S estimated 10,000 media witnessingings of killing or maiming for kids during their youth only, we are in a different world than the author grew up in, period. When this author grew up, fantasy was clearly out of the bounds of real life; cowboys, indians and aliens. Our little imprinting offspring, hardwired to do so, live in and are buoyant in oppressing instances of REAL violence and now know all too well that violence is not FANTASY or a rare, crazy bank robber. It is everywhere, seeping in as more and more NORMAL. Being aggressive is not wrong, its how they do it, hmmmm, oh yeah, just like us.
Strong on Dragons "Most of us know what we should expect to find in a dragon's lair, but, as I said before, Eustace had read only the wrong books. They had a lot to say about exports and imports and governments and drains, but they were weak on dragons."
-The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 5, Full-Color Collector's Edition), C.S.Lewis
I suppose I'm not so different from most boys. I grew up watching Star Wars and Godzilla movies. I also ran afoul of some "concerned women" who objected to my tastes. Too bad. So many women marry men, but they never realize that when you marry a man, you also marry a boy. If you don't get this, then you probably have no clue about The Complete Calvin and Hobbes (Calvin & Hobbes).
So Gerard Jones spoke to me. And I think he gets it right. Not just with Make-Believe Violence of "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians," but also with videogames and television-cinema-cable programming. As he explains in Chapter 8, the issue has been politicized. Consequently, politicians look for the cheap scapegoats and easy answers. As Jones observes, "The first causality in any war is the truth." (11).
In the concluding chapter, however, he lists some benefits of Make-Believe Violence:
Achievement feels good. Goals are achieved through complete commitment. Clear choices must be made. Sometimes conflict is useful. Sometimes shattering old ways is necessary. Loss and defeat are survivable. Risk has its rewards. We can feel fear-but do it anyway. Monsters can be destroyed. Self-assertion is powerful. Simply being me is heroic. (222)
The key, of course, is sublimation. These energies can be channeled in positive directions.
Jones gets to the Aristotelian taproot. Art is cathartic (131, c.f. The Philosophy of Aristotle (Signet Classics), Poetics, Book 6). This is why kids get into artistic violence--it resonates with their experience. Of course, art is not merely cathartic, but can also be didactic. It is when violence not longer is artistic but becomes didactic that it becomes problematic.
Jones makes a distinction between degrees of violence: G, PG, PG-13, R, and so forth. The main weakness is nomenclature: "violence" is a loaded word. There is violence in the Smurfs and there is violence in JFK Reloaded. And there is a difference between the two.
One question Jones does not raise is "What is the context of the violence?" Is self-defense a legitimate reason for violence? Is chess, with its knights and pawns, a violent game?
Another area is Jones's intellectual framework. The first few chapters discuss the problems and aspects of the issue, but only in Chapter 8 that we get his worldview. He lays his cards on the table and discusses his personal pacifism, he rejection of traditional gender roles (which is funny--gender roles are anatomically and biologically obvious), and his Secular-Progressive-Liberal ideals. Of course, the question is why would a pacifist advocate violence in art, since art is a mirror of nature (Hamlet (Dover Thrift Editions) 3.3.)
To the point: violence is a metaphysical reality. G. K. Chesterton said "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved." (Orthodoxy).
Jones swerves into the truth of the matter when he asked a child about the blood-spatters in the video game. The lad replied, "It's part of violence, right? It would be a lie not to have it." (177).
Exactly.
Violence is a fact of life. By not including violence--physical or mental--we are causing more harm than good. We harm children because we lie.
C. S. Lewis commented:
"Those who say that children must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can't bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil.[This is the metaphysical question again].
"If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the . . . atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. (On Stories: And Other Essays on Literature).
This leads to another question: Can violence be constructive? Tolstoy-Gandhi-MLK would say no. But Joan of Arc (female empowerment), Henry V, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would disagree. From the white blood cells in the autoimmune system to World War II, violence does seem to have its "sweet uses."
Jones includes two chapters that deal with females and violence (Chapters 5 and 9), with is noteworthy. But any statement about females and violence rests upon assumptions about males and violence. As to why females can relate both to Indy Jones and Marion Ravenwood, or males identifying with Buffy Summers, see Jung et. al. Man and His Symbols.
Overall, the book is well written. Easy prose and no technical jargon made this book a rare pleasure. The only thing that should be noted is that Jones is a writer of screenplays and comic books, so there is the "bread and butter" issue with his position. But he is up front about it.
Surprising Book I bought this book to inform my daughter about the role of fantasy, especially violent fantasy games in young people's lives. My grandson is interested in realistic gunplay and it is disturbing to her.
Even though the author is a bit suspect in that he is actually part of the entertainment industry, and responsible for his fair share of violent oriented comic books and cartoons, I have to admit I found him extremely thoughtful. I guess I was expecting that a person who draws juvenile cartoons for a living to be somewhat thoughtless and irresponsible but I was very pleasantly surprised.
Gerard Jones has written a book that every mom with sons (and daughters) should read. You may find some of what he says disturbing. You may not agree with everything he says. But you will come away with an enhanced appreciation of what makes your son (daughter) tick.
I was very impressed that Jones took so much time talking to kids, interacting with kids, teaching kids, and most important, learning from kids. I have to admit being very prejudiced against violent games. I guess I'm still prejudiced against violent games, but I understand their function better now.
Finally, this book exposes politicians and shoddy scientists who try and convince us that our prejudices are correct using studies that ask only the questions they want answered. It is really an indictment of a system that continues to fail our children. That we are quick to blame external forces for behaviors we barely understand. It is so easy to blame video games for horrible acts like Columbine. Jones shows us that politicians are quick to point to superficial answers to complicated problems because getting to the root of things is just way too complex and costly.
The next time I see a government report that purports to "explain" a human phenomenon in simplistic terms you bet I will take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
This is really an essential book for all parents, teachers, and anybody who cares about the well being of our kids. It does not provide all the answers, nor does it claim to. But it does examine in some detail the interaction of children with violent games. It will have a profound effect on people with an open mind.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
