Deconstruction Zone — Part 2 | AWN | Animation World Network

Deconstruction Zone — Part 2

Dr. Toon continues to take on the deconstructionists about the things they read into classic cartoons.

By Martin Goodman | Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 12:00 am

Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: Dr. Toon

Quien es mas macho in Strawberry Shortcake? © 2003 DIC Ent. Strawberry Shortcake character designs ™ & © 2004 Those Characters from Cleveland Inc. Used under license. All rights reserved.

So enamored is Dennis of these ideas that he drags up the conjectures of Saturday Morning Fever authors Timothy and Kevin Burke; Dennis notes that the Burkes suggest possible gay relationships on Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? between Daphne and Velma or even Scooby and Shaggy. However, Dennis, in defense of the alleged heterosexual “shift,” reaches the conclusion that these relationships do not meet criteria for romantic coding.

Any serious reading of this section in Saturday Morning Fever (pp. 105-111) quickly reveals that the Burkes were, in a most un-academic fashion, goofing. In the preceding paragraphs of said section the Burkes also proffer the idea that Scooby snacks were mind-altering drugs and that the Mystery Machine traversed the country selling dope, with the gang as a crew of dealers. As for any specific statements on the sexual orientations of Scooby and Shaggy, the Burkes plainly dismiss the issue: “Sometimes a cartoon character is just a cartoon character” (p. 106).

My skepticism gathered momentum when Dennis suggested that the inclusion of Smurfette into the Hanna-Barbera adaptation of The Smurfs was engendered “... specifically to provide an object for the Smurf’s heterosexual desire and defuse conjectures that they might be “really” gay.” (The Smurfs, it will be recalled, were an exclusively male enclave in their Belgian incarnation prior to U.S. import.) I noted in the article’s bibliography that Dennis used Hal Erickson’s outstanding book Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia 1949-1993 as a reference for the article. The author might have turned to page 458, where Erickson informs readers that the inclusion of Smurfette represented “...bowing to merchandising dictates... the better to appeal to little girl toy consumers.” Young girls represented all-important network rating points as well.


Do the characters from Tiny Toon Adventures (left, with Furball) and Animaniacs have only dating and sex on their minds? Tiny Toon Adventures © Warner Bros. Ent. All rights reserved; Animaniacs Courtesy of Cartoon Network, © Warner Bros.

Now, guess which Smurf was the most frequently merchandised of the bunch? (Hint: It wasn’t Papa Smurf.) In television, economics and profits easily trump nervous assumptions that kids might code The Smurfs as a cheery blue version of Queer Nation. When a highly educated author appears to misinterpret or discount the information found in the very research texts he or she is smurfing, it may be a sign that analytic method driven by subjective viewpoint has taken precedence over the material being analyzed.

Printer-friendly version

Comments

Wow, Dr. Toon! You sure say a lot of dazzling things. I don't know if it's the sources you listed, but there seems to be a strong interest by academics in finding sexual references in cartoons - especially American cartoons intended for children. Most of the cartoons mentioned were created after the 1970's, when educators, psychologists and other professional meddlers started taking intense interest in the content of children's programming. It's amazing and interesting to see the content that they either ignored, slipped under their radar, or they permitted with elaborate rationales. For instance, in its genesis "Ren and Stimpy" was fully supported by Nickelodeon, a network known for its scrupulous examination of the content of kid's programming. For parents concerned about much of the content of the shows - the poop and fart jokes, and the extensive use of buttocks in cartoons like "Powdered Toast Man" - the board provided assurances. A typical statement would be "It's reasonable for children to be curious about such things, it's a natural part of life, and we must make children comfortable with their own bodies and its processes." Without knowing the individuals on the board intimately, it would be only speculation to say they were simply offering excuses for the network's most popular program. Or that they seriously believed what they said, and were deluding themselves about the material in front of their eyes. Or (my personal choice) that they fully accepted the flavor-of-the-month in psychological theories. I know this: the academics quoted in the articles will be picked up and quoted out of context by people who want to censor kid's entertainment - if not all our entertainment. All entertainment media have to contain content about sex, violence, relationships and the like. That's what the humanities are about - they're examples of what it is to be human. This point is often ignored by people who want to censor, especially the parent groups with the loud voices and the burning firebrands. The point of those consultants was to try to control the messages sent by cartoons intended for kids, to make sure they were not receiving hurtful ideas. Not ban such content entirely. There have been many kid shows, animated and otherwise, that trumpet their "harmlessness" to children. I once saw a sales brochure for the puppet show "Gigglesnort Hotel" that had the main character yelling out "NO VIOLENCE!!!" It didn't say the show had any virtues, like it was entertaining or had likeable characters - which in my experience, it didn't. It was what "Gigglesnort" didn't have that was supposed to be its selling point. It was an exercise in negativity. Given the current environment, we're probably headed for a new round of such shows, animated or otherwise. And the kids will find them boring, since these shows ignore or hide aspects of life that the kids know really exist. And they'll hunt down the older, non-censored cartoons (assuming they're not all burned in a torchlight rally) and wait for some new, courageous cartoon series to cut loose again.