What I researched and why: When I was little, I had a subscription to Highlights magazine. It was a wholesome and educational publication featuring innocuous material ideal for display in a dentist’s waiting room or the backseat of a minivan. Yet my recollections of the magazine’s trademark cartoon “Goofus and Gallant” still arouse feelings of annoyance and disdain. In a series of vignettes, the thoughtless, reckless Goofus portrayed poor behavior, while the opposing Gallant showed the proper actions of a “good boy.” When I first encountered the main character of Jenny Offill’s 17 Things i’m not allowed to do anymore, the mischievous Goofus immediately came to mind. After our debate in class over the merits of presenting Offill’s story to children, I decided to explore further how the creators of the cartoon and book address naughtiness and the messages they convey in doing so.
My Findings and Interpretation: The Goofus and Gallant feature first appeared in Highlights magazine in 1948 in an effort to introduce appropriate social skills to children. Two black and white sketches portrayed the yin and yang of child behavior. The trademark juxtaposed, monochromatic scheme further emphasized the contrast of right and wrong; it also made the section feel contrived and pedantic, the reason I resisted it as a child. Updated only recently, the feature maintains its basic setup but has strayed from its textbook-illustration appearance to be more colorful, cartoonish, and kid friendly – similar to Nancy Carpenter’s dynamic illustrations in 17 Things.
Discovering interviews with the writers behind Goofus and Gallant, I found that many fans placed the cartoon’s success on the ability of children to relate to both characters and realize that traits of each boy were within them. Gallant's scene was the less appealing but necessary message sugarcoated by the wicked fun of Goofus's antics. Chicago Tribune writer Eric Zorn observes in his article Goofus, Gallant – The Inside Story that the “feature never offers direct lessons or shows consequences.” The CEO of Highlights explains, “It simply shows a wrong way and a right way of doing things, that's all.” Children observe the parallel stories and draw their own conclusions. In Offill’s work, all decisions are blatantly the wrong ones. While the cartoon’s objective vignettes excuse its lack of consequences, the absence of discipline for the consistently naughty girl raises concern.
Highlights publicist Tom White described Goofus as "a surly, uncooperative, ill-mannered child. But he is not a sociopath." This description certainly describes Offill's leading character as well. The comfort behind the cartoon and story is that the deeds the "bad" characters commit remain in the realm of excusable childhood acts. Goofus takes the last piece of fruit because he's hungry; the main character of 17 Things orders another meal because what has been served doesn't appeal to her. The lead girl of 17 Things may share the same wild personality and unruly hair as Goofus, but a major problem arises because this story lacks a Gallant to offset her personality.
Applications to Class Discussion: Applying the Psychoanalytical theory, the Goofus and Gallant characters portray the animalistic desires of the id and the conscientiousness of the superego respectively. The audience assumes the role of the ego, finding their own compromise between the two extremes in daily life. The main character of 17 Things displays a raging id with the exception of the final page, when her ego’s mediating influence appears in the mocking line, “I had an idea to say the opposite of what I mean to trick everyone.” Goofus and Gallant present a balanced portrayal of the decisions one may make, but the delightfully bad main character in 17 Things incorporates a wittiness and irreverence that is much more appealing and enjoyable to read. An interesting discussion could revolve around the success of these different approaches. Which has a greater effect: a responsible tale that instills tidy values but barely veils its didactic intent, or a funny, wayward story whose message is eagerly received but a bit muddled in the process? Can child audiences handle the naughtiness of the girl in 17 Things without a counteractive Gallant beside her?
7 comments:
Wow, I hadn't seen Goofus and Gallant in years, they definitely look different, although I like that in both the 1948 version and the current version Goofus has messy hair, (which reminded me of the messy hair of the girl in Offill's book) which links bad behavior to not subjugating and smoothing your appearance into societal expectations of what is presentable. I was quite shocked, too, by Gallant's blind complacency, that he "accepts no for an answer." Gallant, the standard well-behaved child, thoughtlessly follows adult authority, constantly and no matter what. This is such a stark contrast to Offill's girl, who has "ideas," is told "no," but does them anyway and furthermore, has new ideas. In this way, I'd rather hold her up as a role model instead of a passive sheep like Gallant.
When i read your blog I felt like I was returning to my child-hood. Oh my gosh, I loved those magazines, and I think you did an excellent job of relating "17 things I'm not allowed to do anymore" with something from our own child-hood. I think you've made a really good point, perhaps having a "Gallant" similar character next to the little girl in 17 things would give it a more comfortable balance. I'm not sure however, if it would have the same impact as it does as is.
It's interesting how the authors of "Goofus and Gallant" said children felt like they could connect with both character. It seems to be something we continue to come back to as we read all the material for this class. There seems to be a tug-of-war within each child, the good, well behaved, against the naughty, trouble maker.
Anyhow, nice job!
Goofus and Gallant are a great comparison to the girl in Offil's book. As Mariko mentioned, Goofus has messy hair just like the young girl and this messy appearance connects to the "messy personality." I think it is funny that the "good boys" name is Gallant. The word gallant means courteous and poilite and is, oftentimes, related to knighthood. On the contrary, the name Goofus gives one the impression that the boy is goofy, silly or misbehaved. I think it would have been interesting if Offill had given the little girl a name because like Goofus and Gallant, it may have given readers an impresssion of her character. I believe that the young girl in Offill's book is harmless. I do not think that her misbehaving is a threat to society. I think she has a creative mind and she is unsure how to use it. Her "ideas" are simply that. They are not ideas to destroy society, they are silly harmless ideas of a creative young girl. And, as Mariko mentioned, it is better than being passive and keeping your ideas locked up inside you like Gallant does.
I remember Goofus and Gallant. I never liked it very much because I felt as if it was very one-sided and telling instead of thought provoking. Yes, I was a freaky kid. Anyway, there's a book by Judy Bloom called "The Pain and The Great One" that I think is much better. It tells the story of a pair of siblings who are squabbling about a variety of issues, but it tells it from each of their unique perspectives. For instance the big sister talks on the phone and the little brother interrupts. In the section about 'the pain' the older sister complains about how annoying and interrupting and rude her little brother is for doing this, while in the section about 'the great one' the brother talks about how the sister is ignoring him and making him feel inferior because he has no one to talk on the phone with. I think this book prevent s a more dynamic view of naughtiness and conflict while also helping young children to learn about empathy.
This provides a good example of how the "good" and "bad" child have been portrayed in media. Although the two characters Goofus and Gallant are strictly contrasting, they both appeal to us in the class to compare to Offill's character. Though we are showing children "bad behavior" in both the Highlights cartoons and in 17 things, the contrast of Gallant is exceptional to look at. Yes Gallant "blindly obeys" it gives children a reason to be "good". Although Goofus and the girl from 17 things are "naughty" children, they show that you can question what is happening around you, but the answer might not always be a "yes" like they think many of their ideas would suggest. Children need to learn the difference between "good" and "bad" behaviors and actions and I believe 17 things as well as these cartoons show children that they can explore their boundaries, but they may not always like what happens as a consequence to their actions.
It is interesting that "Goofus and Gallant" is still around, since it seems to be a relic of the era of "social hygiene" films and the like, that were shown in the 1950s. Contrasted against modern children's literature, it seems that these days we give children more credit and assume that they can draw their own conclusions and think critically about things, whereas in the past they were simply indoctrinated and social norms, even things as simple as how to brush your hair or properly shower, "had" to be shown to them in films during class. In those days, I am sure that "17 Things" would have been considered a very bad influence across the board, while nowadays there are both critics and supporters of the book and its "bad role model" (who much more closely resembles an actual child.)
When reading 17 Things, I was especially interested in the effect this text could have on children due to the fact that her actions go unpunished. An answer to Jess's question: Yes, I think that children can handle this book and take away a positive message from it AS LONG as an adult helps guide them as they read it. With an adult by the child's side, explaining how and why this little girl's behavior is negative, I feel that the adult could act as a Gallant. This would prevent the child from making their own assumptions about naughty behavior. The book acts as a Goof, and if parents want to allow children access to 17 Things, then they need to be willing and able to act as a Gallant.
Post a Comment