Imagine having the fictional character you respected as a child completely torn down by overanalyzing literature Nazis.
Such is the fate that has befallen a much-loved children’s book character. Babar, the elephant who stars in the book series and movies of that same name, is not just some innocent story read to children by parents before bedtime.
According to a recent article in the New Yorker a few weeks ago, Babar is in fact an allegory for French colonialism. So, instead of being a charming tale for children, it could in fact be giving them nightmares of the horrors of the French occupation of Africa. Or not.
Why do people feel the need to overanalyze something until it’s basically ruined? Is it because they had a story ruined for them as children, and have since never recovered, so they feel like they should ruin other children’s childhoods? Or maybe some people just have way too much time on their hands. I think it’s the latter.
I remember when there was that purple Teletubbies scandal. Apparently everything about the purple color of the suit, triangular headgear and occasional use of a purse and skirt was symbolic of homosexuality. Parents were outraged when this theory started making headlines.
People were seriously angry that their children might be exposed to anything related to homosexuality. If no one had brought up the fact that a lot of the things the purple Teletubbie had could be interpreted as gay symbols then maybe people wouldn’t have gone crazy.
If a Teletubbie had been accused of being a symbol for heterosexuality, I highly doubt anyone would have tried to get the show taken off the air.
The same goes for Babar. If someone had found symbolism for the settlement of Western America (Hello, California. Goodbye, Native Americans), I’m not sure how much people would care. I think it all has to do with how someone views the interpretation in question.
After careful analysis and study, I have come upon an as yet unnoticed allegory.
“Winnie the Pooh” is not a book series about a cuddly bear: It is a series that promotes spousal abuse and male domination. Pooh is actually an acronym, which means Portly Old Obnoxious Housewife.
Many times throughout the books, Pooh attempted to think for himself, but he is almost always told that he is “silly” and “old” and neither not smart or appreciated. Christopher Robin discourages Pooh thinking for himself, which is basically teaching little boys to keep their wives from thinking.
The illustrations in the books only add insult to injury. On the last page of “The House on Pooh Corner,” Christopher Robin is seen dragging Pooh by his arm up the stairs. This book is basically a manual teaching young boys that it is OK to subdue their wives by physical means.
I think that given enough time and energy, pretty much any children’s book or show can be analyzed and twisted into some kind of allegory. I did it with a story as innocent as “Winnie the Pooh.”
Most children’s books revolve around simple stories, so it isn’t that difficult to try to find something that isn’t there because there isn’t a lot of evidence within the story to contradict it.
It’s easy to make assumptions, but I highly doubt most of these are true. I choose to maintain my childhood innocence and refuse to let outside theories corrupt the joy of reading these stories.