Well I've got a few people on a book board ready to take my head off because I made the suggestion that Grimm's Grimmest Fairy Tales are not so horrible that they couldn't be for children and a lot are not so different from 'normal' fairy tales. Apparently I don't remember my own childhood reactions as well as I think I do and obviously I don't have kids (obviously) and blah blah blah, children will have nightmares from these stories but they won't from Rapunzel's prince being blinded WITHOUT the revelation she's pregnant, or from the witch planning to cook Hansel and Gretel, or from all the children's friendly Bluebeard stories that exist. I say people underestimate kids and anybody who says these aren't for them needs to read the book for themselves instead of just hearing about the cannibalism and murder and sex and basing their judgment on that alone.

People act like kids can't handle anything NOT meant for kids but they're conveniently forgetting all the kids that watch R rated movies and see people getting killed in every graphic detail, that's not going to scar them but fairy tales are too much for them? And then if ANYBODY brings up 'when I was a kid I read above my grade level and more mature stuff that I wasn't supposed to have and I turned out fine', well just because they did doesn't mean any other child in the whole world is like that, all the rest must be handled with kid gloves and introduced to fairy tales that are all sunshine and happiness, as if any of those existed.

Use your judgement. Some things they cam handle, some they cannot.

I think people generalize kids too much. Some kids are dumb, but some kids are brilliant. I think "what a kid can handle" varies from child to child. And I also think "what they can handle" is too vague a term to really waste time pondering.

I think we do have a lot of stereotypes about kids that only apply to some of them. Kids are different and should be treated as individuals.

Yeah kids are way different from each other and should be gauged individually.

Holy Moley, me thinks I need to read Rapunzel again, I don't remember the prince being blinded or her being pregnant and Rapunzel was my favorite as a kid. All remember is her letting down her golden hair so the price could climb up.

Suzi wrote:

Holy Moley, me thinks I need to read Rapunzel again, I don't remember the prince being blinded or her being pregnant and Rapunzel was my favorite as a kid. All remember is her letting down her golden hair so the price could climb up.

Really? I remember seeing an old cartoon version of Rapunzel that involved the witch blinding the prince so he could never see Rapunzel's beauty again.

Yeah, I remember that but it wasn't graphic. And despite the fact that some children may be better equipped to handle more graphic versions, I don't see a problem with erring on the side of caution. Like there's a chance they will be harmed by not exposing them cannibalism, murder and sex?

Shale wrote:

I just saw this post from one of my friends on FB and thot it fit nicely here:

You know, on Swedish television, there were occasionally this children's show I used to watch from when I was about old enough to understand Swedish until I was about seven.

But they had this storytime segment where they did not censor the stories. So, I got the hear the real version of the Little Red Riding Hood for instance. National television telling a story about a transvestite wolf who ate an old lady and then got into her bed and waited to eat her granddaughter.

Who was saved by a hunter who sliced the wolf's stomach open and then filled the wolf with rocks and sewed him shut, just to have him falling down a well and drowning.

So what is the moral of that story?

None whatsoever, absolute nonsense. The most fucked up part is how the hunter sliced the wolf open. I mean, why not just leave it there? Isn't he pretty much done by then?

What kind of sadistic mind makes up this psychotic scheme which involves filling the wolf's stomach with rocks and drowning it in a well?

But do you know why Swedish television (and it was the state-funded channel, by the way) didn't censor that story? Didn't edit it to make it some generic, inoffensive politically correct hogwash?

Because we're not pussies, that's why. -V

Works for me.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I think people generalize kids too much. Some kids are dumb, but some kids are brilliant. I think "what a kid can handle" varies from child to child. And I also think "what they can handle" is too vague a term to really waste time pondering.

I think we do have a lot of stereotypes about kids that only apply to some of them. Kids are different and should be treated as individuals.

I think in the end it comes down to a matter of choice. If those parents choose to only let their kids read the sanitized Disney baby fairy tales because they truly think their little brains are incapable of dealing with anything else, that's their choice. I choose when I have kids to give them options and let them read more advanced, mature material if they want.