Posted by KL Clark on 12/17/99 from 150.191.4.82:
In Reply to: WAR! posted by Edwin M. Kiser on December 15, 1999 at 05:51:55:
Interesting that the adult violence of Peter Duck doesn't come under fire here, or is it a case that adult violence is understood while child violence (or violent/potentially violent play) is somehow aberrant.
I spoke to my 9 year old son last night (I've just started the series with him and we've finished SD) about some of the issues raised: Nancy's arrow in SA - he thought Nancy might have hit the Swallows if they hadn't ducked, but he didn't think there was any danger that they *wouldn't* duck! (Twisted child logic? I can see the sense... just); the attack on the camp in SD - he didn't think the Amazons would have done anything but jump down on them screaming some hellish pirate battle cry.
Then re the "betrayal" in SW - it was more of a stalemate iirc, with the Ss not willing to become savages and the As not willing to be explorers, I can't imagine a better solution than the one that was - temporary change of alliance.
And the comments made earlier about contact sport I endorse wholeheartedly, though even they are being made safer for children these days. Children set parameters for their games when adults aren't around, sometimes those paramaters don't mesh with "sensible behaviour" but occasionally children allow fairly rough stuff (headbutting someone in the belly, for example) before they pull someone up for breaking the bounds.
My daughters outnumber my son 5 to 1 and I can say that at least boys' rules of play are transparent - there's no way I can navigate the rules girls play by (not even then, when I was a girl).
KL