Laura 'ad astra' Ackerman writes...

I read _Viewing Violence_ which came to me attention from your comments. First off I would like to [publicly] compliment you on your modesty. You said she described Gargoyles (specifically Deadly Force) as an example of violence portrayed responsibly. That is an understatement- it was the ONLY such example she gave in cartoondom, and, at least for the first half of the book, non-educational children's program in general. That far I had seen her recommend just three television shows highly and without reservation, and those were Sesame St, Mr. Rogers and Gargoyles. Next up was Barney; its banality outweighed by its gentleness. Then Star Trek for its optimism; but only for children old enough to have truly begun to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Later she praised a host of the less pointlessly caustic family sit-coms ranging from Full House, to the Cosby Show to Roseanne that she felt dealt with the smaller day to day issues young children have to learn. Gargoyles got as much positive attention as ET and Stand By Me.

She did seem to put Gargoyles in the wrong chapter, although she probably did so to deal with cartoons as one unit. At that point she was dealing with shows appropriate for the very young before they have a sense of either fantasy versus reality or long-term perspective. Gargoyles fits into the next age group in which she felt it worthwhile to demand exactly what episodes like Deadly Force gave: real consequences.

Another thing the book had pointed out to me was the prevailing pessimism of today. I knew that crime has been dropping to all time lows and yet people are not feeling safe, but I had never connected it to entertainment so directly. [I had thought of violent media as symptomatic not causal, now I think it is both.] It made me stop and realize (among other things) that Gargoyles, despite its wonderful moodiness and difficult issues managed to be an optimistic series. Considering it is a series that starts with a massacre and has several powerful episodes that end on very low notes (ex. Metamorphosis, Sanctuary, etc) it is quite an accomplishment.

The author did not seem a fan of animation. In fact she seemed to think that little had changed since back when cartoons were more blatantly just merchandising and 'moral messages' were simplistic and tacked on. She did not seem to think about adult audiences being a big issue with cartoons, and didn't deal with other cartoons that might have strong adult fan followings. [Well..., she did say she didn't like X-Men.] Considering all that, I find it more impressive that she dedicated so much time to Gargoyles. It is impressive to have won her praise despite her bias, and given her focus on only young audiences, a good sign that the official target audience was well served.

While I did not agree with some of what she said, the book did make me think a bit more carefully about what I choose to watch.

Here is where I get totally subjective:
I really wish that Disney paid more intention to such things. I had enjoyed the Disney Afternoon increasingly leading up to Gargoyles, but less so after. In my opinion the following shows slid from respectable to hit or miss and finally to disappointing. Ultimately they ceased to be the most impressive force in Tv cartoons. [Now WB has taken over despite its over reliance on Pokemon. Fox is pushing hard, and the Cartoon Network grows stronger and stronger.]

I know that Disney is a business first and foremost, and I do not begrudge them being profitable- in fact I wish them great prosperity, but they do market themselves as Americana and a responsible influence on the country and world youth. I think they succeed most when they stay true to that vision. When they place profitability before vision instead of second or at most equal to it, the results are often formulaic and forgettable. I would have liked Disney to nurture and give time to Gargoyles above and beyond other offerings precisely because it was of such a high quality. It was a departure and radical in some ways, but in others, specifically the ways that _Viewing Violence_ spoke about, a logical extension of what Disney is all about. Still, I do realize that other times Disney has taken the high road profitability took years to become evident. The initial Fantasia was considered a flop, and I am very curious how well Fantasia 2000 did financially. Television is not a forgiving medium, and cartoons are very expensive.

In hindsight I can say Disney chose the wrong approach because it meant backing away from animation just before so many other studios were getting interested and anime influenced offerings were becoming mainstream. I realize some of it had to do with major broadcasting changes- namely acquiring ABC and the rise the WB as a network with its own competing programming, but I wonder, especially now that Disney tries to market Toon Disney, if there aren't execs slapping their foreheads and shaking their heads over some of the decisions made over the last few years. And if those execs exist, are they thinking, "How did we lose that advantage?" without a real sense of what they did to lose it, or are they looking at specific shows and saying, "that was real quality, why did we let that go?" Truth be told, the failure to are Deadly Force makes the second seem unlikely.

By now I have turned my praise relating to the book to a ramble, so I will stop.