I was amazed, even saddened, at the way in which one of your readers deciphered an article. This article was not about world, national or even local events. This incredibly effective article was found on the front page of the Comics section, Feb. 20, in the strip "Calvin & Hobbes."
Granted, "earth-shattering" headlines and vital issues hardly ever rear their heads in such a forum, so it is understandable that when they do, it causes the reader to think twice. However, it is distressing to see that when such an important issue is addressed, its meaning is misinterpreted and misunderstood.While this reader recognized part of what Mr. Watterson was saying, and I quote: "The man is beating on the woman; the woman retaliates by blowing a hole in him. There was absolutely no comedy there, and it was not entertaining," he did not catch Watterson's point. No, this kind of thing is not funny, neither is it entertaining. The point is, while we (the "adults") focus our attention on how violent and vile television is, while we fret about the negative effect that it has on our children, we fail - just as Calvin's mother failed - to realize that much of the other media that our children have access to is just as violent and just as vile as many of the programs on television.
I am not endorsing unilateral censorship. Just because Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother is eaten by a wolf is no reason why I cannot tell my children the story to instill a fear of strangers. The story of Cinderella doesn't make children grow up and be cruel to their step-brothers and -sisters. There are many things on television that are acceptable for younger viewers. However, senseless violence - on the television, on the big screen, in print - is just that: senseless.
I don't believe that every child today craves violence as the media would have you believe; I certainly didn't when I was young. However, our children are being placed under a veritable barrage of negative messages from sources other than television, and lose the ability to judge for themselves.
Watterson was using his own medium to portray the type of "social conditions [present] in our communities . . . [which] should not be promoted." Perhaps the artist had a deeper meaning in his work . . . is that so unheard of?
Jaren K. Rencher
Salt Lake City