When "No" is too subtle, Drama seems the only way

[oloriel]

Yesterday we had a minor (or maybe major? I'm not yet sure) familial crisis because of... Shockheaded Peter.

For those of you who are blessed in not knowing the book, let me just say that in my personal opinion Shockheaded Peter should only be looked at by people who are also old enough to emotionally handle movies rated 16+. The only people who need to read the book are maybe students of German literary history and/or infant psychology (How Not To Do It). Everyone else can happily go about their lives without a single line, and certainly without a whole poem. By no means should young and impressable children be exposed to it, even though the otherwise self-censorship-happy German printing businesses still lable it as "suitable for kindergardeners".

That's because older generations judge the book differently. In part because "they grew up with it and it didn't do them any harm", and in part because they have actually fond childhood memories of it. (Of course, some of the rhymes are funny or at the least entertaining; but let us not forget that they have been written to instill in young children a holy terror of thumb-sucking, rocking their chairs, not eating the soup mommy put in front of them and other dreadful sins. Yes, part of them is digestible; the rest has been specifically designed to traumatise children into obedience, which, I know, was considered a good way of turning them into productive citizens back in 1845 when the book was first published and, in fact, well into the 1970s. By the time they themselves become parents or even grandparents, they only remember the jolly rhymes, because of course at that point you're no longer afraid of the taylor with his scissors coming by to cut off your thumbs no matter how much you suck on them: You know that sort of thing doesn't really happen. I dare to postulate that a three-year-old may not in fact realise that.

(Excursus: A couple of years back, my cousin Ricardo was going on vacation with my parents and me. Don't quite recall how old he was -- oh wait, it was the year that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had been published, so he must have been 6. Late kindergarden age, in other words - at an age when even I would previously have accepted Shockheaded Peter as not necessarily a must-read, but manageable.
At any rate, my mom (shocked that her youngest brother - Ricardo's dad AND a bookseller - had never brought a copy of Shockheaded Peter home for his boys) read the book out to Ricardo. He was terrified, utterly terrified. My mother found this very puzzling because (much to her disapproval) Ricardo had already watched the first Lord of the Rings movies along with his older brothers, and those movies are rated 12+, and he's only 6, and all those monsters, and he wasn't terrified of those!
The important difference being, of course, that a six-year-old very well understands that Orcs and Nazgûl and Dark Lords don't live in our cities (he might even be aware that they don't exist at all!). Thumbsucking, on the other hand, tends to be a real-life experience for a six-year-old; he may even have been reprimanded for it, so the idea that a mother might go so far as to let someone radically solve the problem once and for all is just a little step from what he already knows. The terrors of Shockheaded Peter are laughable for adults, but they're not clearly distinguishable from reality for little kids! Yes, even if it's got Saint Nick appearing (oh wait, kids that age may well believe in St. Nick! oopsie!) and if cats can talk.)

So, because older generations have "happily" and "harmlessly" grown up with Shockheaded Peter, they still consider it suitable for kindergardeners. In fact, Felix has not even reached (conservative) kindergarden age ("3-6") yet. BUT NEVER MIND. At any rate, his doting grandmother (not my mom, but the other) has been quoting lines from Shockheaded Peter to Felix. I voiced my disapproval; she said "Well, it's only a few lines and nothing of the bad stuff". As it was, it's been from "The Dreadful Story of the Matches", but only the beginning, when little Pauline is just prancing around and discovering the matches, and the two cats are raising their paws and protesting that Mommy Has Forbidden You To Touch This. Not the part where Pauline disobeys Mommy and the kittens and burns all up, Look at her works, ye infants, and despair. So I figured I had to let it pass.
Felix, to nobody's surprise, loved the funny verses and has since been repeating the lines he's heard.
I mentioned my discomfort with this fact to the mother-in-law, again. As long as it was only these lines, OK, no harm done yet; but let's not take it any further, OK?

That was clearly waaaay too subtle, because while on a trip to the bookstore she bought a whole copy of Shockheaded Peter. (Quite pointless, by the way, because she already owns an anthology of funny German verse-stories unsuitable for little children that I asked her not to show to Felix anytime soon, but never mind, it's so easy to forget about these things!) Yesterday, while both she and my own parents were visiting, she produced the book. I said I did not feel the time was right.
"But it was written by a pediatrist - he should know!"
Yeah, because 1845 pediatrists were surely on a totally modern standard as far as childrearing is concerned. Ahahahahah.
"But it says 'kindergarden age' on the back!"
Tradition totally overrules my concerns, of course!
"We all grew up with it and it didn't do us any harm!"
I told the episode of Ricardo on that train journey to Tuscany. My mother had already forgotten about it and now felt guilty again, ten years later. (I did not make it up; it's in her travel diary, too. I checked this just now - just in case!)
At this point, Felix came running for granny, who beamed proudly and said "Look what granny brought" and opened the book for him.

At that point, I snapped.
"'Ooooh, I'll always respect your opinion where childrearing is concerned, and I'll never interfere,' she said", I said. "'I'll always ask before giving anything to Felix, and accept your judgement,' she said."
Stunned looks from her; Jörg jumping in: "But I don't have a problem with it!"
"Then we should settle that before anyone makes a decision."
"Nothing needs to be settled, you never said you had a problem with it."
I then left the room (possibly uttering something along the lines of "Kiss my butt, you do what you want anyway".)

No, I'm not proud of that scene. I'm not proud of dashing the mother-in-laws excitement, and I'm not proud of snapping at her, particularly in front of my own parents. I wish it had gone otherwise; but what's done is done.

However, I still think my outbreak wasn't entirely unjustified. It didn't come "out of the blue" as Jörg later said, at any rate. I have regularly expressed my disapproval - not to him, because he wasn't the addressee, but to his mother. I probably shouldn't have been surprised that she either didn't give a fuck or just didn't listen (which is more likely), but somehow, I always am. It's the same thing with the sweets she constantly brings for Felix: She always SHOWS them first, then asks if he can have them. At that point, I can either be the asshole who ruins Felix' anticipation (because he's already seen the treat, of course), or nod my OK. No pressure! I have asked her not to do that, but by now of course he knows that there's always something in her basket for him, so the point is moot anyway. Yesterday, she also complained that his first action, after acknowledging that "Granny is here!", is to go "What's in granny's basket?" Well, it's what you trained him to do! -- But I know, bringing up other peeves while arguing one point is bad style, so I'll shut up about that.

Suffice it to say that she left in a huff, Jörg insists that the two of us have to discuss that even though I feel that he could more easily play the middleman. He also insists that there's nothing wrong with letting Felix have the book, and surely his opinion is as valid as mine. As much as mine, but not more so, I hope! I am willing to discuss the matter with him and figure out a time (before 2027) at which I'll accept Felix' exposure to Shockheaded Peter. Yes, I am willing to accept some kind of foul compromise, even though let's face it, we have a very conservative family model in which I, the mother, am the fuck responsible for raising the kid (and dealing with his traumata, too!) while daddy earns our bread and butter, so in all honesty I think that in questions of education I should have a 75% vote at the very least. BUT NEVER MIND. Take your 50%, but I do insist on settling such questions BEFORE creating faits accomplis and then going "Well I didn't know you minded!"

And quite honestly, ignore me and don't do as I ask, but then do me a favour and stop blabbing your beloved "I'll always respect your judgement about childrearing, and I'll always ask before giving Felix anything, and you'll always have the last word!" mantra, because it's clearly bullshit. If you meant "I'll only listen when it suits me, and I'll do whatever the fuck I like, because I'm a grandmother and grandmothers are allowed to spoil their grandchildren and/or otherwise interfere with what their mothers think is right", then just SAY so. That way, I won't be surprised into bitch mode.

Yes, yesterday was bad form, and I wish it had gone otherwise; but at least neither Jörg nor his mother can say they never heard me disagree. But of course, all I can do now is feel guilty and worried and upset. Fuck it.

Comments

[barbardin.livejournal.com]

And quite honestly, ignore me and don't do as I ask, but then do me a favour and stop blabbing your beloved "I'll always respect your judgement about childrearing, and I'll always ask before giving Felix anything, and you'll always have the last word!", because it's clearly bullshit. If you meant "I'll only listen when it suits me, and I'll do whatever the fuck, because I'm a grandmother and grandmothers are allowed to spoil their grandchildren and/or otherwise interfere with what their mothers think is right", then just SAY so. That way, I won't be surprised into bitch mode."

THIS!

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Ehrlich, das ist womöglich der Teil, der mich am allermeisten ankotzt. Das sagt sie nämlich mit schöner Regelmäßigkeit (dazu dann noch "Das war mir bei meiner Schwiegermutter auch sehr wichtig und Gottseidank hat sie sich dran gehalten"). Dann sollte sie sich ganz vielleicht auch dran halten! Oder eben gleich dazu stehen, dass sie nicht vorhat, das zu tun. GRAH.

Wahrscheinlich bin ich total ungerecht und sie versucht's wirklich und schaltet bloß einfach ab, wenn ich eine Antwort gebe, die ihr nicht ins Konzept passt, weil SIE hätte in meiner Situation ja was Anderes gesagt. Und da kann sie gar nichts für und so. Und ich bin gemein, weil ich ihr die Freude verdorben habe. Und mit meinen Eltern würde ich bestimmt nie so reden. (AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!)

[barbardin.livejournal.com]

Ich weiß nicht, für mich klingen deine Bedenken völlig ok und es geht ja nicht um IHRE Freude, sondern um Felix. Ich weiß noch, dass ich das Buch ganz furchtbar und unheimlich fand. Es hat mir Angst gemacht und ich war alt genug, mich heute noch daran zu erinnern. Auch wenn das wohl keinen ernsthaften Schaden anrichtet, muss das einfach nicht sein und das Kind hat definitiv keine Freude dran. Also wer ist hier nun egoistisch? Die Oma, die das will, weil es IHR Freude macht, oder die Mutter, die Tränen und Alpträume beim Kind kommen sieht.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Danke.

EDIT: Jörg wird wahrscheinlich als Gegenargument anführen, dass wir erst vor ein paar Tagen darüber geredet haben, dass Kinder Realität und Fantasie besser auseinander halten können, als viele Leute zu glauben scheinen. Aber dabei ging's (von meiner Seite!) erstens um ältere Kinder (Grundschulalter!) und zweitens um Kinderfilme und Märchen usw., die ja nun doch tendentiell ein gutes Ende nehmen. Beim Struwwelpeter muss man ja schon von Happy End reden, wenn die Kinder am Ende nur krank im Bett liegen oder von Kopf bis Zeh mit Tinte überzogen sind und nicht etwa verhungert, verbrannt oder verkrüppelt. Das macht schon irgendwie einen Unterschied. Find ich.

[silver-trails.livejournal.com]

Grandmothers always interfere, so what I did was this: If the interference was acceptable to me, I let it pass. If it wasn't, I stopped them there, with harsh words if necessary. Like: It is not your business, but mine. I decide.

Honestly, sometimes they mean good, but if they don't listen, it's your right to stop them. I remember my father always brought sweets to us. He did it with my daughter, because my mother took care of her while I worked. She asked me to tell my dad to stop doing it before lunch. He said: I won't. I said: Then remember that I leave my daughter in mom's charge, not in yours.

I know it sounds harsh, but sometimes it is simply necessary.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that used to be the rule here, too. (She herself keeps propagating it, which is maybe why this pissed me off just so much: Why say that you'll always let me decide when in reality, you always act first, ask later?)

I also feel that this debacle was apparently necessary, but yeah, it was harsh and I'm now beating myself up about it. >_>

[silver-trails.livejournal.com]

Don't beat yourself too much. Things should improve after this, and if they don't, all the more reason you had to stop things now.

[faelkchen.livejournal.com]

Wir haben uns gerade vor einer Woche noch im Familienkreis über dieses unvermeidliche Buch unterhalten. Meine Generation (meine Cousine, 14 Jahre älter als ich, meine Schwester, jünger als ich und ich selbst) hatten nur fiese, sehr unangenehme Erinnerungen an das Buch. Ich mag die Bilder und Verse nicht einmal ansehen, so schlecht wird mir heute noch davon. Ich fand Bücher schon als Kind super und hab bei jeder Gelegenheit eins vor mir gehabt - aber dieses (und es war eine schöne Ausgabe), hab ich gehasst, immer schon.
Verstehe also absolut, warum du das Felix (noch dazu in dem Alter) nicht zumuten willst und hoffe, du kannst dich damit durchsetzen, Diplomatie hin oder her.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

An meinen Erstkontakt mit diesem Buch kann ich mich nicht mal konkret erinnern (Verdrängung? ;)). Ein paar der Sachen haben mich damals schockiert (bzw. ich weiß noch, dass ich mich bei Friederich dem Wüterich gefragt habe, wer denn "seine Gretchen" ist, die Schwester oder Kinderfrau oder Freundin oder was?), aber ernst genommen habe ich es glaube ich nicht mehr. Das kleine Häschen, das den heißen Kaffee vom Jäger abkriegt, das hat mir immer Leid getan. Ich konnte einfach nicht glauben, dass die Mutter vom Suppenkaspar ihren Sohn eher verhungern lässt als ihm halt was Anderes vorzusetzen. Ich meine auch, mich zu erinnern, dass man mir damals erklärt hat, dass die Geschichte vom Paulinchen so gar nicht passieren könnte und dass der Schneider beim Daumenlutscher doch gar keinen Schlüssel hatte.
Aber da konnte ich auch zumindest schon selber lesen. Und es hat mich noch genug gequält...

Und ja, der Kleine ist 2. Ja, möglicherweise hat er jetzt vor allem Spaß an der Sprache und den Reimen, aber die Bilder sind trotzdem dabei, und er guckt sich Bilder seeeehr genau an!
Argh.

[fallingtowers.livejournal.com]

Du kannst Deiner Schwiegermama schöne Grüße von mir sagen: Meine durch und durch konservative Mutter hatte das Buch aus unserem Haushalt verbannt, und zwar in den späten 1960ern. Der Grund: mein ältester Bruder (ca. 3 oder 4) wollte von ihr die Schneiderschere borgen, um meinem daumenlutschenden Bruder #2 (ca. 2 Jahre) selbige sbzuschneiden.

Natürlich hab ich es dann prompt unten in der Bücherkiste des Kindergartens gefunden (zu der ich freien Zugang hatte, da ich bereits lesen konnte und die Erzieherinnen eingesehen hatten, dass es so am leichtesten war, mich "ruhig zu stellen" :D). Ich hatte als Kind allerdings panische Angst vor offenen Flammen (lange Geschichte). Also hatte ich natürlich nach der Streichholzgeschichte gleich einen Heulkrampf und nächtelang Alpträume, und alle mussten mir hoch und heilig versichern, dass man nicht zu einem Häufchen Asche verbrennt, wenn man mit Streichhölzern den Adventskranz anzündet...

Die Zensurversuche meiner Mama bezüglich Grimms Märchen sind kläglich gescheitert, aber das Struwwelpeterverbot hat gehalten. IIRC haben danach auch die Kindergärtnerinnen das Buch "entsorgt" - ich glaube, meine Mutter hat das mal nebenbei erwähnt.

Außerdem finde ich, dass Du a) als Elternteil und b) als momentan hauptamtliche Mutter, sozusagen, ein gutes Recht hast, die Richtlinienkompetenz in Sachen Kindererziehung zu behalten, v.a. da Felix ja noch so klein ist. Und erst Recht, wenn sich die Großeltern einmischen.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Das ist es halt, man kann so überhaupt nicht voraussehen, ob das für den Knirps jetzt einfach nur "eine Geschichte" ist oder eine Geschichte mit Realitätsbezug oder doch eine Handlungsanweisung...

Gegen Grimms Märchen (in der "stubenreinen" Fassung ;)) habe ich nichts, die haben 1. ein Happy End und 2. hinreichend fantastische Figuren, dass man da schnell klären kann, dass das nicht "in Echt" passiert. Aber Struwwelpeter muss ich jedenfalls ganz sicher nicht haben, und GANZ sicher nicht für einen Zwei-ein-Drittel-Jährigen.

Finde ich auch, aber da scheinen wir wohl zu gutmenschlich unterwegs zu sein.

[cowboy-r.livejournal.com]

1) It sounds like you have good reason not to think this book is appropriate for someone your child's age.

2) You spend the most time with your child, and have the best handle on what he might or might not be ready to appreciate.

3) We can't choose our inlaws.

4) We also can't shoot our inlaws. Damnit.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

1) I like to think so.

2) I like to think so!

3) Nah, and most of the time, Jörg probably has more reason to complain about his than I have to complain about mine.

4) Actually a good thing, because otherwise we might do it on the spur of the moment and then regret it later. >_>

[hhimring]

Not all children react that strongly to the book. But nevertheless it's not the sort of book that you should be inflicting on children unless you're sure they're old enough to understand your explanation that none of it's for real. Basically, they need to have some kind of concept of things being historical first, I think. And Felix is clearly far too young!

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

Of course not. But some do, and while it's impossible to guess how much of it gets through to the individual child, I'd a) like to be able to guess better and b) like to be able to defuse it, as you say!

[lindahoyland.livejournal.com]

She should respect that you know best for Felix. I was terrified by a certain book as a child, but can't recall the title.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I'm not always 100% sure that I know best, but - in her own words! - "If I make mistakes in bringing up the child, at least I'll know that they're my mistakes!"

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

I'd never heard of this book, so I went and found An English version (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12116/12116-h/12116-h.htm). OMG, you're so right; it's highly inappropriate.

Shock-headed Peter himself is scary-looking enough to give some kids nightmares. My own child would have been utterly horrified and heart-broken by Cruel Frederick hurting the animals - what kind of childrens' book features pictures of murdered pets?!? Then we have Harriet burning to death, and the demon tailor cutting off little Suck-a-Thumb's thumbs... no, absolutely not! There's no way I would even have considered showing those to any child in my care; they're far too twisted.

The rest of the poems are not so bad. I like the great Agrippa's dealing with the Inky Boys: it served them right, and the prospect of getting dipped in ink by a wizard is not something most kids would worry about. The Man Who Went Shooting seems pretty harmless too. Augustus Who Would Have No Soup was in a poetry-book of my childhood, and I remember thinking he must be ill, to stop eating and die in just five days like that, but that no one realized, because they thought he was just being naughty. Fidgety Philip and Johnny Head-In-Air are useful illustrations of realistic (but not horrific) consequences. Flying Robert might be a little alarming to a literal-minded child, but too far-fetched for most to worry about.

So: Felix doesn't read yet, and if you act quickly enough, you can just remove the objectionable pages from the book with a razor, so he never notices their absence. Even if he does notice, you can make no comment.. If his grandma notices and says anything, you can say that you didn't like to take her present away from him, but you won't have him exposed to these bizarre and violent 19th-century images. That ought to make the point.

As for Jorg, perhaps he is not clearly understanding the ancient and fundamental principle, that when the Mama says "This is not good for my baby", NO ONE gets to contradict her, not even the Papa. It is never okay for him to allow anyone - including his mother - to bully you into 'giving in' on a question of your childrens' well-being. Whether he agrees or not, whether he understands your reasons or not, his job is to back you up. "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" - the fact that it matters to YOU means he needs to treat it as important, whether or not it matters to him.

The world is full of beautiful and appropriate childrens' books. There is absolutely no reason to expose children to an ugly, creepy one. I don't know how it is in Germany, but I can tell you that book would draw a storm of parental complaints in any American day-care or kindergarten; there's no way it would ever be considered acceptable.

.

[oloriel.livejournal.com]

I never gave an in-depth look to the English translation because it's a pretty awkward translation in the first place, so I'm currently totally fascinated by the names. In the original, Harriet is Pauline, Augustus is Caspar, and Agrippa is St. Nicholas!

In The Man Who Went Shooting, the baby hare gets scalded with hot coffee, and I always worried about it.

I dunno, I bet if there were some sort of comparable work exhorting children to avoid actual modern-day dangers - like, Johnny-Head-in-Air being run over by a car, or little Harriet/Pauline going home with the nice stranger who bought her sweets, and what happens then - the elderly generation would be falling over themselves to get the book banned because it's too horrible. But it's totally fine if it's traditional!

She took the book along with her when she left, so either she got the point or she's going to show it to him in secret (which would be such bad form that I wouldn't worry about being impolite anymore). No cutting out of pages necessary - for the time being.

I know we didn't have a copy in my kindergarden back in the 80s, and my first contact with the book was at my grandmother's (it's always the grandmothers!), but by that time I could already read, and while I found the stories grisly, they didn't terrify me anymore. At the time, I was a lot more worried about Max and Moritz being ground to corn! (Another classic German verse-book, except that the author didn't actually write it for kids but for adults with revenge fantasies or something, but it's nonetheless regularly given to children.) I doubt you'd find it in today's kindergardens, either, because it just isn't worth the trouble when there are so many beautiful children's books around.

Yeah, I'm afraid I won't be able to push the "Mama's got the final word" rule in our household. (Which is funny, because he'd expect me to back him up about whatever in public and discuss disagreements in private later on, but, you know. Double standards and such.) As I said, we can discuss it and try to find a compromise, but certainly not AFTER the fact! But I'm getting angry again, and it's not doing anyone any good, so I'm going to shut up for now.