Something really struck me during Wednesday's class discussion when we began to discuss Baudelaire's "A Philosophy of Toys." During this conversation, we explored the reasoning behind why it is so commonplace for children to pull their dolls apart. The assumption is that children, at their very core, are trying to see the souls of their dolls. And because they cannot, they experience one of their first ontological disappointments. That is, they are first planted with the seed of the eventual realization that they will not be able to truly read people as adults.
Does anyone sense a flaw in this way of thinking or does it make sense? I cannot help but beg the question: What about children, like me, who never ripped their dolls apart? Do they just skip over that ontological disappointment? Does that mean that, as adults, they will be oblivious to the fact that they cannot always read people?
Could you guys pinpoint the reason why when you all were growing up, you did these kinds of things to your dolls? I'm actually just very curious since I never did this as a child. Do you all feel that Baudelaire's proposal makes sense when superimposing it on your childhood incidents?
You make a good point considering I can't recall ever doing such a thing as a child either. In fact I was super paranoid about my Barbie dolls breaking and never really broke them. I cried when my cousin ripped the Ken doll's head off and lost it down a heating grate. However, I think there could be something to what Baudelaire is saying considering that I had two toys that were intended to be pulled apart. Mr. Potato Head and a doll called Betty Spaghetti were some of the toys that I enjoy the most and both could be pulled apart and put back together anyway you wanted. Rather than breaking apart the dolls I was supposed to pull them apart so perhaps I could experience that "ontological disappointment" without any of the repercussions. While in Baudelaire's examples he points out that once the doll is broken apart and the child finds no soul they are left with disappointment and a broken doll. In my case I was maybe disappointed but I still had a functioning doll that I still played with even afterward. Granted I can't really recall if there was any such disappointment.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm curious about however is how Baudelaire's proposal would work with how toys are built for kids today. Many toys for young children are built with this destruction in mind. Some toys are destruction proof (blocks) and others are intended to be destroyed (Mr. Potato Head) or pulled apart (my bendy doll with the removable limbs and head). If Baudelaire was presented with this new modern concept of toys what might he say? Would this toy intended to be destroyed somehow mess with a child's understanding of not being able to read people? What would this mean?
Ah, Mr. Potato Head and Betty Spaghetti. Lolol. That actually makes a lot of sense!
Delete