Current mood:	snarky
Current music:	Birdsong... lovely.
Entry tags:	argument, critique, reply

Scarab gets snarky...
Having a while ago read an essay printed in the online “Center for digital democracy”, I felt the overwhelming need to rip the writer’s head off construct me own reply to the obviously shaky views of the following essays writer. I’m sure the other ALFS will back me up, and hopefully assist me with info I may have missed? (Bear in mind this essay was started some time around midnight, so blame any mistakes or over-sympathy on the late night dominance of my subconscious.

The original Essay can be read here: http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/Kunkel.html

Enjoy…



In Response to PD Kunkle’s Analysis of the Children’s Television Series, Ace Lightning, 2004.
By Sarah E. Thompson.

To Mr PD Kunkle.

I am a student of Psychology, Art and Design and English literature at a college in the United Kingdom, who happens to have a penchant for the series you brought up recently in an essay of yours posted concerning the appropriateness of the show Ace Lightning as a program for children. Having read your essay, as well as several relating articles, in particular the article in washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54787-2004Sep1.html) I have reached many of the following conclusions. Let me be frank from the beginning, as one of the older fans of this popular children’s and teenage television show, I noticed that your argument was wrought with flaws and errors in all manners, and that your judgement of the show, although coherent, was somewhat incorrect and biased.

Though in some areas I can understand your concern involving this show, in most of them I was rather confused. What follows is my own analysis of your essay, through the eyes of a girl well experienced in knowledge of this show. Often your essay appeared to be “nit picking” at small, practically unnoticeable points in an attempt to sound its message.

I was especially confused on the several following points that you highlighted in your essay.

1) How can you watch three episodes of a program and form a summary of it as a whole? Isn’t that rather like a marine biologist diving three times and claiming to be an expert?
2) If you can’t get the names of the characters correct, how exactly do you expect people who know what you’re talking about to take your argument seriously? Specifically, the name of one character is Sparx (unusual spelling intended) not Sparky – as appropriate as that name might be. You were also incorrect on the count of another character is only called “Chucky” a few times in the series.
3) What is the “appropriate” level of violence and misbehaviour that a children’s show should portray and why is it that so many shows exceed what I assume you (or I) would believe appropriate, and yet are not focused on in a similar way?

Basing your summary of whether or not a TV show (or anything for that matter) is suitable just by watching three episodes, is akin to observing somebody for just one week of their life and then claiming to be an expert on them. To begin with, you might not have caught the show in a good week.

I have explored the very episodes which were the features of your study, as well as multiple others, and yes, in part you have been proved correct. But there is also a great deal you have failed to acknowledge, as I shall now reveal.

PD Kunkle’s Analysis of the Ace Lightning series, in comparison with my own resolutions about the episodes in question.
1. "The Unlikely Hero"
Ace Lightning is a superhero ally of Mark Hollander, a junior high school youth, and together they combat a legion of evildoers led by a skeleton figure named "Lord Fear." Ace and the evildoers are animated characters, while Mark and all of his friends at the school are "live action" human characters.
1) This episode opens with an extended sequence of intense violence between Ace and the evildoers, which occurs on the athletic field of the school while the children are practicing soccer nearby.

The violence I can’t deny exists, however you seen to be exaggerating on this part, as I certainly wouldn’t call it “intense”. Yes there is often violence in the show – but of a comic nature. I have noticed that there are varying rules applied to the violence that can be shown in cartoons for children, and violence shown in live action children’s dramas. Understandably, these rules vary depending on the show. I.e. Cartoons are less “real” and therefore this lack of realism allows a higher level of comedic hostility, as the viewers will be suitably less disturbed than if such violence were shown on a real life show. The violence in cartoons is also often exaggerated to ridiculous levels which would not be applicable in real life.

You must understand that Ace Lightning was a revolutionary show with it’s combination of elements of CG animation and real life characters and the interaction between them in EVERY episode – something which had not been attempted before in a regular television series.) Therefore surely the rules which apply to both animated shows, and real life action programmes cannot be directly applied to this one? A comfortable medium must be sought. Clearly the shows creators viewed the show from the comedic point of view more suited to cartoons than real life drama.

2) A lightning bolt thrown by one of the super-characters misses its intended target and accidentally strikes one of the children, an obese boy named Chucky. This mishap magically transforms the overweight child into a super-strong kicker who quickly earns the nickname "Thunderfoot."

I’m unsure as to whether you deliberately attempted to draw attention to this point, but either way I feel it needs mentioning. Yes, Chuck is an overweight character (at least in this series) – but did this warrant mentioning? And would it be more appropriate perhaps, if all the characters were stick thin and attractive? This would be not only be realistically inaccurate, but would discriminate against people who do not fit within public ideals. Not a good idea. Of course if you did not attend to put forth this message, feel free to dismiss my aforementioned comments, but I don’t feel it warranted mentioning otherwise.

3) Chucky becomes the star of the team with his newfound prowess, and enjoys his temporary popularity. One of the recurring themes of the series is that Chucky often becomes fearful and vomits from anxiety. This is presented as a humor device in the series; in this particular case, Chucky vomits on one of the opposing players who was behaving in the manner of a bully in a soccer game.

Yes, Chuck’s recurrent vomiting is intended as a humour device. Believe it or not, kids vomiting on bullies (and yes he was a bully – NOT just “behaving in the manner of one”) who clearly deserved it is something youngsters these days consider to be FUNNY. Not well mannered, perhaps, but funny, and even though I’m not normally amused by that kind of thing I did find myself giggling somewhat at that scene. It’s a joke which kids enjoy and do not take too seriously.

4) The episode places significant emphasis throughout the show on the evildoers and their plotting against Ace Lightning. Their plans are discussed while driving around town in an ice cream truck which functions as a frequent setting for the evildoers' activities, along with a haunted house at a carnival which serves as their base of operations.

I’m uncertain what the concern is about the villains plotting which is, generally, what villians do, but I can see your point with the ice cream truck – a normally genial symbol of childhood is turned into something which characters (specifically teen protagonist Mark) should fear. This might be a worrying symbolism, but it is not the first time such a device has been used in fiction.

5) The episode ends with Chucky losing his special powers as the result of another mis-fired lightning bolt that occurs in a concluding battle between Ace and the evildoers.

In this episode, there were also several moral points intended to be noticed by the audience. To quote:
“I’d rather be myself instead of some… superhero.” – Chuck Mugel, at the end of the episode, having lost his powers, Chuck expresses the awareness that it is incorrect to earn respect for deceptive behaviour and for hiding behind a mask that is not your true self. That ultimately, you must “be yourself” in order to be happy. Mark also reinforces this message.

Chuck is an unfortunate character, who is frequently in some form of trouble throughout the series. Perhaps it’s intended to portray him in a pathetic manner, and of course steers from the stereotypical view of characters in this kind of TV situation. I.e. it is to emphasise his enduring good nature, in spite of how he’s treated. It is also a reflection on the main character, Mark, who (and I quote a character in the final episode of the series) “made friends with Chuck when noone else would.” – instead of allowing himself to be influenced by stereotypes and peer pressure which would suggest he avoided such a character in order to remain popular with his peers. I also admit, it does give us a sense of satisfaction when we see bullies get their comeuppance for teasing, or otherwise making Chuck’s life a misery. In this episode Chuck also finally has a chance to stand up for himself, for once, and does so. And then learns that perhaps violence isn’t the best way to go about earning respect.

In the second series, Chuck’s character has also been reformed. Though he remains quite a goofy and comical character, he also has increased confidence and maturity. He is able to stand up for himself without regressing to violence, and learning the truth about the Ace Lightning Videogame (Episode Two, Series Two), actually joins them in their fight, frequently using his brains, rather than his brawn, to outwit the bad guys and help his friends.

I also note that Chuck was not at all injured in this episode, even upon getting struck by a lightning bolt. I will note that later in the second series, Chuck is hit again by a bolt of lightning from Ace. Again, it happens by accident, but this time it is a full on shot which knocks him out. This is the second of only two occasions in the shows in which a character is harmed extensively, (Mark is injured in an earlier episode by one of the evildoers, and it frequently happens to many of the CG characters), and it is certainly not an extremely bad injury. I can name shows where this happens far more frequently, and ultimately, the after-effects of this on the characters were fairly slim. Ace is also aware that he has done something wrong as a result of his being unable to control his emotions, and feels remorseful as a result.
2. "Behind the Mask"
1) 2. "Behind the Mask" The episode features repeated sequences of serious violence mostly involving the animated characters. Although Chucky is not harmed in the altercations, he vomits in fear during one of the battles.

Even the title of this episode is intended to imply a moral message, that relates to hiding your true self and the facts from the people close to you.

I believe I have already commented on the vomiting issue.

2) In this episode, a misunderstanding results in everyone at the school assuming that Mark Hollander is hosting a Halloween party at his house. Once Mark learns of this, he decides to simply host the party that everyone was expecting, without explaining the mistake. When the party ensues, some of the children attend in costumes that make them appear as if they are the evildoers. This causes confusion when the actual evildoers arrive, and threaten Chucky, which leads to a chase across town with Chucky on a motor scooter being pursued by the evildoers in their ice cream truck

I won’t deny –that was deceitful. Deciet happens a lot in this show. But you’re not considering the reason Mark decided to carry on without explaining – Samantha, a girl he obviously cared about, was extremely happy when she found he was hosting a party, thinking that he was doing it because she wanted to go to one so much. It probably seemed to him, kinder to just agree with the idea. This may also be one of the few moments in the show when Mark ends up giving in to peer pressure and just “going along with it” however, this incident is evened up by his behaviour in subsequent episodes.

Mark frequently hides the truth about Ace from Samantha and those around him, not to be deceitful, but in the interests of their safety. He protects them by not telling them the truth, and ends up baring the brunt of the danger and stress alone (perhaps not the most sensible behaviour for him, but undoubtedly beneficial to other characters – I certainly think they’d prefer to believe that he was rude/dishonest/unreliable, than that he was putting them in danger.)

This is not necessarily encouraging dishonesty in children, as even the youngest viewer should be aware that Mark has no choice but to keep Ace and the other CG characters a secret. Their secrecy is a very extreme case. Also he does seem to receive punishment for his deception – not of the physical “you’re grounded” variety. But of a nature which suggests lying is wrong. I believe the show pulled this off very well as Mark suffers from the effects on his lying on many occasions. Mark also frequently feels remorse for the pretence he puts up. If you had observed more episodes you would have realised this.

3) Near the end of the episode, Mark appears in animated form on a videophone picture that fills the entire screen, appearing to deliver a report of the events that have just occurred. He says that the evildoers "don't know anything about honor or loyalty or doing the right thing." This idea is not developed in any other fashion in the script or plot of the episode.

Just mentioning this, no real point to be made against your case here, but the idea that the evildoers "don't know anything about honor or loyalty or doing the right thing" is explored frequently throughout the series. Just not in that episode. In this particular episode, Mark was simply making a point of fact. In order to understand the significance of the plot you had to observe what occurred throughout the WHOLE series. Any cowardly, cruel and violent behaviour of the villains is usually emphasised and eventually, punished. But not without effort on behalf of the “Good Guys” –because if you want good to win against evil, you are going to have to work for it. In the words of the Lightning Knight code that features throughout the series, which you probably haven’t heard, you must “Do Right, and Fear Not.” (I understand the questionability of the term “fear not” as only the mentally unstable and the insensible are never afraid. But I don’t believe it is intended literally. Rather, it is a demonstration of the idea that we have “nothing to fear but fear itself”.)

4) The Halloween party, which was the setting for most of the episode, ends without any adult ever shown to be present.

What else is new? Parties not supervised by adults appear frequently in television shows. Mark’s mum was clearly shown as being around before the party helping with organization (yes I am aware this is a female in a stereotyped role). She obviously trusted her son enough to know he wouldn’t do anything she wouldn’t want him to do. That shows parent-child trust, if anything. Plus, the kids were hardly running riot and trashing the place.

3. "The Rat Turns.”
1) This episode opens with a violent sequence involving the super-characters, and then shifts to a scene with the Rat, one of the evildoers, spending time watching and ordering products from a home shopping channel. The latter element recurs several times in the episode.

Again, there is the violence. Again, I can’t deny it, but I honestly think you are exaggerating. My eight year old cousin observed this episode without feeling unnerved or disturbed. The violence is animated and comical and hardly extreme.

2) The major plot of this program involves a new assistant principal at the school who is devious, overbearing, and dislikes children. The principal installs a new security system of video monitors throughout the school so that he can keep an eye on the children and hopefully catch them in the act of violating rules. The cost of the system requires that the size of lunches at the school be cut in half, and all junk food eliminated. Chucky leads a revolt at the school, exhorting his classmates that we "can't let them take away our junk food."

If your view on the vice-principle is that he is “devious, overbearing, and dislikes children”, why do you then appear to be taking his side? The behaviour of Mr Chesborough was obviously unreasonable and domineering. (If they tried to fob us off with that menu at our school, I have no doubt that the child nutritionists would come down on them like a ton of bricks.) The children are forced to walk in single file, as if they’re at some kid of army training school and forced to wear humiliating badges concerning their wrongdoings. That was clearly not authority taking appropriate measures –it was discriminating, restricting and humiliating and would never be accepted in any “real” state school.

Mr Chesborough is far from a good example of an adult authority figure. Yes, perhaps the children could have portrayed their… displeasure in a much more civil and sensible manner, but a rebellion of the children is hardly akin to the food fights and fights that break out in a number of other children’s programmes – all cartoons. Children and Rebellion are words that appear frequently in the same sentence concerning many TV shows. (It is proved frequently throughout the series that Mr Chesborough is an unfair and unkind character who will not listen to reason – especially not from children.)

3) The principal observes Mark meeting with a super-character named Sparky, a female ally of Ace Lightning.

You are again, incorrect on names. This character is called Sparx, not Sparky. This may appear off topic, but surely if you wish to be taken seriously in this and if you expect us to believe you to have some kind of high level of understanding of this show, you should at least learn the correct names of the characters?

4) When Mark meets with the principal to explain, he convinces him that she is an alien who is a threat, and the principal fears that she "wants my brain." The principal figures out that Mark has some sort of special powers, and he quickly agrees to abandon the security video system at the school and to reinstate all junk food privileges for students if Mark will help defend him against "the aliens." Meanwhile, the evildoers have succeeded in obtaining all pieces of the amulet, which leads to a loss of the special powers of Ace Lightning and his allies.

Mark for one thing, does absolutely nothing to convince the vice principle that Sparx is an alien –the principle has decided this himself over a course of several episodes and has already convinced himself that these creatures are aliens, and that Mark is one of them. Mark admittedly, doesn’t inform him of the truth, and even if he did so, it’s doubtful he would be believed. If he has done this, the principle’s dictatorial unfair regime would have continued. This is probably the meanest Mark’s character ever gets in this series.

The principle then asks, and I quote: “how am I going to know what you little monsters are doing if I can’t spy on you?” to which Chuck replies “You could try talking to us.” This is a suggestion of what a good authority figure would do, and certainly preferable to invading the children’s privacy. Children have rights too. Taking away the surveillance equipment also prevented the existence of the characters from the game from being broadcast, which would again, have put more people in danger. (And also, for the record, I saw no mentioning of Mark having any kind of superpowers. More appropriately, the principle believed he was “friends” with the aliens, and did ask whether he was “one of them” – to which Mark replied truthfully in the negative.)


I have also explored other various episodes of the show, which you had clearly not observed. As a result, you have missed out on a great deal of the morals and ethics that Ace Lightning attempts to portray. Here as follows are some sample quotes from various episodes you missed.

· “I just got so mad about what was happening to Chuck, I completely forgot about being scared. And you know… I feel like a better person for it. Taller, prouder… yeah I know, sounds stupid. But I guess that’s why we get on… mates to the end. Mark Hollander, Episode nine, Series One, “Once Upon a Hero”. This phrase alone encumbers the courage that people have to find in order to get by in life – the courage which Mark himself had to find in order to stand up to those who wanted to harm him.)
· “I never could tell you what to do, Sparx, but promise me you’ll be careful.” Ace Lightning, Episode twenty-three, Series One “The Biggest Fan”. One of many occasions in which Ace attempts (admittedly ineffectively) to protect a friend. Sparx later on goes against this advice and ends up getting both of them in trouble – if that doesn’t send a message to viewers I don’t know what does.
· “A friend… it’s someone who looks out for you. Someone who’ll come to your rescue when you’re in trouble… someone who cares” Ace Lightning, Episode Six, Series One, “Only Human”: Ace’s definition of friendship – this is a reformed view after he earlier upset Mark by completely misinterpreting their friendship, reducing it to following the rules of a videogame. These strong feelings for a friend give him the ability to defeat their enemies and rescue Mark from what would otherwise have been a very sticky end. Isn’t that the kind of message we WANT to be enforcing amongst children? Rather than the attitude of best friends are a popularity statement message that many shows seem to imply today?

There are many more examples I could give.

You also note in your article the qualities necessary for a show to be qualified as educational.

“In order to qualify as educational programming “specifically designed for children,” a show must include at least some good-faith effort to address the unique needs and interests of the child audience to which it is targeted. For example, this might include a focus on characters of interest to children; story-telling that is relevant to issues or concerns faced by children; conveying knowledge and information about topics of particular interest or value to children; and utilizing production conventions known to enhance interest and appeal to the target age group.

All of the areas I have highlighted in bold are also expressed in Ace Lightning, but, overall, the show is a comedy intended to be fun as well as an example of gaining emotional intelligence, which is just as important as logic or vocational education.

good-faith effort to address the unique needs and interests of the child audience:
the attempts to portray morals and messages to children in Ace Lightning are very obvious, as I have likely showed. It also deals with children and teenager’s typical every day problems in a way which makes it enjoyable for them, as they know they are able to relate to and identify with characters on an emotional level. There is more to “children’s needs” than education and logic.

relevant to issues or concerns faced by children: such as peer pressure, bullying, standing by friends, facing fears, having the ability to control your own destiny? All of which are experienced and addressed by the characters in Ace Lightning.

knowledge and information about topics of particular interest or value to children: such as friendship, courage, confidence and self-awareness, which are all areas of emotional intelligence experienced in Ace Lightning?

utilizing production conventions known to enhance interest and appeal to the target age group Strange but the style of Ace Lightning seems almost to be set to appeal to all ages, to quote a review for the show in a net review “it’s sometimes as if the producers forget they are making these shows for the kids, not the parents”. Ace Lightning as I see it is enjoyable by all ages, and I know many fans who are 16 and over, as well as some who are under thirteen.

All of these factors are more than just apparent, they are blindingly obvious. Overall, I have identified several areas of the show which you have failed to notice exist.

1) The overall theme of the show revolves around the idea that there is an air of heroism in even the most normal people (such as lead character, Mark and later his best friend, Chuck) and deals with the kind of behaviour and attitudes a child/teenager must employ in order to find this heroism. Such as for example, the courage to defend your friends, despite your own fear, and the importance of friendship.
2) Practically every show ends with a moral, be it sticking up for your friends, not allowing yourself to back down in the face of adversity or the good old fashioned, good must triumph over evil.
3) The violence featured in the show is of a comical animated nature, and I have seen a great deal worse on children’s television. I personally, am known as quite a sensitive individual in these cases, yet I am undisturbed by far more extreme things than this TV show.
4) Mark forms strong emotional connections with the characters that he once believed to be “just part of a game” – so much so that he is reluctant to tell Ace the truth about their existence, for fear of hurting him. It is their friendship with each other that gets them through a lot of difficulties.

It doesn’t take any advanced levels of thinking to notice these points, but they are qualities which children must be aware of and build in themselves.

As I have never watched the other two shows questioned in your report, I am unable to pass similar judgement of my own on them. However, I expect that you have expressed similar views, in a similarly outdated fashion. You are attempting to portray yourself as an expert of a subject which you seem to know little about. I am aware that you are simply adhering to the known guidelines, but I also believe these guidelines are in need of some serious revision in interest with modern day society. The problem is, having studied children’s television for twenty-years is not by far enough. Over the course of twenty years television (and those who watch it) change extensively, and you also have to move with the times.

I do not pretend that I know of the guidelines that the “1991 CTA Order”, puts forward. In all honesty I had never heard of them until I read your essay. But I do have common sense. More importantly, I understand the characters and the show you are attempting to portray to a far greater extent than you do, and though I can’t claim to have any kind of PHD in the subject, I do know my television and have my (I believe reasonable) opinions on what is appropriate. Also this Order was clearly published over a decade ago, and is subsequently, out of date. Would you allow the DSM Classification System (a classificatory system utilised for mental disorders) to be so out of date, and yet count its points as valid? No: because that would possibly put lives at risk.

Does a child REALLY need to see a moral message for more than thirty seconds for it to be conveyed? To reinforce the same point over and over again would be an insult to the viewer’s intelligence. Why is it that all things must be educational? Why can’t they also just be fun? Education goes far beyond the words written in a decade-old guidebook. Your opinions are based on questionable expertise, my opinions are based on evaluation from the most valid critics of all –children. Also many of your arguments appeared strange to me (in fact, they bordered on ridiculous.)

I can’t be certain that you shall read this or even pay it the slightest scrap of attention, but I certainly hope that I have conveyed my opinions as successfully as you have tried to convey yours, and I trust you shall be more open minded in the future when it comes to the intelligence of children and youngsters. Please attempt to better live up to your title as Professor of Communication.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah E. Thompson, student.

Well, I think I got my point across… anyone wanna help correct me on any possible errors in this? I Was written at midnight =S