Why Americans are Afraid of Dragons

Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one.
—  Terry Pratchett
             While reading “Why Americans are Afraid of Dragons”, by Ursula K. Le Guin, I was haunted by a quote I read by fantasy author Terry Pratchett. Imagination is something adults struggle with everyday. To have a wild and vivid imagination is childish; and anything childish is considered to be derogatory. Le Guin writes: “I believe that all the best faculties of a mature human being exist in the child, and that is these faculties are encouraged in youth they will act well and wisely in the adult, but if they are repressed and denied in the child they will stunt and crupple the adult personality” (Page 44). This intrigues me because she then goes on to claim that there is a gender segregation in imagination. Young boys are taught that imagination is not apart of “maleness”; while girls are allowed to run wild with their imagination. This truly saddens me because growing up around young children I have witnessed this first hand. Young boys are encouraged to abandon their imaginations at young ages, while girls are encouraged to live in a sort of fantasy world for pretty much their entire life. Society cripples imagination by putting a huge emphasis on children to grow up; and part of growing up is forsaking their creativity and imagination.
              Now, to change gears of thinking, I do agree with this aspect of Le Guin’s argument regarding gender restrictions, but to say that there is little imagination in the American people today is false. In fact, Americans are not afraid of dragons (Game of Thrones, anyone?) Imagination in the sense of fantasy and alternate universes may not be as popular in American culture but in no way is it not encouraged or loathed. I am curious as to what Le Guin would think of “Fifty Shades Of Grey”? Would sexual fantasy be considered a mindless indulgence to her? Does fantasy HAVE TO be a hobbit, a unicorn, or a dragon. Americans do not discourage imagination, they just would rather read about something that triggers their imagination and desires in other ways. Le Guin labels fantasy in a very narrow sense. To me, fantasy is anything that is not every day life. Fantasy could be getting an A on that paper, to  Christian Grey, to even vampires (Americans love vampires). Perhaps Le Guin hasn’t seen the American sales for “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, and “Twilight”. Log onto Tumblr, or any other blog site and see that imagination is in fact still very much alive. What needs to be fixed is American gender segregation; not American taste in what Americans prefer to read about.

Imposed Immaturity

During class discussion of Jacqueline Rose’s The Case of Peter Pan or the Impossibility of Children, there was a lot of talk about children’s literature having to entertain both children and adult audiences, which I didn’t find that shocking. When taking the class I imagined the books we were to read would be geared towards adults, as well as children, and hold a deeper meaning for the adults that would go right over the heads of these “little people”. Otherwise we would be studying picturebooks with 17 max. pages all semester. What I did find interesting was the part about how “the family” evolved. In the article, Little People: When Did We Start Treating Children like Children?, by Joan Accocella, she discusses how the concept of children is relatively new. Which i related to the books that I’m reading now, which are from A Song of Ice and Fire. In these books, there are children from 8-years-old doing ridiculous things and I usually had to suspend my disbelief that a 10-year old girl* is out their stabbing the hearts of knighted men while riding horseback while trying to navigate a map. After reading the article, I can see how the author of the books I’m reading did some extensive research on the era. The idea that children were not regarded as children clears up a lot of my questions in my own reading.

Children gradually came to be seen as creatures of a different order from adults: innocent, fragile, temptable, and therefore in need of molding….The ‘discovery of childhood,’ Ariès says, deprived the child of all that and ‘inflicted on him the birch, the prison cell—in a word, the punishments usually reserved for convicts.’ At the same time, children became the objects of ‘obsessive love,’ together with incessant demands for conformity to a family ideal.

These lines hold true in present day. Many parents that oppose marriage equality will say it is because having two gay parents in a family would pass the “gayness” on to their children—if they can manage to adopt some. Meanwhile, a baby boy can’t even look in the direction of a woman without his parents calling him a little lady’s man, or passing down some other archaic gender roles to their pretty little princesses and tough little men. The innocence of children that is so sort after to protect is sullied by the parents themselves. But then again parents aren’t the only ones to participate in such irony, teachers also play their part. Teaching children on the cusps of their sexuality not to have sex instead of giving them information about what sex is and how to do it safe.