American Girls?

I grew up reading the American Girls books. I loved the different perspectives on American history that I learned about from Felicity, Kirsten, Addy, Samantha and Molly, each sharing their stories from widely different eras and backgrounds, from colonial days to the Civil War, to WWII.

Over the years more characters were introduced, including stories from Hispanic and Native American backgrounds, as well as more modern times. And now the company is making a new doll each year, complete with one or two books to legitimize her as a character. Instead of teaching girls history, the company has moved to modeling their characters after current events and trends. It's now a numbers game, as they invent more and more characters and encourage young girls to collect them all, mass producing thousands of dolls with the same face, differing only in skin tone, eye color and haircut.

But the purpose of this post is not to bemoan the capitalistic trend eating away the historic heart of the company. I had actually almost forgotten about this piece of my past (hard to believe, considering I own a Girl of Today doll and quite a large box of accessories for her) until tonight in my archives management class someone mentioned that a new doll just came out and caused quite a buzz.

The new girl is Gwen, and she is homeless. Well, technically, she and her mother only live at the homeless shelter for a few months, but the point of her character is to portray the realities of life in 2009. Although, looking at the doll's smiling, cherub-like face, long blond hair and pristine white sundress, I can't picture her sleeping in the back seat of a car. You can read more details and some reactions to the new doll here and here.

But Gwen is not the new star of American Girl. In fact, she is a minor character in the books about the 2009 Girl of the Year, Chrissa. The real purpose of the homeless girl is to give the true star someone to stand up for, someone for the well-off girl to look after. This theme was first touched on by the historical girl Samantha befriending the poor girl Nellie, but the current situation seems to be taking it further. The doll Chrissa actually has two friends you can buy, Gwen and Sonali, who both need to be defended from the school bullies. They make the perfect accessories for the strong, middle-class girl, adding spice to her life, just like her pet llama, which is also for sale.

I'm not sure what to think about Gwen. The general reaction to the character seems overboard. What should really cause a stir and be impressive would be if the main character were facing the very real trials of day to day living instead of simply having to face down bullies. If the American Girl company wants to teach young girls about current societal evils, they should showcase them, not make them sideplots that serve to frame less meaningful battles.

And if they're going to sell a homeless doll to raise awareness, they should publicize ways to help as well. What good is it to tell us that there are children sleeping on the street, if in the next breath you ask us to cough up nearly $100 for yet another doll instead of encouraging us to give it to those who need it? They tell us to be noble in heart and accept and protect our friends from bullies, whether they have a house or not, while teaching us to be selfish in action, spending our money on more and more of their products.

I miss the good old days.

On a related note, some of the older, Classic dolls are disappearing. Samantha and her friend Nellie have already gone into the American Girl Archive (it's unclear what this means, but I imagine it's like the Disney Vault, and the dolls may be available again in the distant future for limited time offers), and apparently Kirsten is next. It's sad, because these girls were the heart and soul of the company for years. Also, Kirsten, being the Norwegian immigrant, was always my mom's favorite, and it's sad to think that the next generation of girls may grow up without this piece of the historical landscape, traded instead for the glamor of more recent times.

Is the American Girl company still in the business of teaching history? Or has their widening range of dolls, modern mini-eras and ethnicities all about politics? Maybe the two really do fit together. After all, what could be more American than capitalism?

-Kim

Stephen Fry and the Gutenberg Press (Part 1 of 6)

This was assigned as background material for my class on library and archival preservation management. It's quite a fascinating look at the birth of printing. And it's hosted by Stephen Fry, which makes it just that much better. It takes an hour to watch all six pieces, but it's time well spent.

And, interestingly enough, this is a great example of many things in my life fitting together quite impressively all on their own. I have come to realize that all three of my classes this semester will be reinforcing each other quite nicely throughout the semester, which should be a great help in internalizing all the information that comes at me. In this case, however, it is that my classwork meshes so nicely with my leisure. I've been reading a book lately called In the Beginning: the Story of the King James Bible and how it changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture. The early chapters spend quite a bit of time on the invention of printing and movable type as well as the Reformation and their impact on society to bring about not only the acceptance of but a demand for an authorized English translation of the Bible. I'm really more interested in the effects the text had on our language, so I'm almost impatient with the number of pages spent on the background material, but it is fun to see the connection between this and my studies. It really does all go back to Gutenberg.

-Kim

summer of the backstory

Do you remember a few years ago when every blockbuster movie was a sequel, and Hollywood was playing it safe with franchises they thought couldn't lose by giving us yet another Spiderman? I seem to remember someone calling it "the summer of the sequel."

Well, this summer seems to be going in the same and yet in the completely opposite direction. The same because, for the most part, the majority of the big blockbusters have belonged to existing franchises. Yet opposite, because rather than just moving a story forward, the movies delve into the history of the characters or their world.

First, there was Wolverine. Obviously, this one is a pretty standard prequel, going back to before the trilogy of existing movies and exploring the colorful past of everyone's favorite adamantium-clawed mutant. In spite of some big changes from the existing Wolverine backstory and a terrible misrepresentation of Gambit, the movie was awesome. Not only do we get to see Logan before and after getting his adamantium, we're given a plausible reason for his memory loss (albeit, not the reason anyone was expecting). In the process, we also see how other major characters, like Cyclops, took on their roles.

The next big movie to fit the pattern was Star Trek. All the action takes place before the start of the original series, giving us a look at our favorite characters before they became who they would be. Granted, they did mess with the space-time continuum, thereby creating a new universe for the characters to move forward in (does anyone else think this could jump start a new tv series?), but the original history was discussed between Kirk and the old Spock at one point. And the backstory that is the alternate history the Romulans came from is essential for the main action.

After that came Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. As bad as this movie was, it supports my position, so it has to be mentioned. The only way the writers could conceive any new action was to explain about the transformers having been to Earth centuries before. Backstory. History.

Even the newest Harry Potter movie can fit. The whole point of book 6 was to set up book 7 by introducing us to Voldemort's past and explaining the horcruxes that Harry would need to destroy. That's why there was so much talking and so much less action in this than in other Potter films. It's purpose is to share vital pieces of history so that things that have already happened (like the episode with Tom Riddle's diary) and things yet to come will be understood more completely in the context of the whole story.

I know there are plenty of other movies coming out this summer that don't fit any definition of prequel or backstory, but all the major ones seem to. What does this say about us? I think the viewing public is expressing a desire for stories grounded in history, even fictional history. Our own lives are increasingly disconnected from our past, as we forget previous generations in our constant struggle to move forward as quickly as possible. We can't be bothered to find our own pasts, but we hunger for the solid foundation that history presents. With the future more uncertain than ever, we want the security of at least knowing where we've been, to have an idea where we might be going.

Or maybe I'm the crazy one. It's possible, after all. But I think it's no coincidence that the theme of history is growing in popular culture.

Just chew on that for a while.

-Kim