Where’s Waldo? is a childhood classic dating back several decades, with its intricate drawings of crowded scenes, and the ongoing pursuit of a man who wears the same, red-striped outfit regardless of temperature or climate of his current location. Yet evidently, lurking beneath this innocent demeanor is a somewhat smutty secret. In the search for Waldo, you may be surprised to find in the original publishing of the book that there is indeed a topless lady sunbathing while lying on her stomach. I know! I know! The scandal, right!? The miniscule indiscretion depicts a small boy pouring water on the back of a topless sunbather, who is in the process of yelping in surprise and arching backwards as the cold liquid makes contact with her skin. This involuntary movement exposes her chest to an on looking man who, judging from his expression, is evidently enjoying the view. The reader’s vantage shows a profile shot of the offending woman and turns the search for Waldo into a twisted game of eye-spy the nipple!
Now, the debate continues as to whether or not this is inappropriate for our children in public schools. Some critics argue that the indecent exposure is unforgivable and should thusly be removed from the average child’s reach, at least in public schools. Other critics shake their head in exasperation. Anna Quindlen, an author and columnist for the New York Times, replies, “Winnie the Pooh does not wear pants. Just a warning.”
The question behind the banning remains, though; with all the racy material found in other books today, and the sensual overtones of some of the greatest literature of the past, is it truly consistent to ban a children’s book simply because it hints at the presence of female anatomy? In fact, the only way to find the practically hidden picture is either completely by accident, or if one is looking for it and knows where to find it. That sound like anything else that children are forced to interact with almost on a daily standard? Say the Internet, maybe? At the same time, the idea of censorship is to protect our children from the perceived evils of the world, and pornography is definitely to be included in that group. But would this indiscretion truly warrant the label of pornography? Where’s Waldo does not contain sexual themes, but the indiscretion of the artist begs the question: what was he thinking? What purpose would putting that minor detail in the book accomplish? It’s obviously unnecessary, and it isn’t like the checklist of items to search for at the top of the page includes: “a female sunbather indecently exposing herself in public.” So why does the artist include it?
Thankfully, no matter what side of the debate that you happen to fall on, the new anniversary edition of the beloved childhood classic is updated with a now clothed sunbather. This time she is appropriately garbed for her UV bath, although it is likely to give her an uneven tan.
hahaha this is great. It sounds just like an article. Love the last line.
ReplyDeleteI remember that naked sunbather from my childhood. I remember being curious about it, as if I had found a secret hiding place that I wasn't going to tell anyone else about. hahaha. I wouldn't say it's pornography. I'd even let my kids try to find Waldo on that page.
The point is, this is well written and intriguing! Nicely done.