I remember owning Candyland as a child. Its greatest merit to me was that it was pretty; I can honestly say that I learned no lessons from Candyland, nor did I ever feel any sense of achievement if I won. As for the standard lessons one might say it provides for children: I already knew color identification by the time I could play it; and my mom ran a daycare service from home as early as I can remember, so sharing my things and taking turns were not strange concepts to me either. It was probably bought for me out of obligation to the social norm -oh, she needs Candyland- but no one seems to know who bought it.
I also remember playing Cootie, and other standard preschool games. Aside from the lessons they seem to teach on the surface, they provide early experiences with greed and gambling, and all carry undertones of gradual "advancement" as set forth by the "rules" and "environment;" in other words, acclimating people at an early age to inhibited growth under government and societal standards. If you go back and take another look at the board for Candyland, you can see a few metaphors and social stereotypes:
- Two aryan children, a daughter and a son to make up a normal white-picket-fence American family
- Avoid the pimps (Lord Licorice), the whores (Princess Lolly), and the burn outs (Gloppy); as there are no shortcuts to land near them
- On the other hand, strive to be acclimated with family (Gramma Nut), prom queens (Queen Frostine), and government officials (King Candy)
- Shortcuts become non existent later in life.
As long as I can remember, I would go down into the basement at my grandparents' house and watch the men playing pool rather than staying upstairs with the women; yes, that quaint segregation actually happened. The game mesmerized me, and I learned to anticipate the physics involved in kinetic energy, and to strategize where and when they would pick out shots to block. Beyond that, I have always been a people watcher; and from watching my Pop-pop, uncle, and father playing I learned appreciation for the game being played, for the players, for the human interaction, and for the strategy involved; rather than developing a one track mind for competition and winning, regardless of how structured said competition may have been with normal children's games.

http://www.ischeffer.com/CandyLand.jpg appears to be a dead link.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the desire to seek out deeper messages in games for children, all stereotypes, conscious or otherwise, have to be learned from someplace. that being said however, I think that the lack or presence of bridges and occurrence squares can be perceived in any number of ways, Avoiding the lord and princess could be messages against aristocratic and immature behaviors, whereas the acceptance of figures of authority could be designed to apply to parents, which are in all likelihood the authority figures children of that age will be directly dealing with. Unfortunately though, by associating these images of people with directly negative or positive consequences based on their appearance, one could argue that the message of candy land is simply that, to judge people, and the consequences of associating with them based on appearance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete