Washington Post on Mickey

[David A Gerstein]

	Dear Folks,

	Stephen Jay Gould's comments about Mickey Mouse, explaining
why America allegedly loves the character in his current state more
than ever, really bothered me.

	"Human beings - stuck with off-spring requiring years of 
labor-intensive nurturing - are biologically programmed to get all 
gooey and gaga over animals with babyish features.  That, he says, 
is why we love the Mouse."

	Excuse my irritation, but worship of THIS type of paean to the
post-lobotomy MM results in MM products which turn off everyone but
mothers of newborn babies.  Anyone who thinks that designing MM with
fetuslike features endears him to kids and everyone else BUT
mothers of newborn babies is VERY WRONG.  Mickey's popularity first
began to fall when his screen self got lobotomized in 1934.  It took
the second (and fatal, in terms of his popularity with older kids)
plunge when the character was infantized in the late 1940s.

	(I don't pinpoint the "infantization" as being when he got the
whites in his eyes, but I mean when he got the pink face, big cheeks,
and high forehead after WWII.)

	In this country Mickey is not a beloved CHARACTER.  He is a
beloved IMAGE.  I think that the "Perils of Mickey" campaign, based on
a MM who is an attractive character but not babylike, and its recent
success show that Disney may realize this at last.  But I don't think
re-iteration of S. J. Gould's comments show anything but why new
mothers love Mickey, and you can bet that most of them are not
interested in him for his complex character traits.

	David Gerstein
	<David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu>
	"I'll put Minnie's silk parachute in my pocket so nobody'll
see me carrying it!  Else they might think I was a *baby!*" [roughly
paraphrased]