The Ties that Bind

[jennifertwt]

Amen

[TigerintheShadows]

Using vague terms such as "tolerance" fogs up the moral of the story, making it only accessible to kids outside of your target age range.

An important statement, considering the pains they've taken to alienate older fans in the last two years or so.

-nods vigorously-

I understand better why Paul had it written the way he did after hearing the Whit's End Podcast interview (thanks, Bren!); essentially, the issues were kept vague because the team didn't want to encroach upon the parents' right to approach to the subject as they see fit. However, I would like to point out that the show has taken a pretty hard line against some issues in the past, even some controversial ones (see abortion in "Pamela Has a Problem" or RPGs and fantasy magic in "Castles & Cauldrons"), and that there are issues where at some point you have to step on some people's toes if you're going to get your point across.

[jennifertwt]

I agree. And while I agree with Focus' standpoint that it is the parents choice when to address these sensitive issue, it would have been better to address them in the regular Focus broadcast to parents and left Odyssey out of it.

[Christian A.]

My lengthy review of Album 58:

My goodness, this album was good! I even venture to say that this album is the best since the relaunch. I hesitate to say that, because there were certainly episodes that I very much enjoyed in the seven albums that have preceded this one. And there are even episodes that I liked more than certain single parts of this 14-part episode. But as one whole episode, this one did something that I don't think an AIO episode has ever done before. It interwove and expounded at least six major plots (listed later) in a coherent, inter-related, inspiring way. During the last episode, as all of the story lines were being resolved, I was in awe at how well each resolution was handled and how deeply almost every one affected me.

I looked through the episode titles of the shows from every album since the relaunch, and I realized that I don't think an AIO episode has affected me this much since The Inspiration Station in Album 51, with the possible exception of Your Servant Is Listening on Album 57. Although I recognized the excellence of the writing fairly early on and was anticipating a tremendous season, it was especially the last several episodes that really touched me. It surprised me in many different ways, most of which involved how deeply I found myself lost in the story. In fact, the writing and the acting were so good that I forgot several things that I didn't think I could forget:

• I forgot that I didn't like Buck. Throughout the season he really grew on me, but in the scene where he explained to Camilla why she needed to be content with her upbringing and the way that her family loved her instead of coveting his life... it totally broke down any remaining dislike of his character that I was harboring. The lines were delivered so well, and the emotion in his voice was perfect, not feeling forced or scripted at all. That was one of my favorite scenes, outside of the several scenes that ended the season.
• I forgot that I didn't initially like Shona Kennedy's attempt at voicing Jules. This album was full of character development for Jules, and I thought Shona handled it exceptionally well. The chemistry between her and Vance was superb. (I'll add here that I was also very impressed with Vance this season. I'm very glad that the voice change happened back in 2010, because even though I was annoyed by it back then, I don't think the original actor could have pulled off what the current one did in this album.) And one scene that really sticks out to me is the scene where Buck is walking her home. The exchange that they have in that scene made them so real to me... There was some excellent writing going on. And Shona did a wonderful job with some scenes that had the potential to be pretty challenging.
• I forgot that Matthew had a new voice! O_o That says a lot about Gunnar Sizemore's ability to fill the shoes that Zach Callison left behind. Perhaps their voices are naturally that similar, but I have to think that Gunnar listened to past episodes to get a feel for how Zach had handled the character; and he did an awesome job replicating that. There were very few times I remembered that Matthew sounded different at all. The majority of the time, I got lost in the episode and totally neglected to notice any change.
• I forgot that, up until this album, I still haven't been totally comfortable with the new voice for Whit. This season featured a Whit that actually taught substantial lessons from God's Word! Consequently, there were very few times that my brain even acknowledged that there was anything abnormal or different about him, when it comes to how Whit's acted in the past. It was so refreshing to have the godly, wise Whit back alongside the grandfatherly Whit that has seemed to dominate the last several seasons.
• I forgot that Wooton has been annoying the last few albums, due to his consistent identity as the provider of lame comic relief. Hadley took that role in this album, and it was a breath of fresh air. Sure, Wooton had his silly moments, but it wasn't overdone like it usually is; it felt like he was finally back in character. And his character was integral to the plot of the album, so he went through quite a bit of emotional turmoil and character development over the course of the 14-part episode. I couldn't be more happy with the more mature character that resulted. Closely related to this point...
• I forgot (and perhaps this one is the most amazing of all!) that I didn't like Penny! I think this was a direct result of the serious subject matter of this season. I honestly can't think of a moment where she genuinely annoyed me or when I was frustrated that she and Wooton got along so well. And that's saying a lot, because her very *presence* usually accomplishes both of those things for me. =P

So yeah, kudos to Mr. McCusker for accomplishing so many things through these episodes that I thought were impossible! xD But there's still something about this album I haven't mentioned (directly) that amazed me more than anything else. Now, you have to understand, I heard a pretty major spoiler before this 14-parter even began to air. I sort of didn't resist hearing this spoiler, though. A friend told me something along the lines of, "You're not going to believe what happens in Album 58.. >_>" and I said, "Wooton and Penny get married? =O" And she was like, "Yeah... how'd you know?" Basically, I had just guessed what I hoped would never happen but knew was inevitable, especially in a season dedicated to exploring the subject of family.

I think it was a couple months after I heard the spoiler before I actually started listening to the episodes, so I had largely forgotten to be listening for it. But as the album progressed, the chemistry between Wooton and Penny was turning out to be really good... Penny supported him through the tragedy of losing his house. (And can I just say right now, could there have been a more perfect tragedy? Could anything have affected fans as much as Wooton losing his awesome house, besides, maybe, someone dying? xP) She was an asset to him, a true companion, not just a partner in comic relief and silly escapades. She was moral support and a voice of reason at some pretty pivotal moments. That's what Wooton needs. That's what any man needs in a wife. So when the last scene started to roll, when I realized what was coming, I was perfectly happy and content with it. I don't think I could be more pleased with how it turned out.

Okay, now on to analyzing the actual plots, the interwoven story lines that formed the backbone of this album. I counted six primary stories which were surrounded and penetrated by nine smaller plot devices specifically relating to families. I also noticed three other very minor ones that I will briefly mention as well. And if I missed any, be sure to tell me in the comments!

So, first, in no particular order, here are my thoughts on the major plots:

1. Buck and the Meltsners: I knew this was coming. I think we all did. Ever since Buck ran off with Mr. Skint in Album 53 after having developed a bit of a relationship with "Ms. Katrina." Then our thoughts were confirmed when Eugene and Katrina learned they couldn't have kids. So yeah, I suppose this was predictable. But Paul McCusker knew that it was predictable, so what does he do? He slips some awesome dialogue in through Connie that lets us know that he knows and that he doesn't care because it's a pretty awesome story, nevertheless. And I agree. Adoption is a beautiful thing, whether that's what ends up happening in this situation or not. And even if that's not what happens, it's still a great picture of Christlike love to take in a kid who has caused you and people you love a lot of trouble. Almost makes me want to forgive all the wishy-washy stuff Katrina said to Buck back in Album 53. xp I'm actually finding myself looking forward to what comes of this in the seasons ahead.

2. Jules and Connie: We knew Jules was coming back, but I don't think any of us could have guessed how it was going to be handled. One of the most awesome things about her as a character, I think, is how similar she is to how Connie was when she first came to Odyssey from California. Sure, she's a 21st century version with social media to aid her sense of independence, and she has different reasons to feel uneasy in Odyssey, but she's still the same girl. And as I mentioned before, it's really awesome to watch her progress throughout this season. People say her secret intentions were obvious and that her story line was too predictable. I disagree. Yes, it was obvious from the beginning that she was up to something. I even said to my siblings before the first episode was over, "She's the Perilous Pen." But then the Vigilantors get introduced. And Vance seems to have some connection with them. And she hangs out with Vance quite a lot. So for a while, I was really unsure of what she was actually doing. She seems to be more connected to the vandalism than she does to Wooton and his comics, even though she initially shows up at Comic-Connelsville. Of course, if you were astute enough to keep the very first scene of the season in mind, retaining that Wooton's comics were in the supply room at Whit's End, then you would have had a pretty good grasp on every thing. I, like anyone else, knew something was up when Jules kept getting caught sneaking around near there, but I had not paid enough attention to know that it was hiding Wooton's comics. So although it was obvious that she was the Perilous Pen by the time everything was being revealed, I thought the writers did a good job maintaining a moderate amount of uncertainty along the way.

3. The Parkers: I'm going to treat this one as the core of the season, because I think it ultimately was. It was the Parker kids who received the most powerful and direct instruction and explanation from Whit as to the nature of biblical families. Matthew was directly related to both the LGT Festival plot and the Hangman's Hollow plot; Olivia was indirectly related to the LGT Festival plot; and Camilla was indirectly related to the Buck plot. So in a lot of ways, this family is at the center of everything. And they have their own issues to sort out, even if all of the craziness weren't going on around them. I think Mr. and Mrs. Parker really shine as parents in this album. Some people say that the family talks were contrived. I'll give you that. But sometimes that's sorta how family conversations are, aren't they? Sometimes it's just like, we need to have a talk, so let's just do it. It doesn't have to flow well. =P Others complain that the "tension" thing was never really resolved. But what about after Camilla talks to Buck? Does she not leave him with a newfound appreciation for her family, tense and imperfect though they may be? That was resolution enough for me: they aren't perfect, but God has blessed them richly with an intact family, so they need to be there for each other.

4. Ms. Adelaide and the LGT Festival: (Am I the only one who recognized that the initials of the festival are pretty darn close to those of another association with similar values and aspirations? =P) Now we come to the plot that gave many fans the most grief this season. And, honestly, I don't understand why. I mean, I hear their arguments, but the arguments just don't make sense to me. This is a show for 8- to 12-year-olds. And many of the children in that target audience have younger siblings who are not quite that old. Do they need to hear the words "homosexuality," "gay," "lesbian," or "AIDS" being thrown around? Even if it would be okay for their older siblings? I don't think so. And this is certainly the case in my family. If all of the subjects either directly addressed or touched upon in this album had been described with the aforementioned words, some of my younger siblings would not have been allowed to listen? Is that because my parents shelter their kids? Perhaps. But it's more just because they want to be able to make the determination about when their children are old enough and mature enough to hear those terms and have them explained to them. I think Mr. McCusker made an excellent decision in the way he wrote the dialogue and set up the situations throughout this season. All young kids needed to understand was that Ms. Adelaide and Mr. Whittaker had a disagreement based on their principles; and Mr. Whittaker got his principles right out of Scripture, so he was obviously on the right side. =P As they get older and their parents introduce them to these deep issues on their own timing, they will understand more about the message behind these episodes, and I think they'll be able to appreciate them even more. Now, there's also the issue of whether or not Ms. Adelaide was caricatured. Meh, I suppose you could make that argument. There were certainly scenes where she was over-the-top. But I think there are people out there like her who are both inconsistent within their belief systems and also unaware of just how much their belief system affects them. So I don't think it was all together unrealistic. The message was very clear to those old enough to understand all of its nuances, and there were several subjects broached about which parents were then given the opportunity to have conversations with their kids, at their own discretion. That's what Focus set out to do, and I think they accomplished that goal very well.

5. Hangman's Hollow: Ah, yes, the least substantive of the plots. =P After having listened to most of the episodes two or more times, I feel like there was a lot of emphasis on this plot point at the beginning...without much return at the end. It's almost like the initial mystery about the guy going around buying all the old antiques existed merely to involve Jason and to introduce an opportunity for the Jones & Parker Detective Agency to have a mini-case. =p I suppose those aren't horrible things, but it does still feel like the low point of the season, with regard to quality of writing. It does seem to serve as a decent source of comic relief, with Harlow Doyle making an appearance, as well as zombies, which were the last thing any fan expected to hear in an Odyssey show. xp So I'll admit that it was creative! And it was a good way to touch on the interesting study that is the effect of television sitcoms on American life and morals, which I'll talk about more later. So, I guess, although this plot didn't impress me as much as the others, it was still unique and served a purpose, so I can't fault it too much.

6. Wooton and Comic-Connelsville: And, last but not least, we consider what's probably my favorite of the story lines in this season. I don't know about you guys, but I thought this whole "Comic-Connelsville" thing was pretty darn clever -- just barely a notch above corny. =P When I heard this idea introduced in the first episode, it was basically right then that I knew we were in for a very good season. This is the largest focus we've ever had on Wooton and his PowerBoy comics, among the others that he writes. I thought it was awesome to see Wooton among people who think of him as a celebrity. This plot point introduced so many opportunities for character development -- the deal with Maximized Comics, the possibility of selling artwork, the Perilous Pen, the Sleuth Family Robinson concept, and, of course, the break-in and burning down of his house. I think I loved just about every minute of all the directions this story went. Even Hadley, as a character, intrigued me a good deal, especially as we neared the end of the season. As with Jules, although I had inklings of the things he was involved in, the nature and flow of the story kept me guessing. Of course, once Jules was exposed as the Perilous Pen and it was clear that the Vigilantors had no reason to set their sights on Wooton, it wasn't hard to figure out who was left to be behind the various felonies at Wooton's house. But I still don't think that made it predictable. As I've alluded to previously and will further expound upon soon, I believe this plot was the heart and soul of the album, inasmuch as the Parker family and their involvement were the substance of the album... if that makes sense. =P

Okay, now I'm going to switch gears and try to briefly go over the nine or so family structures that we saw in this album. A lot of these are fairly obscure and discussed only briefly, but every one is important, I believe.

1. Buck's (lack of) family: This one is really key, I think. Especially when we see the conversation that Buck has with Camilla. Emotional depth permeates his lines, and you almost come away with it even more grateful for your *own* family. It's incredibly hard for me to imagine what it would be like to grow up without committed, loving parents. God is very gracious. So I need things like this as reminders that there are people out there who really struggle in orphanages and foster care systems, always looking for permanence and unconditional love that are seldom found.

2. Meltsners' want of family: Obviously this one is very related to the previous one. This, again, is something that a lot of us with traditional families are not used to thinking about. A lot of us know couples who struggle with infertility, but I venture to say that not many of us at all understand all of the heartbreak that accompanies such a struggle. In our culture that's becoming so comfortable with family planning, birth control, and the like, we lose sight of what a blessing it is to have children. We're more likely to think about how they can benefit us rather than how blessed we are to be given the responsibility and privilege of investing in *them*. And infertility gets in the way of such blessing and privilege. But there is also great beauty in adoption -- often the result of infertility -- and I hope we get to see this beauty expounded even more as we continue to follow the story of Buck and the Meltsners. It's unfortunate that the process is often so costly in our country, but I imagine the rewards are worth the effort and I believe Christ is exalted because of the beautiful picture adoption paints to remind us of what His sacrifice did for us.

3. Jules's family: In Jules we have a great picture of what happens when a girl has no consistent family life -- and when she does have family life, it consists of a father who is not very respectful in his treatment of women and a mother who obviously has better things to care about. Unfortunately, I think this is a very common situation. Way too many teenage girls today do not have a respectable, caring father-figure in their lives. Feminists would say, "Who needs one?" but I think suicide and self-harm statistics speak for themselves. Girls need a man who will tell them they're beautiful, who will treat them and the other women in his life like they're worth something. If they don't have that, they don't have an accurate picture of how guys should treat girls, and they won't end up being very selective when it comes to the guys they date. Case in point, Jules initially having no problem hanging out with Vance and others like him. Her father doesn't treat her with the dignity she deserves, so why should she be turned off by a guy who wants her help to do wrong things? I don't recall what the exact situation is with her mom -- whether Bill has moved on to someone else already or not -- but I do recall that she made it to Odyssey before her parents even thought to worry about her. So hers wasn't a good situation. I'm glad Connie was given the opportunity to have a better influence on her and give her better direction than she'd been getting at home. I trust this season wasn't the last we'll see of their relationship.

4. Connie and her mom: Even though this ended up being a really small and somewhat forgettable part of the season, I still thought it was really meaningful. Connie's mom did a pretty decent job of bringing her up after Bill divorced her, and I think the trunk she saved was just another really sweet example of just how much she cared about Connie. We get a little sense of generational legacy here, since June makes it clear that she wanted Connie to be able to show the stuff to her kids someday. Makes me stop and think about stuff I might want to do for my kids someday that would impact them in a way similar to this.

5. The Parker family: Yes, we discussed them as part of the six major plots, but they're a picture we see of family, too, so they're worth mentioning again. I remember when this family was introduced with the relaunch and Album 51 and we found ourselves complaining a bit about different idiosyncrasies here and there; but who today wouldn't say that the Parkers have grown on you? Even with all the voice changes I think the kids are still very real kids, and many of the listeners in the target audience can certainly identify with them. I love the chemistry of the parents, and I love the times of banter that the siblings often share. It's a very realistic family, in my opinion, and it's an intact one! One without divorce, without extramarital affairs, without teenage rebellion, and without a deadbeat dad or a domineering mom. It's a group of individuals that God has placed together to live life and glorify Him together. We might not all enjoy such a thriving family, but I think most people would agree they wish they had that. So I'm glad Odyssey has consistently kept such a model for us over the years.

6. The family on the TV show: The name of the show escapes me at the moment (they did name it, didn't they?), but you guys know what I'm talking about: The family with *gasp* lesbians at the head. When I heard the producer of the show explaining the members of the family to Matthew, Emily, and Jay, I was simultaneously shocked and overjoyed that Odyssey actually went so far as to mention a family with two moms. I think it's about time we start addressing things like this with our kids, because it's only a matter of time before such "family" units become even more widespread than they are now. When things get to the point where your next-door neighbors are lesbians or a male gay couple, what are you going to tell your kids? Well, I hope to have already prepared my kids for such situations. Obviously we don't have to tell them all of the inner workings and the sexual motivations behind the decision that two people of the same sex make to marry one another; but we can establish for them the biblical model of the family and explain that anything else is rebellion against the law of Christ and direct defiance of nature. That's why I was excited to hear the subject broached in an Odyssey episode. Hopefully it will give parents who haven't equipped their children for such questions and observations the chance to start some important conversations.

7. The Sleuth Family Robinson: Here we have essentially the opposite of the previous family model. This creation of Wooton is intended to have the opposite effect that the lesbian couple would have in the media. Whereas seeing homosexuality depicted on a sitcom would encourage the normalization and social acceptance of the sinful, destructive lifestyle, seeing an intact, cooperating family portrayed in a good light would promote, in however small a way, a biblical view of marriage and family. We could argue about how much influence one family in a comic book would have on society at large, but we'll set that aside for now. I just thought it was a really cool idea on the part of Paul McCusker to have Wooton create characters like this to counteract so much of the junk we see representing families in most media today, as the Parker family discusses. I wish something like this actually existed, because I found the concept quite intriguing.

8. Ms. Adelaide and her brother: This, I thought, was a very profound move to make. Yes, an awful lot is packed together in this one album, so adding another aspect to the debate on marriage and family could be perceived as overkill. But I thought this particular aspect was handled very well. I mean, come on, would you have ever seen it coming that AIO would feature a character with AIDS? Really? I remember a discussion years ago on the message boards about whether or not it would work for a homosexual character to appear on the show, how the people in the town would respond, what Whit in particular would do in such a situation, etc. And now here we have the answer! Whit handled his conversations with Ms. Adelaide's brother so delicately and with such grace.... It was really inspiring. And the fact that he apparently got saved in the end really just warmed my heart. You could tell he was repentant; he saw where his sin had gotten him, and he acknowledged that it was all his fault. Even his friends wouldn't come to see him because he reminded them of where their own wrong choices could take them as long as they persisted in them. Yeah, sure, not every homosexual ends up with AIDS, and certainly not every one that does end up with AIDS repents of sin and trusts Christ for salvation. But isn't it a beautiful thing to think that God actually does save such people? 1 Corinthians 6 tells us as much. And I like to be reminded of that sort of thing, because I know it was just as much of a miracle that He saved me.

9. Wooton and Hadley: Oh, I could go on and on about how much I loved the resolution of this plot. When the truth comes out that Hadley was the one who caused the destruction to Wooton's house and had been attempting to misuse his artwork; when he goes and tries to sell the artwork to Hugo Wells; when Hugo Wells rejects it because he knows it wouldn't be an honest transaction; and then when Wooton confronts him about it..... I don't know what I was expecting, but I certainly wasn't expecting him to go back in with him and sell the artwork honestly to help Hadley pay his bills. I legit just about cried. My eyes teared up. Wooton is so freaking awesome. And I love it when he does things like that that are just so... Christian. Such evidence that he's been treated with undeserved favor, because he's so ready to show it to others. Really makes me wish I could be more like that toward the people closest to me.

Alright, then, just to round things off, I'll point out that we also got small glimpses into the Smouse family (Jay can do basically whatever he wants whenever he wants because, quote, "they want him to be quiet." XD) and the Jones family (Emily, as we've seen before, could potentially haggle with her parents until she talked them into letting her see a zombie TV show, if that's really what she wanted to see. =p). And then I wanted to point out that we got another small look into the father-son relationship between Whit and Jason in the short conversations they have after Whit's collapse. (While I'm on the subject, by the way, I don't know what's up with you people who say that that situation was not resolved. Jason says to Whit, "You should have come in to see [Dr. Graham] days ago," and Jules makes a remark that she's certain by the looks of Whit that all the stress just got to his head. So I really think that's all it was... I'm not sure why people want something more, as if his collapse was part of a plot by Ms. Adelaide to get him out of the way or something. xP)

So there you have it! Family, family, family! You're probably sick of hearing me talk about it by now, but I do want to say just a few more things. I work with kids on a daily basis during the school year whose lives are a wreck, mostly because of the horrible home situations they have to return to every day. Some of them go through verbal abuse, and some physical and sexual abuse. A couple have intact families, but the majority have parents who have gone through a divorce, who never got married at all, or who are in jail because of terrible choices they've made. One of the young girls I work with lives with a lesbian mom and her partner. One of the boys I work with never knew his dad because his mom is always switching boyfriends. I could go on and on with stories, but you get the point. Family matters. And God's model for family matters. That's what this album was about. And you have to acknowledge that it drove that point into the ground. If nothing else, my above analysis of just how many family units we saw this season proves it. We are talking about a product from Focus on the Family, after all, people. =P

Was this album perfect? No. But I truly think it's the best we've been offered since all the changes in 2010. I don't think the interconnected-ness of the plots and the constant switching from one to the next detracted from the album; I think it enhanced it. I think it drove home the point that families are integral to society, to everything we do. If we lose that, as our culture seems bound to do, we begin to lose everything. And never have I understood that point so well as I have when listening to and considering this, AIO's first and only 14-part episode. Hopefully my analysis has done some justice to its greatness.

[Woody]

Just as a note, Whit's collapse was not a direct result of stress about the LGT Festival, as evidenced by the fact that he was not feeling himself in Part 1, even before Ms. Adelaide ever showed him the poster.

[TigerintheShadows]

I'm going to be "that person" and respectfully disagree with you on some points, though there were some with which I agreed wholeheartedly.

(For the record, I spent the better part of an hour on this because Notability was slower than molasses in January typing this thing out, so my replies had better be substantial. )

I forgot that I didn't like Buck. Throughout the season he really grew on me, but in the scene where he explained to Camilla why she needed to be content with her upbringing and the way that her family loved her instead of coveting his life... it totally broke down any remaining dislike of his character that I was harboring. The lines were delivered so well, and the emotion in his voice was perfect, not feeling forced or scripted at all. That was one of my favorite scenes, outside of the several scenes that ended the season.

Yes, Buck's character development was definitely a highlight for me. I don't know why, but Buck has grown on me more than Richard Maxwell ever did (though that may be because I was exposed to fans who had these inexplicable crushes on him before I had really gotten to know and appreciate his character). I felt real pity for Buck and a deep-seated desire for him to succeed, and I don't usually get invested in the "Bad Boy/Girl Becomes Atoner" characters.

I forgot that Wooton has been annoying the last few albums, due to his consistent identity as the provider of lame comic relief. Hadley took that role in this album, and it was a breath of fresh air. Sure, Wooton had his silly moments, but it wasn't overdone like it usually is; it felt like he was finally back in character. And his character was integral to the plot of the album, so he went through quite a bit of emotional turmoil and character development over the course of the 14-part episode. I couldn't be more happy with the more mature character that resulted.

Ooh, yes! I forgot about how much I liked Wooton. Though I wasn't fond of the bloated Perilous Pen storyline, I did really enjoy Wooton's maturity and that someone else took over for him as the team's Cloudcuckoolander. It felt like a return to the Wooton we saw in "Wooing Wooton" and "The Highest Stakes" (which, in my opinion, were two of his best episodes).

Others complain that the "tension" thing was never really resolved. But what about after Camilla talks to Buck? Does she not leave him with a newfound appreciation for her family, tense and imperfect though they may be?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not complaining that the tension wasn't resolved so much as I'm complaining that it wasn't resolved well. It felt told rather than shown. If Olivia goes on a life-changing RoC experience, I want to see it and find out how that changed her perspective, not simply be informed that it did. I'd much rather have heard about that and seen some real character progression than have heard more melodrama about the Perilous Pen, honestly. =/ Camilla's was the only aspect of the storyline that felt naturally resolved, and considering that the thread was set up to include all of the Parkers, that's not a very satisfying ending to me. (I kind of wanted to explore David and Eva as busy parents, although I wouldn't want a rehash of "The Business of Busyness" out of it.)

(Am I the only one who recognized that the initials of the festival are pretty darn close to those of another association with similar values and aspirations? =P)

...Wow, I can't believe I didn't pick up on that! o_O Good catch.

Now we come to the plot that gave many fans the most grief this season. And, honestly, I don't understand why. I mean, I hear their arguments, but the arguments just don't make sense to me. This is a show for 8- to 12-year-olds. And many of the children in that target audience have younger siblings who are not quite that old. Do they need to hear the words "homosexuality," "gay," "lesbian," or "AIDS" being thrown around? Even if it would be okay for their older siblings? I don't think so.

You say that like entertainment being pushed for young kids that does explicitly use those terms, or even definitions/portrayals of those terms (and we weren't given even that), doesn't exist. =/ I'm not talking about adult entertainment that kids just stumble upon or are allowed to watch because their parents don't care; I'm talking about material that is directly marketed to them. Kids are exposed to those specific terms at younger and younger ages, because our culture is trying to push to them that homosexuality is completely normal and is perfectly aligned with any moral code—including Christianity. Isn't AIO supposed to represent a counterpoint to our culture a much as it is a safe place for entertainment? (And it's not like there are no such things as parental warnings.)

It's been my experience not only that kids can handle heavy stuff, but that people who produce heavy stuff know this. I remember when Down Gilead Lane did a pretty blunt episode about pornography that I listened to and understood when I was eight, and the same show did several episodes that discussed drinking and drunk driving. These shows have the same target demographics (honestly, I think DGL tended to skew younger than AIO), so honest portrayals of these types of issues are not above the heads of children. And as I have said before, controversial issues are not unheard of for AIO, either, so I doubt whether a little more upfrontness about this particular topic would have been a catastrophe.

Now, there's also the issue of whether or not Ms. Adelaide was caricatured. Meh, I suppose you could make that argument. There were certainly scenes where she was over-the-top. But I think there are people out there like her who are both inconsistent within their belief systems and also unaware of just how much their belief system affects them. So I don't think it was all together unrealistic.

Be that as it may, most people who push her agenda do not behave so obviously. Those who push the "tolerance and inclusivity" agenda tend to be much more subversive and do a much better job at convincing their audience than simply using words that sound nice and then behaving openly antagonistically when they don't immediately get their way. If you're going to have an antagonist who is true to life, shouldn't they behave more like a real person than like a strawman, since kids are going to be dealing with more real people than strawmen in everyday life?

I mean, come on, would you have ever seen it coming that AIO would feature a character with AIDS? Really?

I remember having a conversation with Marvin D. where he said something about AIDS and honestly, it threw me for a loop. I suspected AIDS, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I really didn't pick up on it. This is why being upfront about your points is helpful (though I suppose I could just be ditzy ).

when Wooton confronts him about it..... I don't know what I was expecting, but I certainly wasn't expecting him to go back in with him and sell the artwork honestly to help Hadley pay his bills.

Yes, I liked this part, as well. It reminded me, again, of "The Highest Stakes" while still feeling unique unto itself. It was definitely a great moment—not only for Wooton, but for the show itself, as it exemplified very well what sacrificial love means for how you live your life.

(While I'm on the subject, by the way, I don't know what's up with you people who say that that situation was not resolved. Jason says to Whit, "You should have come in to see [Dr. Graham] days ago," and Jules makes a remark that she's certain by the looks of Whit that all the stress just got to his head. So I really think that's all it was... I'm not sure why people want something more

I think people wanted something more out of that storyline because Jason made such a fuss over Whit's health in "Life Expectancy" (and I think Whit ended up at one point acknowledging that he didn't feel too well, although I could be wrong), and they wanted to know if it was going to be really important with that kind of buildup—I think people were hoping for a "Mortal Coil" that they didn't get. (It is, of couse, worth noting that Jason fussed the way he did because Connie's mother had recently died and he was basically recalling the fact that Whit is still very mortal, but I think the expectation was still there anyway.) And when we didn't get a big "Whit's health" storyline, I think most people wanted an explanation like the one that you gave, but it wasn't ever officially diagnosed in-show, and so we were left to speculate.

Overall, I personally think that the album could have improved itself significantly if we had seen more attention paid to the real struggles of the Parker family to coalesce, dealt with a more complex and human Ms. Adelaide (who was portrayed as such throughout and not as "the bad guy"; there were some points where all she needed was a mustache to twirl), diminished the TV show plot (I mean, seriously, what was the point of Jay becoming a TV star? What did that add thematically?), and erased the Perilous Pen storyline entirely and stuck with the Sleuth Family Robinson, dealing with Jules differently (somehow). To me, that would have helped the "family" theme actually shine instead of being overshadowed by what I consider to be a plotline of nebulous relevance.

[Marvin D.]

. .*stumbles in*

I'm incredibly lazy and have no desire to format Christian's response, but I am, as usual, pretty much in accord with Tiger, although I still don't care in the least for Buck but am resigned to the fact he's likely to become a regular. Maybe it's because I am a perpetual grouch, but first impressions are a big deal with me, and since I've relistened to GRC at least six times--and anyone who's read my lengthy reviews back in the day knows how scathing I was about Buck, Emily, Penny, and Wooton--it's hard to change my mind. The same applies to your other points, such as with Penny and Wooton: I have a low tolerance for childish humor that borders on juvenile, which Wooton brings plenty of. I understand it's comic relief, but this is a 30-year old man we're talking about. Yes, I'm out of the age range for the show, but still. It's not a bad thing to remain relatively serious for five minutes.

That said, the new actor for Matthew isn't all that bad--I can hardly remember what he sounds like now, so that's probably a good thing--and I don't mind Jules's voice, although her character is quite another thing. And don't even start with Hadley. One Basset is more than enough.

Now. You say Paul McCusker's accomplished a lot--I think it's the exact opposite. He bit off more than he could chew, SEEMINGLY. However, the plot is actually pretty unsubstantial and poorly fleshed-out once you look closely at it, and it lasts 14 episodes only because the Perilous Pen storyline drags out, as well as the whole Haunted Town fiasco. Both are only tangentially related to the thematic storyline of God's purpose for family, and the Perilous Pen is so painfully obvious there's no reason why it should have lasted so long. Had Jules and Vance been a red herring, which I was fervently hoping so, then I would've been satisfied. But it wasn't.

I hardly feel like the Parker family as a unit counts quite as one coherent storyline--they're all having little adventures of their own and it's only tied together through FAMILY TIME WITH THE PARKERS! Olivia's off in a RoC adventure, Matthew is battling the evil villainess Ms. Adelaide, and Camilla's replaced Emily and is now Buck's ardent, No. 1 fan. Yes, we have the cornerstone of family tying it all together, but it's just. .ehh. Especially, especially Olivia. The most important rule in storytelling--in my opinion, at least--is show, don't tell. This is perhaps the most blatant flouting of that rule-of-thumb. Olivia has (so we hear) a dramatic adventure in the RoC, and all we do is. .get it handed down to us, which strips the moment of its viscerality (is that even a word?) and instead distances us from connecting with Olivia and understanding what it is she discovered. And why? No time, because ZOMBIES! FESTIVALS! SCANDALS! At least 10 minutes of one episode could have been dedicated to Olivia's adventure, and at least a significant chunk of two or three episodes to seeing the Parkers interact in a more organic fashion than a very convenient family talk or three.

Now. .Ms. Adelaide. My major issue, frankly. The whole beating-around-the-bush and masking it with vague, nebulous terms like "tolerance" and "inclusivity" not only obfuscate the driving message the show is ostensibly trying to deliver, but in reality, it really subtly seems to suggest that Mr. Whittaker is an intolerant bigot. I think it's a good thing to be tolerant--we should be mature and capable enough to transcend dividing constructs such as race, socioeconomic status, and gender--but what exactly is it that Whit has principles about? This isn't the 1960s anymore, it's the 21st century, and there's no hiding it anymore. Disney's Good Luck, Charlie! had an episode where Charlie has a playmate come over, and the girl's got two moms; the Cartoon Network recently aired an episode with its first gay kiss. Whatever your stance is on the issue, realize this: it's out there, it's real, and there's no stopping it. If you're not part of the LGBT movement or one of its allies, prepare yourself for an onslaught. It's not just on primetime TV--Showtime ran a TV show called Queer as Folk from 2000-05, the first gay-themed show on TV, I believe. Now, it's virtually everywhere. FOTF does no one any favors by masking the issue. Pretending an issue doesn't really exist and trying to whitewash it or dress it up to "shelter" children is, frankly, not only hindering but potentially even destructive.

Ms. Adelaide is not a realistic portrayal by any standards, and that was fairly double-standarded, I think. Christians always gripe about not being depicted accurately as loving, well-rounded, sensible, and rational people; now the tables are flipped and the grotesque portrayals are projected on the LGBT group, epitomized in Ms. Adelaide and the Vigilantors. They are aggressive, antagonistic, destructive, and hypocritical, and seem to have little support for their beliefs. It's so egregiously blatant it's almost a bad parody of the ones who bully and harass women at Planned Parenthood, the ones who drive LGBT teenagers to suicide, the ones who deface property of the LGBT group. The truth is this: each side--and I dislike that term, but that's how it is, I suppose--does horrible things at some point. Whether gay or straight, there are people who push an agenda and do pretty low things to get what they want, though I daresay it's more often the vocal rednecks/conservatives who do the majority of that, simply because the LGBT movement is still a majority and is scrutinized aggressively.

So why is Ms. Adelaide such a one-dimensional character? Why not craft her more similar to the REAL people in the REAL environment that surround every one of these days? How are you equipping children if the only contact they may have had up to then is of an aggressive teacher who spouts fancy words but behaves so hypoctrically? What happens when they meet a genuinely nice gay kid at school who asks them to join their Gay/Straight Alliance? What about the teacher who asks her to write a paper about the benefits of a non-traditional family unit and cites a dozen examples of happy, healthy households? The real world isn't as painfully clear as Odyssey portrayed it. The good guys--Whit, Connie, Jason, Eugene--are not always so saintlike and gentle and loving; and the "bad guys"--Ms. Adelaide, her brother, the Vigilantors--are very rarely so ridiculously paper-thin. And that, perhaps, is the biggest mistake FOTF made in the album, one that sets a poor precedent for everyone involved: the company itself, the parents, the children, and the Other. Nobody wins.

So yes. I'm pretty sure the words family and tolerance and inclusivity got thrown around a lot, and I suppose a sort of contrast is set up and paralleled with the Sleuth Family Robinson and the zombie show family (I forget exactly what happened there now; only listened once). But so little is defined, and there's a lingering feeling of vagueness and irresolution, because WHAT is resolved? What is intolerance? Why is what Whit believes not bigotry and intolerance, and what causes there to be a difference between the different models for family? Sure, each family makes decisions when listening to the show and has the final word; that's no excuse for FOTF to try to pander to everyone's whims. Whatever point they want to make, they should. AIO targets conservative evangelical Protestants and remains vague enough to include Catholics; I'm pretty sure they could flat-out say that they believe that gay marriage is morally wrong; that's what they hinted at in distant, abstract language. All they needed was a disclaimer (didn't they include one, anyways?) and they would make it clear that the parents would have to discuss the issues further with their kids. Just as Whit and the others had to take a stand (even if against a cringe-worthy antagonist), so should FOTF be willing to do the same.

. .and that was about 10x longer than what I was expecting to write; I lost an hour where I could've caught up on my novel. SOMEONE HAD BETTER RESPOND TO THIS

[Christian A.]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not complaining that the tension wasn't resolved so much as I'm complaining that it wasn't resolved well. It felt told rather than shown. If Olivia goes on a life-changing RoC experience, I want to see it and find out how that changed her perspective, not simply be informed that it did. I'd much rather have heard about that and seen some real character progression than have heard more melodrama about the Perilous Pen, honestly. =/ Camilla's was the only aspect of the storyline that felt naturally resolved, and considering that the thread was set up to include all of the Parkers, that's not a very satisfying ending to me. (I kind of wanted to explore David and Eva as busy parents, although I wouldn't want a rehash of "The Business of Busyness" out of it.)

I think I can agree with this. I, too, would have found it more interesting to hear more about the Parkers than the Perilous Pen. I still feel like what we got was fairly satisfactory, though.

You say that like entertainment being pushed for young kids that does explicitly use those terms, or even definitions/portrayals of those terms (and we weren't given even that), doesn't exist. =/ I'm not talking about adult entertainment that kids just stumble upon or are allowed to watch because their parents don't care; I'm talking about material that is directly marketed to them. Kids are exposed to those specific terms at younger and younger ages, because our culture is trying to push to them that homosexuality is completely normal and is perfectly aligned with any moral code—including Christianity. Isn't AIO supposed to represent a counterpoint to our culture a much as it is a safe place for entertainment? (And it's not like there are no such things as parental warnings.)

I definitely get what you're saying. But I don't think this is necessarily true of all kids -- not even the majority of the audience that listens to AIO. I think a lot of them are in families that "shelter" them enough that maybe the most they've come across is a pair of men or women holding hands in the store. So AIO comes along and introduces similar concepts in order to give the parents some ideas about how to have conversations with their young kids about these issues. But it's not AIO's place to actually have the conversations, to use the explicit terms and explain them for the audience.

It's been my experience not only that kids can handle heavy stuff, but that people who produce heavy stuff know this. I remember when Down Gilead Lane did a pretty blunt episode about pornography that I listened to and understood when I was eight, and the same show did several episodes that discussed drinking and drunk driving. These shows have the same target demographics (honestly, I think DGL tended to skew younger than AIO), so honest portrayals of these types of issues are not above the heads of children. And as I have said before, controversial issues are not unheard of for AIO, either, so I doubt whether a little more upfrontness about this particular topic would have been a catastrophe.

The fact that kids can hear about heavy stuff and comprehend it and perhaps "handle" it doesn't mean that they were ready for it. There are things that I learned about when I was in the 8-12 age range that I wish I hadn't learned about until I was much older. I "handled" it, but I wasn't mature enough to actually have my innocence violated in the ways that it was. I recall those DGL shows. And I also recall that most of my younger siblings were not allowed to listen to DGL most of the time when it was still airing on our local station. My parents decided that they'd rather gauge for themselves when their children were ready to be introduced to subjects like those, rather than letting people who didn't know their children make those decisions for them. Perhaps the use of the word "homosexuality" wouldn't have been catastrophic. But I feel like there would have been a fair amount of backlash -- just like there was with "Pamela Has a Problem." I think Paul McCusker erred on the side of caution, and I think he was wise to do so.

Be that as it may, most people who push her agenda do not behave so obviously. Those who push the "tolerance and inclusivity" agenda tend to be much more subversive and do a much better job at convincing their audience than simply using words that sound nice and then behaving openly antagonistically when they don't immediately get their way. If you're going to have an antagonist who is true to life, shouldn't they behave more like a real person than like a strawman, since kids are going to be dealing with more real people than strawmen in everyday life?

I can't make myself disagree with this. I suppose I would have liked to see a little less of a strawman. But I felt like she changed enough by the end that it made up for a little of the outlandishness of her character earlier on in the season.

I remember having a conversation with Marvin D. where he said something about AIDS and honestly, it threw me for a loop. I suspected AIDS, somewhere in the back of my mind, but I really didn't pick up on it. This is why being upfront about your points is helpful (though I suppose I could just be ditzy ).

That's surprising to me, because I thought it was obvious from the first time we were introduced to the character. And then it was reinforced when Randall says that his body is riddled with things that are trying to destroy him. I thought that made it pretty clear, but, obviously, the writers were trying to be vague, so I can see why you didn't pick up on it.

I think people wanted something more out of that storyline because Jason made such a fuss over Whit's health in "Life Expectancy" (and I think Whit ended up at one point acknowledging that he didn't feel too well, although I could be wrong), and they wanted to know if it was going to be really important with that kind of buildup—I think people were hoping for a "Mortal Coil" that they didn't get. (It is, of couse, worth noting that Jason fussed the way he did because Connie's mother had recently died and he was basically recalling the fact that Whit is still very mortal, but I think the expectation was still there anyway.) And when we didn't get a big "Whit's health" storyline, I think most people wanted an explanation like the one that you gave, but it wasn't ever officially diagnosed in-show, and so we were left to speculate.

True. It could have been stated more explicitly than it was.

Overall, I personally think that the album could have improved itself significantly if we had seen more attention paid to the real struggles of the Parker family to coalesce, dealt with a more complex and human Ms. Adelaide (who was portrayed as such throughout and not as "the bad guy"; there were some points where all she needed was a mustache to twirl), diminished the TV show plot (I mean, seriously, what was the point of Jay becoming a TV star? What did that add thematically?), and erased the Perilous Pen storyline entirely and stuck with the Sleuth Family Robinson, dealing with Jules differently (somehow). To me, that would have helped the "family" theme actually shine instead of being overshadowed by what I consider to be a plotline of nebulous relevance.

I definitely understand your complaints in these areas. Ultimately, though, I think things were kept the way they were simply because of the target audience. Kids are going to find the Perilous Pen plotline more interesting than a drawn-out storyline about the Parker family tension. They're more entertained by Jay and the zombies than by Ms. Adelaide. That's what most of this comes down to. I think Mr. McCusker did as much as he could to emphasize family in as many ways as he could without losing the attention of the average 8- to 12-year-old. And I don't think we can fault him for that. It is a kids' show, after all.

@ Marvin: I will attempt to answer your critiques sometime in the near future. =P

[TigerintheShadows]

Kids are going to find the Perilous Pen plotline more interesting than a drawn-out storyline about the Parker family tension. They're more entertained by Jay and the zombies than by Ms. Adelaide. That's what most of this comes down to. I think Mr. McCusker did as much as he could to emphasize family in as many ways as he could without losing the attention of the average 8- to 12-year-old. And I don't think we can fault him for that.

Yes, we can, because it's not impossible as demonstrated by past precedent. The Straussberg separation arc, with the exception of "Only By His Grace" (which contained the Grady story, which, if the ToO thread is to be believed, most people found unappealing), was a story unto itself, without having to be injected with something "for the kids" to keep it entertaining. That arc was one of the best that the show has ever done, in my opinion, and it was not exactly slice-of-life kids' show stuff. The same can be said for "The Highest Stakes" and "The Chosen One". It isn't impossible to discuss family while keeping it enjoyable for kids without the shameless pandering that I think you're implying that they have to do.

But I don't think this is necessarily true of all kids -- not even the majority of the audience that listens to AIO. I think a lot of them are in families that "shelter" them enough that maybe the most they've come across is a pair of men or women holding hands in the store. So AIO comes along and introduces similar concepts in order to give the parents some ideas about how to have conversations with their young kids about these issues. But it's not AIO's place to actually have the conversations, to use the explicit terms and explain them for the audience.

Maybe, and maybe not. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because no matter how sheltered a child is, they are going to see more and more of the normalization of homosexuality in our culture. Unless you are a parent whose children remain entirely insulated from the world, you are going to see it pushed further and further, no matter what you let your child watch or read. It will become inescapable in the near future. I think that Christian entertainment that seeks to counter that should be willing to step on some toes...but perhaps I'm saying that as someone who really isn't afraid at all to be as blunt as possible.

In all seriousness, I understand that parents might want to have that conversation later, but the problem with that is that, again, homosexuality is being pushed to younger and younger children. I don't think that it's paranoia to suggest that in a fairly short time, parents really won't have much of a choice about when to have that conversation if they want to raise their children on Biblical values.

The fact that kids can hear about heavy stuff and comprehend it and perhaps "handle" it doesn't mean that they were ready for it. There are things that I learned about when I was in the 8-12 age range that I wish I hadn't learned about until I was much older. I "handled" it, but I wasn't mature enough to actually have my innocence violated in the ways that it was.

But that's entirely dependent on how you learned of those things—was it in a relatively safe environment, through something that had your best interests at heart, or was it through a neutral-at-best-but-most-likely-malicious source? I highly doubt that they couldn't have been very clear about what they were talking about and yet still addressed the subject tastefully; when I ask for explicitness, I'm just asking that they tell us what they're talking about instead of wearing the kid gloves, not that they tell us all of the ins and outs of homo/bi/transsexuality.

Re: Ms. Adelaide—her softening-up at story's end does not make up for her over-the-top portrayal. Showing kids a character on the "other side" who is little else than a ruthless antagonist who seeks to push their agenda at every turn, regardless of practical sense, is inexcusable.

[Marvin D.]

It's 2 a.m., and Christian's yet to respond to my post, but I'd like to say one thing:

The parents are in charge of deciding when they think it's best to introduce certain topics to their kids, but the truth is that most kids get introduced to more mature topics all the time and simply never say anything for fear of how their parents might react. Young(er) children are not to be underestimated, and simply saying "gay marriage" or "homosexuality" would not be the end of the world; anyone who's afraid of having an 8-year old hear that word ought to realize that it's almost 2015. These kids don't need to know about the why's and how's, but just mentioning a fairly-neutral world in and of itself does absolutely no harm and makes it clear to the kids and parents that it's not something to be afraid of. Because, frankly, it isn't. It's something everyone needs to discuss, whether you're pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT. Leaving it at "tolerance" casts everything in a gray, murky sort of moral light and renders the drama as almost. .malevolent because tolerance, taken at face value, is something we all should strive to exude. Only once you define the subtle nuances of the terms, if only at face value, can a meaningful discussion take place.

[TigerintheShadows]

This doesn't have much to do with our discussion, but I was relistening to part 12 today when Whit is talking to Matthew about Ms. Adelaide's essays and teaching style, and he talks about how if you can change the way people think about gender, you can change the way people think about marriage, family, and even their humanity. I doubt Paul knew he was doing it, but I think AIO just accidentally alluded to otherkin (the idea that you were born the wrong species—no, seriously). I'm...weirdly amused, though I'm also aware that the more likely interpretation is that Whit is speaking instead of simply redefining what it is to be a human being.

[Jonathan]

After reading that, and after the minute or so I spent staring at my screen attempting to wrap my brain around that concept, I decided to read up on it. Turns out the 'otherkins' were born out of the 'elven online communities' in the 90's. Kinda doubt Tolkien had this in mind when he wrote LOTR (which is what I happen to be reading right now).

[Christian A.]

@Marvin: I'm fairly lazy, too, so I'm probably not going to give you the response you wanted, but I'll give it a go. =P

I thought there was very little childish humor in this season, as compared to other seasons. Maybe I've just started tuning it out, but I don't think so. And I certainly think there were spans of five minutes wherein childish humor did not appear. =P

Much of your beef seems to be with the balance of the storylines -- too much time given to the Perilous Pen, not enough time given to the Parker family, etc. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I firmly believe this was justified, solely because we're dealing with American 8- to 12-year-olds here. =P The attention span just isn't as great as it used to be. Of course, we as older, more mature fans want to hear more character development and resolution, but I don't think that's the case with the majority of the target audience.

I do not think Whit is portrayed as an intolerant bigot when juxtaposed against Ms. Adelaide...simply because of what you mentioned: she's a bit of a caricature; so Whit doesn't even need to be all that firm in disagreeing with her; the listening audience doesn't *want* to agree with her, regardless of what it is that she's propagating. I think that was the point. Whit clearly states that he's all for tolerance and inclusivity, but not when it contradicts God's Word. That's all that needed to be said, I thought. And it establishes the foundation for kids, so that, when they eventually encounter those words in connection with homosexuality, they will know that they need to compare homosexuality to God's Word to know whether they should "tolerate" it.

You're assuming that most kids who listen to AIO will have seen Good Luck, Charlie!, which I just don't believe is the case. The target audience is not really the majority of public-schooled, media-addicted tweenagers. I think the writers are more likely to have had in mind the conservative, largely-homeschooled, Christian audience that they've known for 25+ years now. Most of those kids aren't going to know what's big on children's television, I don't think. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the parents who supposedly care about their children's upbringing, protecting them and nurturing them, gauging when they're ready to learn about complex issues -- maybe those parents are just resigned to letting their children's media choices introduce them to the issues instead.... I think not. There are certainly those parents out there. But I still think the vast majority of the listening audience have parents who would rather be the ones to guide their children through the issue of homosexuality on their own time, at their own discernment, not when a Christian radio drama that they love and trust explicitly broaches the subject and so they're forced to talk about it when they hadn't decided their kids were ready yet.

"Pamela Has a Problem" had to be withheld from any album release until The Lost Episodes several years after it was originally aired because of all the backlash from parents. AIO had fairly explicitly touched on premarital sex and abortion, subjects, like homosexuality, which parents wanted to introduce to their kids wisely, not when forced to by their children's conservative Christian entertainment. I think the writers for Odyssey learned from that experience. And I think they learned well.

[TigerintheShadows]

@Christian: I seriously do not believe that you're giving kids enough credit here. The "attention span" that you find so problematic is the same as it always was. Once again I remind you that AIO has done serious shows that weren't all-action-all-the-time that were still very effective and well-done and did not require something flashy to "keep the kiddies entertained". You make it sound like shameless pandering is required in order to keep children focused, which I think is kind of insulting, even though I don't think you're deliberately trying to be.

@Marvin: I was reading your first post, and was curious—what, exactly, is your problem with Jules?

[Marvin D.]

Christian, I'm honestly not sure you realize just how far we've come here in 2015 AIO knows very well how popular their product is--over 20 million products sold, as they've mentioned time and time again. They've met with the fans in Colorado Springs, they've been here on the message boards, and *many* of the kids use the Internet, and hardly anyone is so sheltered that they haven't heard the phrase "gay marriage." If they're 10, and they haven't, then I'm of the firm belief that they're not just being "sheltered"--they're being lied to, because that's not the world. Good Luck, Charlie! is one of Disney's more "conservative, family-friendly" shows; I've heard countless parents across the the States recommend that show because it's wholesome entertainment. My 9-year old cousin used to watch it, along with Jessie and Austin and Ally and Shake it Off! and whatnot. The actors for both Jason and Spencer, I believe, are Christians, which is yet another reason that it's spoken highly of. Still, that happened. It's not just TV shows, for goodness' sakes: it's in supermarket ads, billboards, Internet forums, casual conversation. A show that has handled a heavy topic like divorce should be more than able to deal with a very real, very prominent issue like gay marriage. This isn't saying the n-word on the radio; it's being both truthful and forthright.

. .and I'm also not sure if you're seriously saying that AIO should throw in more mindless, comic humor because of "attention span" issues >_> As recently as Album 51, we had a fairly mature theme introduced in the *season premiere,* what with Connie's depression and self-hatred, or The Jubilee Singers's powerful historical drama. You're saying that the solution to this impossibly short attention span of kids is to. .dumb down a show instead. Because that's the logical step to make, a delve into the absurd? Riiiiight. Let's shamelessly pander and offer more mind-numbing entertainment and cater to the ostensibly short-spanned 21st century kids.

BUT WAIT. WAIT. That's a double standard. It's somehow all right to treat them like 21st-century kids who have ever-shortening attention spans, the media-addicted, hyperactive sorts of kids. .and then pretend that they're not when it comes to bringing up a fairly neutral word like gay marriage. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. I'm setting up a dichotomy here, and it would seem that you're arguing that it's somehow possible to treat kids almost as two different groups: the "modern" kid who spends hours watching cartoons and running wild (which would mean that they'd probably have been introduced to homosexuality at some basic level), or the "old-fashioned," homeschooled, conservative kid. You can't have both. And you're not giving kids nearly enough credit or looking at the world very realistically.

The more I think about it, the more I get a foul taste in my mouth. (Or maybe that's just leftover spaghetti.) It's almost as if you're lauding Focus for being dishonest and condescending, as if it's all right to misportray and stereotype minorities (whether it is in the OAC or here, with Ms. Adelaide). It's okay to pretend that Africans typically dance around fires, wear tribal clothing, and carry spear; that the LGBT advocates of the world spew vitriol and hatred in reality. It's all right to essentially deceive children into believing that this is the real world, that this is the truth, and that parents should do the same thing, all for the "greater good" of. .of. .what?

It's not all right. It's building a foundation that is based on a sketchy quarter-truth--based on a lie. And that's not okay.

@Tiger: I think for me, the problem with Jules was more her whole arc, since it felt entirely obvious to me, it was hard to get really engaged. I liked her a lot more in Life Expectancy, actually, back when she really challenged Connie about her beliefs. She did have her moments here, like when she started to feel conflicted about the trouble she was causing, but for the most part, I didn't empathize enough with her.

[Pound Foolish]

... hardly anyone is so sheltered that they haven't heard the phrase "gay marriage." If they're 10, and they haven't, then I'm of the firm belief that they're not just being "sheltered"--they're being lied to, because that's not the world.

I was unaware of the whole gay thing clear until I was thirteen, and my parents never lied to me. They simply felt no obligation to tell me something somewhat dreadful just because a lot of people do it. The amount of people doing something has no affect on how appropriate it is for a kid to hear.

How did they manage this? Easily. For one thing, I'm homeschooled. And like Christian A. said, homeschoolers are often different. You assert that it's "everywhere" even in "conversation." Homeschoolers don't tend to talk about that kind of thing when young.

And so, I remained innocent. I'm glad. I thank God I was not kindly granted unsavory knowledge that rocked my perception of the world and morality like Christian.

Good thing too. When I was little, I didn't care much for boys' rough housing style of play. I wished I could join the girls in their more sophisticated games and conversation. Would it have been healthy to have in my head that some boys choose to be girls? Some children are to tender at young ages to to question their sexual identity. They don't need that load.

When I did discover it, it was in a Christian newspaper. Tiger, the affect discovering things like gay marriage has on you has nothing to do with the source. The source can be a perfectly Christian one, and you can still be affected. In my case, for instance, I was unable to see right off that same sex "marriage" was wrong. It was an odd idea that a dude could marry a dude. But if people fell for their gender, then why shouldn't be allowed to get married like everyone else? Not a good idea for a kid to have. Fortunately, my parents gently educated me, now that I had come on the knowledge in my own time.

Now, obviously, this is all anecdotal. Everyone's different, I can't speak for everyone. Which is Precisely the point. We can't speak of children as if we can tell them all the same things. Let's face it, children are individuals. Some just aren't ready, though others may be.

AIO, as Paul McCusker said in the Whit's End podcast, is a tool. It rarely oversteps over the bounds of a tool for parents. To teach something parents may have an entirely different opinion on or simply know their kids are unready to be taught, would do just that.

And, frankly, we should try not to presume we know better than parents about raising children.

In conclusion, Whit's End is a place, "Where kids of all ages can just be kids." Not a place where children are relieved of visceral innocence.

hat's a double standard. It's somehow all right to treat them like 21st-century kids who have ever-shortening attention spans, the media-addicted, hyperactive sorts of kids. .and then pretend that they're not when it comes to bringing up a fairly neutral word like gay marriage. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. I'm setting up a dichotomy here, and it would seem that you're arguing that it's somehow possible to treat kids almost as two different groups: the "modern" kid who spends hours watching cartoons and running wild (which would mean that they'd probably have been introduced to homosexuality at some basic level), or the "old-fashioned," homeschooled, conservative kid. You can't have both. And you're not giving kids nearly enough credit or looking at the world very realistically.

Kids of any age want entertainment to be entertaining. There was a lot of serious dialogue, why not take some time off for wit? It was amusing, the investigation sequence, and brief. You speak as if it was given inordinate attention. It was barely ten minutes! Aslo, keep in mind, this is like having 14 episodes in one. Normally, we'd have a comedy somewhere in there.

[TigerintheShadows]

that the LGBT advocates of the world spew vitriol and hatred in reality.

If what I'm seeing on tumblr and elsewhere is any indication, they're not above such things when faced with someone they disagree with. But yeah, on the whole, LGBT advocates tend to be rather nice, polite people who raise legitimate questions, and often even use the Bible to justify their beliefs. (Now that I think about it, that would have been nice to see—someone using the Bible to justify what they have to say. Most of the kids whose parents discuss with them that homosexuality is not okay will be told so almost exclusively on Biblical grounds, and the awareness of how LGBT activists like to twist the Bible to make it sound like being homo/bi/transsexual is perfectly fine would be valuable. Their parents can tell them this, of course, but it's definitely something that the show could have done without having to be explicit, if that's really what they wanted.)

I was unaware of the whole gay thing clear until I was thirteen

PF, aren't you in college now? When you (and I, too, since I think we are relatively close in age) were thirteen, the LGBT movement wasn't nearly as big a deal as it is now, largely because major gains hadn't been made then that forced people to rethink their positions (for example, DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell were both still enacted policies five or six years ago, and many Americans didn't see what was wrong with that until the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and President Obama repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Advocacy still existed, certainly, but the movement hadn't gained the kind of traction even five or six years ago that it has today; it wasn't nearly as in-your-face. It was a common assertion that homosexuality wasn't something that was introduced to children; it mostly existed on adult-aimed primetime TV, which kids aren't expected to watch.

Now, it has become expected of entertainment aimed at children that it allow for the positive representation of LGBT characters—especially if the creators want to get some Progressivism Brownie Points™ out of it. Outside of entertainment, kids are being imbibed with LGBT propaganda—kids come out as young as elementary school-age. What you or I could have known about prior to age thirteen and what the current members of the target audience of this show get faced with prior to thirteen are already vastly different, and will continue to become more so with even short passage of time. =/ As I say, I don't think I'm paranoid to speculate that there will soon come a point where parents really won't have much of a choice about when to have that conversation, unless they want to insulate their children entirely.

Shake it Off!

That's Shake It Up!, Marvin. It's Disney, not Taylor Swift. How dare you not know the name of a show I know you watched religiously?

[Marvin D.]

WAIT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT I WATCHED SHAKE IT UP?!

Proper response will be forthcoming. It won't be pretty.

[TigerintheShadows]

WAIT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT I WATCHED SHAKE IT UP?!

My 9-year old cousin used to watch it, along with Jessie and Austin and Ally and Shake it Off! and whatnot.

Don't you lie to me; I know you and your cousin developed a friendship over cheesy Disney Channel Kid Coms.

[Marvin D.]

. . .

Well, there wasn't anything else to watch, other than the Food Network My grandmother would watch her soap operas and Jerry Springer-esque tabloid TV talk show Laura, so my TV time was restricted