A Little On Elmo
Created | Updated Jun 5, 2003
**Disclaimer: this essay expresses the opinion of the writer, which is actually not all that strong. I don’t have much against Elmo, except that his character seems to have a few logical inconsistencies.**
Many people have seen the public television series Sesame Street. Some people watch it regularly, particularly those under the age of six years. In recent years, it has experienced some drastic changes. The program, always made up of short segments, directly corresponding to the generally short attention span of its young viewers, has become more disjointed than ever. However, the subject of this essay is not the structure of the program in general, but a specific segment dominated by a principle character of Sesame Street: Elmo. (Those who have never been so privileged as to view Sesame Street may be curious as to Elmo’s last name. This is, to the writer’s knowledge, an unreleased piece of information. In fact, it is debatable whether Elmo even has a last name.)
Elmo himself cannot be identified with any known species of animal; he is red and furry, with a very round head and wide mouth that seems to move about a full-swing hinge. There is considerable diversity among the types of creatures seen on Sesame Street, ranging from actually documented species, such as worms, to the completely unknown, Elmo being an example. Some intermediates, loosely based on actual creations of nature, are Big Bird, yellow, fluffy, and fully seven feet tall with pink- and orange-striped legs, and Snuffy the Snuffalupagus, a sort of elephant who has never lost the wooly aspect of its mammoth ancestors. Also featured are amalgamations of animal and machinery, such as the Honkers, creatures with a body shape similar to Elmo’s, but with very interestingly patterned and colored fur, and horns for noses.
Elmo’s function on Sesame Street until a few years ago was to participate in many of the previously mentioned short segments, and, along with a few other characters, to serve as a sort of mascot for the program. He now has monopolized a full fifteen minutes, one of the longest segments featured on the program, during which he generously provides viewers with a tour of his world. This may seem perfectly permissible to some, but the author is unsure as to why Elmo should get his own world, when the rest of us share this one. The only purpose a private Elmo-world would seem to serve would be one of banishment, but, since viewers are invited to inspect it for a total of fifteen minutes per episode, and Elmo is allowed to express his free opinion on such topics as “clouds” and “dogs”, it does not appear to be a method of confinement.
Elmo’s World, as it is advertised, even has an accompanying theme song, sung by the little creature himself, which includes the lyrics: “Elmo loves his goldfish, his crayon, too.” The writer has three main objections to this. The privilege to refer to oneself in the third person outside of a formal writing such as this, for which Elmo’s theme song certainly does not qualify, is reserved for people contributing to the world of random and humorous things. The author argues that Elmo, belonging to none of these categories, has absolutely no right to refer to himself in the third person, and should be censored immediately.
The author’s second point of concern in Elmo’s theme song is the reference to loving his goldfish and crayon. If a poor, isolated soul is left with only a goldfish in the entire world, and no one else to converse with, then love for the goldfish might be permissible, although not advisable, since goldfish tend to have rather short lifespans, and the death of a goldfish who had been an isolated person’s life companion might prove to be the final straw in a lifetime of hardships. Furthermore, if Elmo REALLY did love his goldfish, he would not keep it in a bowl less than half the size of his rather miniscule head, as such confinement is bound to quickly provoke insanity. (Even if he did not love the goldfish, it would be advisable to give it at least a larger enclosure, if not free roam of his world, as goldfish are known to be dangerous when angered.) As for the crayon, there are no circumstances of any extremes that would justify love for a crayon. A favorite crayon that one uses often in coloring could possibly be allowed, although only in cases of borderline insanity, but love for a crayon seems to be completely useless. Crayons are inanimate objects, made of wax, not currently alive, never having been alive, and never to be alive. They are what scientists have classified, after many years of study, as nonliving. Conversation with a crayon is bound to be one-sided. Furthermore, when crayons are used enough, they become smaller and smaller, eventually ceasing to serve any useful function, and, later, ceasing even to exist. Love for a crayon could cause long-term emotional harm if, one day, the crayon was no longer useful, and, the next, was no longer even in existence. A conclusion may be drawn in this case that Elmo does not abide by the laws of nature, and so, as a bad example, should be removed from public television.
The author’s third objection to Elmo’s theme song is its very existence. It seems to be an undesirable thing to hold up Elmo as an example to youngsters, causing likely growth of red fur and increased flexibility of the jaw in the young population, as well as possible attempts at a personal theme song. Our world has enough problems, these do not need to be supplemented by the possibility of a generation of Elmos in charge.
The theme song to Elmo’s World is only the beginning of its annoyances. In the daily inspection of his world, Elmo also allows us vital information on other subjects of interest. (I use this term loosely; I am sure there are many world-weary people who have no interest whatsoever in learning about trains or sand, as they have most likely had plenty of experiences with these items in their lifetimes.) However, for those so inclined, the opportunity does exist to learn along with Elmo as he explores the day’s topic. This exploration generally consists partially of a brief segment of video featuring a friend of Elmo’s named Mr. Noodle. Mr. Noodle does not seem to be in possession of his faculties of speech, and must thus resort to miming. He is also not a great user of common sense, and often experiences such mishaps as being carried away by trains when he fails to let go, or tripping on a very brightly colored string. When such accidents occur, Elmo and various other disembodied voices are apt to chorus, “Mr. Noodle...!” This is not a pleasant sound to hear, nor is it something generally considered beneficial for young children--or, indeed, people of any age. Taking advantage of a poor creature like Mr. Noodle on public television sets an example of malice and manipulation for the future leaders and citizens of the world, which does not bode well for our future as a species, nor for that of our planet and its many other inhabitants.
In addition to viewing the mishaps of Mr. Noodle, Elmo interviews his goldfish, and often a child as well, in regards to the topic of interest. Elmo takes it upon himself to interpret the answers to his questions, as the goldfish is incapable of speech, and the children interviewed are generally just able to sit up, and as yet not adept at the faculty of speech. The author finds this interpretation to be presumptive. After all, Elmo, being only a young fellow--at least, this is what we can presume from his own underdeveloped speech; his age is never actually specified--has no way of knowing the language of either goldfish or babies, if such a thing does indeed exist. Why, then, should he be given the opportunity to inject his own biased opinions into the mouths of these unfortunate beings? While free speech is generally recognized as a good thing, this act of “interpretation” could also be called false attribution.
As his final act in the quest for understanding in his viewers of the day’s topic, Elmo always performs a small song. The tune of this song never varies; it is always that of the popular “Jingle Bells.” The lyrics are also rather predictable, as they are simply the name of the concept or item of interest repeated over and over. (These are usually monosyllabic, so as not to present complications with rhythm.) The author questions the purpose of these songs; they are obviously meant to offer some form of enlightenment, but is this actually the case? What is to be gained from the continuous repetition of a word? Indeed, many things are to be lost, among them the potential for free and creative thought and the tolerance for repetition of any kind, as well as possibly the sanity of the viewer. In view of Elmo’s violations of the laws of nature, his insanity-inducing personality and tendency toward repetition, and the other aforementioned potentially dangerous character flaws, the author strongly suggests that Elmo be deemed a public health risk, and removed from public television immediately.
Many people have seen the public television series Sesame Street. Some people watch it regularly, particularly those under the age of six years. In recent years, it has experienced some drastic changes. The program, always made up of short segments, directly corresponding to the generally short attention span of its young viewers, has become more disjointed than ever. However, the subject of this essay is not the structure of the program in general, but a specific segment dominated by a principle character of Sesame Street: Elmo. (Those who have never been so privileged as to view Sesame Street may be curious as to Elmo’s last name. This is, to the writer’s knowledge, an unreleased piece of information. In fact, it is debatable whether Elmo even has a last name.)
Elmo himself cannot be identified with any known species of animal; he is red and furry, with a very round head and wide mouth that seems to move about a full-swing hinge. There is considerable diversity among the types of creatures seen on Sesame Street, ranging from actually documented species, such as worms, to the completely unknown, Elmo being an example. Some intermediates, loosely based on actual creations of nature, are Big Bird, yellow, fluffy, and fully seven feet tall with pink- and orange-striped legs, and Snuffy the Snuffalupagus, a sort of elephant who has never lost the wooly aspect of its mammoth ancestors. Also featured are amalgamations of animal and machinery, such as the Honkers, creatures with a body shape similar to Elmo’s, but with very interestingly patterned and colored fur, and horns for noses.
Elmo’s function on Sesame Street until a few years ago was to participate in many of the previously mentioned short segments, and, along with a few other characters, to serve as a sort of mascot for the program. He now has monopolized a full fifteen minutes, one of the longest segments featured on the program, during which he generously provides viewers with a tour of his world. This may seem perfectly permissible to some, but the author is unsure as to why Elmo should get his own world, when the rest of us share this one. The only purpose a private Elmo-world would seem to serve would be one of banishment, but, since viewers are invited to inspect it for a total of fifteen minutes per episode, and Elmo is allowed to express his free opinion on such topics as “clouds” and “dogs”, it does not appear to be a method of confinement.
Elmo’s World, as it is advertised, even has an accompanying theme song, sung by the little creature himself, which includes the lyrics: “Elmo loves his goldfish, his crayon, too.” The writer has three main objections to this. The privilege to refer to oneself in the third person outside of a formal writing such as this, for which Elmo’s theme song certainly does not qualify, is reserved for people contributing to the world of random and humorous things. The author argues that Elmo, belonging to none of these categories, has absolutely no right to refer to himself in the third person, and should be censored immediately.
The author’s second point of concern in Elmo’s theme song is the reference to loving his goldfish and crayon. If a poor, isolated soul is left with only a goldfish in the entire world, and no one else to converse with, then love for the goldfish might be permissible, although not advisable, since goldfish tend to have rather short lifespans, and the death of a goldfish who had been an isolated person’s life companion might prove to be the final straw in a lifetime of hardships. Furthermore, if Elmo REALLY did love his goldfish, he would not keep it in a bowl less than half the size of his rather miniscule head, as such confinement is bound to quickly provoke insanity. (Even if he did not love the goldfish, it would be advisable to give it at least a larger enclosure, if not free roam of his world, as goldfish are known to be dangerous when angered.) As for the crayon, there are no circumstances of any extremes that would justify love for a crayon. A favorite crayon that one uses often in coloring could possibly be allowed, although only in cases of borderline insanity, but love for a crayon seems to be completely useless. Crayons are inanimate objects, made of wax, not currently alive, never having been alive, and never to be alive. They are what scientists have classified, after many years of study, as nonliving. Conversation with a crayon is bound to be one-sided. Furthermore, when crayons are used enough, they become smaller and smaller, eventually ceasing to serve any useful function, and, later, ceasing even to exist. Love for a crayon could cause long-term emotional harm if, one day, the crayon was no longer useful, and, the next, was no longer even in existence. A conclusion may be drawn in this case that Elmo does not abide by the laws of nature, and so, as a bad example, should be removed from public television.
The author’s third objection to Elmo’s theme song is its very existence. It seems to be an undesirable thing to hold up Elmo as an example to youngsters, causing likely growth of red fur and increased flexibility of the jaw in the young population, as well as possible attempts at a personal theme song. Our world has enough problems, these do not need to be supplemented by the possibility of a generation of Elmos in charge.
The theme song to Elmo’s World is only the beginning of its annoyances. In the daily inspection of his world, Elmo also allows us vital information on other subjects of interest. (I use this term loosely; I am sure there are many world-weary people who have no interest whatsoever in learning about trains or sand, as they have most likely had plenty of experiences with these items in their lifetimes.) However, for those so inclined, the opportunity does exist to learn along with Elmo as he explores the day’s topic. This exploration generally consists partially of a brief segment of video featuring a friend of Elmo’s named Mr. Noodle. Mr. Noodle does not seem to be in possession of his faculties of speech, and must thus resort to miming. He is also not a great user of common sense, and often experiences such mishaps as being carried away by trains when he fails to let go, or tripping on a very brightly colored string. When such accidents occur, Elmo and various other disembodied voices are apt to chorus, “Mr. Noodle...!” This is not a pleasant sound to hear, nor is it something generally considered beneficial for young children--or, indeed, people of any age. Taking advantage of a poor creature like Mr. Noodle on public television sets an example of malice and manipulation for the future leaders and citizens of the world, which does not bode well for our future as a species, nor for that of our planet and its many other inhabitants.
In addition to viewing the mishaps of Mr. Noodle, Elmo interviews his goldfish, and often a child as well, in regards to the topic of interest. Elmo takes it upon himself to interpret the answers to his questions, as the goldfish is incapable of speech, and the children interviewed are generally just able to sit up, and as yet not adept at the faculty of speech. The author finds this interpretation to be presumptive. After all, Elmo, being only a young fellow--at least, this is what we can presume from his own underdeveloped speech; his age is never actually specified--has no way of knowing the language of either goldfish or babies, if such a thing does indeed exist. Why, then, should he be given the opportunity to inject his own biased opinions into the mouths of these unfortunate beings? While free speech is generally recognized as a good thing, this act of “interpretation” could also be called false attribution.
As his final act in the quest for understanding in his viewers of the day’s topic, Elmo always performs a small song. The tune of this song never varies; it is always that of the popular “Jingle Bells.” The lyrics are also rather predictable, as they are simply the name of the concept or item of interest repeated over and over. (These are usually monosyllabic, so as not to present complications with rhythm.) The author questions the purpose of these songs; they are obviously meant to offer some form of enlightenment, but is this actually the case? What is to be gained from the continuous repetition of a word? Indeed, many things are to be lost, among them the potential for free and creative thought and the tolerance for repetition of any kind, as well as possibly the sanity of the viewer. In view of Elmo’s violations of the laws of nature, his insanity-inducing personality and tendency toward repetition, and the other aforementioned potentially dangerous character flaws, the author strongly suggests that Elmo be deemed a public health risk, and removed from public television immediately.
