Fursuiters needed for Fursuit Story Hour

Oh noes. I won't be able to make it, have the supersponsor luncheon at that time.

I just realized what you wrote - about fairy tales.

I am trying to work to help educate people, especially children, about wolves. Unfortunately, most of the fairy tales paint wolves in a negative light, as they were the stereotype for the archaic "monster" which in old english meant predator of children (and yes, in all senses.)

Given that, I'd like to offer the suggestion that we "adjust" the classic fairy tales which depict wolves unaturally as "monsters."

I'd be most happy to help offer some "adjustments" but I'd rather see if those responsible are open to it. But I have to say, if you aren't, then I can have no part in portraying wolves in a negative light. It's counterproductive to my own efforts.

I'll start drafting some "adjustments" in anticipation, and to provide a sample. Look for those soon.

Thanks!

Hmmm...I'm pondering that one. I've mostly pondered Red Riding Hood and The Three Pigs.

Factually speaking, wolves do go after sheep. But the point of the story is to teach children that a liar can never be believed, even when telling the truth. So how do we do that without also teaching them that wolves are to be feared?

If we have the boy calling wolf, and a wolf shows up and does no harm, then it destroys the message of the original fable. If we too drastically alter the fable, are we doing more harm than good? Can we change the message of the fable?

This is indeed a toughy.

The central message is not to lie. But using wolves is a lie, in a way. I read through most of Aesop's fables having to do with wolves, this being one of them. Unfortunately, Aesop, in attempting to teach moral lessons, played upon stereotypes to do so. The stereotypes may have had credibility back then, but they don't today. Children aren't raised on farms and ranches for the most part, and don't understand the myths about wolves as they aren't faced with the fears (rational or not) of their parents on a daily basis.

Does our effort then lie in destroying the stereotype and changing the message, or altering the fable to keep the message without propagating the stereotype (please pardon my written thought process here, I hope its not too terribly boring...).

The boy was a shepherd, a position of some responsibility, and thus a person to be looked at by children as a role model. The role model lied, and paid the price. That is how the message was communicated.

But today, we have people in position of responsibility crying wolf. Politicians mostly, but hunter groups, rancher groups, outfitter groups all play on the stereotype of wolves and "cry wolf" about wolves being dangerous animals. Perhaps we can keep the message AND destroy the stereotype. Politicians are a popular target these days, and well they should be. Sp perhaps we can use them in a retelling of this classic fable in "The Senator who cried Wolf."

Once upon a time, there was a Senator. This Senator kept watch over his constituents, but favored those who gave to his campaign over those whom he represented. One day, the Senator cried out to the people of America: "Wolves are killing the cows and the sheep and the elk." The media came running, including reporters with cameras. But they saw that nothing was wrong. The media investigated, saw that wolves were just living and doing what they know how to do best. But the Senator laughed with his campaign donors about all the attention he got, and how he made wolves out to look like monsters.

Months later, the Senator cried out again that wolves were brought in by government agents on black helicopters, and were put on ranches to kill the cows and sheep. Again the media came and saw that nothing was wrong. The government didn't have black helicopters. No wolves were put on ranches by secret agents. But the Senator again laughed with his campaign donors about how he made the government look bad.

This happened time and time again.

Then one day, in an election year, when the Senator's job was at stake, he discovered that one of his campaign donors was misusing taxpayer money, in other words, stealing from his constituents. He called the media and set up a press conference to tell his constituents what he had found. But his other campaign donors had secretly videotaped his laughing with them, and published the video. Seeing these tapes, the voters knew that the Senator was just lying again and didn't believe him. No one paid any attention, the media didn't come and investigate, and so the company kept on stealing from taxpayers, and the Senator wasn't reelected and lost his job.

Anyway, that's one retelling. But I don't think it works in this venue. I'll ponder it some more and see if I can alter it to be more fitting. If anyone else has any ideas, please comment.

Edit:

I did some thinking, and I think this could actually work. The first scene could show the wolf come onto the stage, walking around, "minding his own business" when this senator is behind a podium in the foreground. Someone could come in with a camera (the media), take pictures of the Senator, then move over to the wolf minding his own business, take pictures, look at the audience and shrug seeing that nothing is wrong.

In the next scene, the wolf could be on stage minding his own business. Two people dressed in black (can we borrow a couple of stage ninjas our their outfits?) could come in and start to grab the wolf to carry him off, presumeably to a ranch via a waiting black helicopter...but just as they are about to, as the story reveals it to be a lie, they can all brush it off as laughable. The reporter would then come in, see that the wolf is just minding his business while the black-garbed "agents" walk off, and turn around to the audience while the Senator laughs.

In the final scene, the Senator would be at the podium, but the reporter would come in, watch the video (acted out using a prop if possible, or without otherwise) and jump up on stage and walk up to the wolf, put an arm around him and laugh, pointing at the Senator, then walk off together.

It's a bit of a production and requires more actors than the original tale, but those actors need not be in costume. It would be nice if the "Senator" were wearing a suit (or perhaps a labcoat...) and it would be equally nice if the reporter had a tag in his hat that said "PRESS." So hopefully its doable.

I would of course volunteer to be that wolf. Do we know anyone who comes to conventions wearing a suit? 2 perhaps? Barring that, do we know anyone who perhaps wears a labcoat, and walks around with a glass of wine? If we put them together in the same skit, I think they'd make a nice pair, 2 the Ranting Senator, and the labcoat and wineglass sporting campaign donor, Uncle Kage the wealthy scientist. I'm sure we can find someone with a camera, and a hat should be easy to come up with.

Anyway, its a first draft.

For those who aren't aware, the second scene is based on actual events. Senator Enzi, of Wyoming, actually accused the "government" of "dumping" wolves on ranches using black helicopters. Sadly, he's still Senator in Wyoming.

I really think that if this was videotaped, it would draw some really decent media attention. The media knows these events happened. I think they'd find it cute, and perhaps give it some play. Pennsylvania isn't the staunch teaparty ultra conservative ranching stronghold that Wyoming is, so I can imagine the media there loving the idea of running this and providing a link to the video on YouTube. And its for children, so all the better.

If I manage to go this year, I'd volunteer.

...But where would someone need a squirrel in the deal?

You are right that 30 minutes was enough to get the 3 stories we did in, but that's because our narrator accelerated her story telling, and we took 0 time to setup the next story.

This past year we performed Goldilocks and the 3 bears, The Boy who Cried Wolf, and Beauty and the Beast.

We could never run out of stories as we could tell the same story again another year, but with new actors and a different method of telling it, but we plan this about 6 months in advance, and we don't tell the same story twice.