The trouble with a lot of children’s fiction, especially TV and movies, is that grown-ups look at stories made up by kids during play and think that’s the kind of stories they like, so that’s the kind we’ll tell them.
There is a certain logic on the surface of this. But on a profound level, only a degenerate culture would put big money and mainstream attention behind this kind of empty storytelling.
The value of kids’ make-believe stories is not that they are good stories other people should hear. Sorry, but stories made up by kids are usually terrible — and that’s just as it should be! The value of these stories is in the act of creation itself, for the child. On the other hand, if a story is published by grown-ups for a child audience, it should be good! It should show them what skillful storytelling is. There is no minimum age to appreciate coherent themes, character arcs, and real emotions. We may think of these story aspects as fodder for adult intellects, and thus unnecessary in kids’ stories, but that would be wrong. They feed the intellect second, and the soul first. Of course there is a minimum age for certain themes, but that’s a different conversation.
Now, are there really no themes within the story my 5-year-old makes up while playing with his trains? Of course there are. The story is a vehicle for him to try out different structures, themes, characters, and feelings. However, he is not (yet?) a competent storyteller, which means that although these valuable things do come alive for him within his story (and sometimes for me with him), the story in itself is not an artifact that can transmit them, which is why it would be worthless for him to hear the same story in a depersonalized medium like a book or show, even though the make-believe time is invaluable to him.
What about when I make up a story for him spontaneously? This is also not a good story, given that I don’t take time to think it over or revise it, yet there is still value in this activity. The value comes partly from its being an act of love, and partly from the interactivity (he can make comments and modify the story, we can talk about it as it develops). In other words, he is still in on the story creation with me, just with me in the driver’s seat. This is different from receiving the story through a book or especially a show or movie. In general, the more depersonalized the story form (i.e. the less the storyteller is present in person), the more value depends on this skill.
Good storytellers know that storytelling is not just one thing humans do, but an essential aspect of everything we do, serving countless functions. All humans are storytellers in one way or another, but the structural arrangement of story elements like choices and themes into a coherent artifact is a learned skill that no one is born with and most people don’t develop at all. But this doesn’t mean audiences of all ages are not impacted by unskillful arrangement.
The thing about stories for kids is, they can’t tell if the story is good, and they may want it anyway. If it’s a visual medium, the colours or style may be captivating. If it’s a book, the reading performance may hold the real value and not the text itself. Or in the worst cases, the thing posing as a story may be designed on purpose to give them dopamine hits without the effort or risk of being about anything. For any audience, especially a child, this is to the soul as junk food is to the body. Fine in small amounts, as long as you know the difference and prefer more wholesome things. As with junk food, parents want our kids to develop their own discernment and better taste. As with junk food, a barely regulated industry is working against those goals. As with junk food, not enough adults know or care about the difference, and industry takes advantage of their ignorance and life stress to get them and their kids hooked.
In conclusion, watch Bluey. Not too much. Mostly with your kids.