Perhaps it goes without saying, but the first thought an audience member has when looking at Fallen Dreamer is, “It’s a really big head without a body.” This is true and rather obvious, but it also speaks to the devices used by the artist.

The most important aspect of Fallen Dreamer is the context in which it appears. This is not the original sculpture, nor is it the only copy of Fallen Dreamer. This particular version appears on the front steps outside the Sheldon Art Museum at the University of Nebraska. The fact that it appears on the steps is significant—it is a sculpture visitors just glance at on their way into the museum. Before I selected this sculpture for this assignment, that is what I always did. I believe it speaks to the intent of the sculpture. Nobody cares or pays much attention to the death of a dreamer, unless those dreams have been fulfilled. His body and dreams simply become a curiosity, something people pass by on the way to studying men (and women) whose dreams have been fulfilled.

Another interesting characteristic of Fallen Dreamer is the title. Not to sound racist, but through the facial features of the head makes it obvious he is black (I can’t say African-American; there is no guarantee he is either African or American). Despite not having any historical background provided about the figure, using a black subject causes an American viewer to remember the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. Of course, the title of Fallen Dreamer immediately calls to mind the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Through the title and use of racially specific facial features, the artist calls to mind a dark period of American history.

Although there are specific thoughts that come to mind of the American viewer, the artist also uses amplification through simplification. Other than the most basic facial features, there is nothing specific in the subject’s face. We are allowed to paint our own image on his face. We are allowed to think about our own dreams, and what would happen if we fell attempting to bring those dreams to fruition. We are also asked to wonder what he dreamed. Was he a dreamer in the sense of Hitler—a monster that shocked with world with his brutality? Or was he a dreamer in the vein of William Wilberforce—a statesman that dedicated his life to the freedom of others?

Of course there are many more technical elements to Fallen Dreamer. However, it is necessary to analyze the piece as a whole before breaking down the minutiae of it. The first three things a viewer notices when viewing this particular copy of Fallen Dreamer are the context it appears in, the title and how it relates to the subject’s race, and amplification through simplification.

I appreciate art. I can understand the devices used in modern and abstract art. I can usually figure out the argument the painting and the artist are making. I can determine what the styles, colors, and devices used tell us about the picture or sculpture. But I don’t enjoy and don’t truly understand it. It is possible this is because I have never really been exposed to it, but it is more likely it’s because I understand practical, hands-on, and straightforward renderings of realistic images and objects. In terms of sculptures, I enjoy and understand works that accurately portray real-life images. That is the reason I chose Fallen Dreamer—it was the most realistic sculpture available.

I believe the lack of training and exposure to “modern art” (i.e. abstract) is simply a result of the culture I grew up in. Being homeschooled, I was taught what my parents and local homeschool groups thought were important. Abstract art was not on the list. In addition, almost all homeschool high school curriculum is written from a conservative (in many cases ultra-conservative) perspective. In such a worldview, realism is exalted in art. Abstraction is frowned upon. That is not to say abstract art is not taught, on the contrary it is given significant portions of history books. However, it is seen as a perversion of pure art. Thus, I have never been in a culture that emphasizes abstract art. Along the same lines, I have never really seen the point of art (or sculptures) that don’t attempt to have any semblance to the subject matter.

That being said, I really do not have any concerns about this project. While Fallen Dreamer certainly has a level of abreaction (a severed head tends to be a bit unrealistic), I can appreciate and understand the arguments being made. It will still be a growing experience, since I have never analyzed a sculpture. However, after writing projects one and two I feel I can do a good job analyzing Fallen Dreamer.

WP #2 Final Draft

Author's Note:
I enjoyed this writing project immensely. Ever since I was a young child I would pour through books of Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes, Peanuts, and Zits. I enjoyed learning the technical mechanics of comics and how they applied to “Math Atheist.” However, this project was also a challenge because of my lack of artistic experience. Because I have no background in the art of cartooning, it was difficult for me to find the specific argument the strip is making.

This challenge is made obvious by the biggest change I made between the statement of purpose and final draft. Specifically, the entire thesis statement changed. In my statement of purpose, I wrote that Watterson is telling the United States to take the separation of church and state less seriously. I overanalyzed the strip and missed the argument “Math Atheist” is truly making—that children want to avoid doing their homework. Thus, I changed the thesis statement of the essay.

In my statement of purpose, I also stated I would be addressing arguments against the conventions of modern cartooning. I still believe these arguments are inherent to Calvin and Hobbes. A brief examination of the history of Watterson and his work will make this obvious. However, I decided pursuing two different lines of argumentation for such a short essay would be too difficult. I would have insufficient time to analyze the primary argument of familial relationships.

From the first draft to the final draft, the biggest change I made was to the thesis itself. I first made it more understandable and less awkward. I also made the thesis more general by changing the phrase “kids will be kids; adults will be adults” to a discussion of the parody of familial relationships. I also added a short discussion about how preposterous it was for Hobbes to play the role of parents in this strip. In other words, childhood incarnate plays the counterpart of childhood itself.

Also significant was what I decided not to change. In the suggestions from my instructor, it was suggested I include a section on Calvin’s use of ad hoc, or confusing cause and effect. However, I decided not to include such a discussion because it would have taken a significant amount of explanation. This would have put me over the word limit (the final draft has 1405 words) and hindered the flow of the essay.

It was also suggested I move the discussion of Calvin’s use of red herring to an earlier paragraph. However, I concluded this would also hinder the flow of the essay. I intentionally crafted the discussion of rhetoric to mirror the four panels of “Math Atheist.” The reveal in the fourth panel (and thus the discussion of red herring) would be preceded by the speech about the separation of church and state. Thus, moving the discussion of red herring to an earlier paragraph would destroy the parallelism. For the sake of clarity, however, I mentioned the logical fallacies in the thesis statement.

Statement of Purpose
Rough Draft #1
Rough Draft #2


Final Draft:



Every teacher and student knows (and probably uses) the excuses. “My dog ate my homework.” “I got sick, but then I was better when I woke up, so my mom made me come to school.” Or, the most common in the 21st century, “My computer crashed.” Every child wants to avoid homework and will often spend more time inventing a way to avoid the homework than the homework requires in the first place. This strip of Calvin and Hobbes, known to fans as “Math Atheist,” is a parody of childhood inventiveness in avoiding homework and a parent’s sarcastic response. “Math Atheist” employs rhetoric, anthropomorphism, and simplicity to present a parody of childhood and parenting. In order to further the rhetorical argument, the strip also employs logical fallacies, appeals to logos and pathos and visual non-sequitur.

Calvin and Hobbes was one of the most popular comic strips of the late 1980s and early 1990s, winning two awards for excellence in comics. (NCS) The popularity of the strip has spawned tens of collections and anthologies, which are widely read to this day. (Calvin and Hobbes Album) In other words, almost everyone knows what the strip Calvin and Hobbes is and understands it is supposed to be a funny, sarcastic newspaper comic strip. Thus, the audience comes to “Math Atheist” with a certain set of expectations. It is supposed to funny, an expectation which Bill Watterson, the artist, understands. In “Math Atheist,” however, those expectations are not fulfilled until the very last panel.

The rhetoric of “Math Atheist” makes the main argument, while the various technical elements discussed later amplify and universalize this message. The scene starts out simply enough with a boy (Calvin) doing his math homework at his desk. This is a recurring theme in Calvin and Hobbes, and the audience should expect Calvin to simply refuse or give up on his homework, as is his habit. (grymonpre.com) However, this time Watterson defies the norm of Calvin’s behavior and instead launches into an impassioned, logical (though inherently flawed) speech about how math is a religion. Math is not science but religion, Calvin claims, and there is a math “god” performing miracles. You either believe in math or you don’t. You have to take it by faith, and that makes it a religion. He appears completely convinced of his own position. It appears this is a matter of utmost importance to Calvin. The separation of church and state must be upheld! Through these appeals to logos, “Math Atheist” defies the conventions we have come to expect from Calvin and Hobbes.

In the fourth panel comes the reveal: “As a math atheist, I should be excused from this.” The whole speech and line of reasoning is an excuse to get out of his homework. As one observer remarked when he saw this comic, it is “The greatest ‘my dog ate my homework’ of all time.” He has created a preposterous religious system with math as a god and declared himself a math atheist just to get out of doing the math. Through this, “Math Atheist” intentionally uses the logical fallacy of red herring (bringing up unrelated issues in order to distract the opposition from the topic at hand) in order to further the argument of the piece. In other words, Watterson used flawed logic and false appeals to logos in order to set up his parody of childhood and his overall appeal to pathos.

Also important to the argument of “Math Atheist” is the tiger’s (Hobbes) response to the speech. The sarcastic comment about getting a lawyer with Hobbes’ neutral (rather than convinced) facial expression gives Hobbes the role of parent. Throughout the years Watterson wrote Calvin and Hobbes, Hobbes always played the role of sensible counterpart to Calvin’s antics. As Calvin’s role is parodying a child’s avoiding homework, Hobbes is parodying a parent’s role in the situation. While it may appear Hobbes is agreeing with Calvin, a close examination of Hobbes’ facial expression (when compared to his facial expressions in other strips), it becomes clear Hobbes is actually saying Calvin’s argument is ridiculous. Hobbes is basically saying, “Yeah right.” “Math Atheist” makes an undeniable argument of parent and child.

The rhetorical blending of the serious and humorous, political and personal, also furthers the argument of “Math Atheist.” The audience expects humor for Calvin and Hobbes, an expectation which is suddenly confused by a discussion of the separation of church and state. It is a very adult topic for a six year old to discuss, and there is a risk of offending audience members by using such serious content. However, the reveal shows the intent of “Math Atheist.” It is not attempting to comment on the socio-political aspects of constitutional interpretation, but instead to parody the typical American family.

“Math Atheist” makes a clear humorous argument, but in order for the argument to be universally understood, it must be universally understandable. Several key technical elements universalize and emphasize the argument.

First, and most obviously, “Math Atheist” employs anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is essentially applying human characteristics to animals. It is obvious the tiger (Hobbes) is not a human, yet he talks, thinks, reasons, and understands the concept of separation of church and state just as well as the boy (Calvin) does. “Math Atheist” accomplishes two things by employing this device. First, it forces the audience to suspend disbelief. The audience knows stuffed tigers cannot talk in real life. However, by showing a stuffed tiger doing just that “Math Atheist” forces the audience to put aside its preconceived notions of the world. This allows the audience to accept that a six year old understands the nuances of the separation of church and state. This suspension of disbelief gives the audience accessibility to the subject matter. Second, the use of anthropomorphism gives the audience a way to relate to Calvin and Hobbes. Almost every child had a stuffed animal or doll as a “pet.” Therefore, by using anthropomorphism, "Math Atheist" both allows the audience to both believe the scene and connect with the dialogue. In addition to universalizing the argument, the use of Hobbes as the parental figure also furthers the humor of the argument. A “living” stuffed tiger, the very incarnation of childhood, is the medium through which childishness is mocked.

The second element “Math Atheist” employs is simplicity. Except for the lamp in the fourth frame, there are no extraneous illustrations. Even the chair “disappears” during Calvin’s monologue in the third panel. The table in the foreground in the first panel also has no properties except as a visual “spine” for the panel. This simplicity of artistry gives adds to the universalism of the strip in two ways. First, the lack of “artistic clutter” amplifies the message of the strip. Any extra drawings would serve no purpose than distract the reader from the message. Second, the large empty spaces give the audience a blank slate upon which to write its own interpretation.

In addition to the lack of background and foreground, the characters’ features are drawn very simply. Calvin’s face consists of an incomplete outline, a black spot for his mouth (with a tongue), simple eyes, and lines for his forehead and eyebrows. As Scott McCloud states in The Vocabulary of Comics, “When we abstract an image through cartooning we’re not so much eliminating details as focusing on specific details.” (McCloud, 201) The abstraction of Calvin’s face allows the audience to focus on his emotion and facial expressions. Like a debater passionately arguing his point, Calvin raises his eyebrows as he pleads his case for separation of the math religion and state. Like a distant audience member, Hobbes wears a quizzical expression as Calvin lays a preposterous argument. The simplistic and unrealistic nature of the drawings allow the audience to access and focus on these emotions and amplifies the logos and pathos of “Math Atheist.”

Calvin and Hobbes captured the essence of childhood. As the rhetorical appeals of “Math Atheist” unfolds, the appeals to logos and juxtapositions of rhetorical contexts create an alteration of expectations in the audience. Finally, the expectations of the audience, humor, are fulfilled. Calvin reveals his entire speech has been a ploy to get out of homework, while his stuffed tiger plays the parental role. Through simplicity and anthropomorphism “Math Atheist” creates a universal argument everyone can understand. Children will always attempt to get out of homework, and parents will always be there to keep them on track.

Works Cited:

National Cartoonists Society, "The Reuben Award 1975 onwards." (c) 2005

Fisher-Cox, Adam, "The Calvin and Hobbes Album," (c) 2008

Grymonpre.com, "Calvin & Hobbes Math Homework Advice," April, 2006

McCloud, Scott, The Vocabulary of Comics, pg 201

WP#2 Rough Draft 2

Every teacher and student knows (and probably uses) the excuses. “My dog ate my homework.” “I got sick, but then I was better when I woke up, so my mom made me come to school.” Or, the most common in the 21st century, “My computer crashed.” Every child wants to avoid homework. It is a natural part of life to want to avoid work as much as possible. This strip of Calvin and Hobbes, known to fans as “Math Atheist,” is a parody of childhood laziness and a parent’s sarcastic response. The argument made is simple. Kids will be kids; adults will be adults. Through devices such as anthropomorphism, simplicity, and rhetoric “Math Atheist” presents us with universal appeals to logos which eventually get turned into the expected appeals to pathos.

Calvin and Hobbes was one of the most popular comic strips of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It appeared in thousands of newspapers across the nation and was read by millions. It has remained popular to this day through re-prints and book collections. In other words, almost everyone knows what the strip Calvin and Hobbes is and understands it is supposed to be a funny, sarcastic newspaper comic strip. Thus, the audience comes to “Math Atheist” with a certain set of expectations. It is supposed to funny, an expectation which Bill Watterson, the artist, understands. In “Math Atheist,” however, those expectations are not fulfilled until the very last panel.

The rhetoric of “Math Atheist” makes the main argument, while the various technical elements discussed later amplify and universalize this message. The scene starts out simply enough with a boy (Calvin) doing his math homework at his desk. This is a recurring theme in Calvin and Hobbes, and the audience should expect Calvin to simply refuse to do his homework and play outside, as he does so many other times. However, this time Watterson defies the norm of Calvin’s behavior and instead launches into an impassioned, logical (though flawed) speech about how math is a religion. Math is not science but religion, Calvin claims, and there is a math “god” performing miracles. You either believe in math or you don’t. You have to take it by faith, and that makes it a religion. He appears completely convinced of his own position. Through these appeals to logos, “Math Atheist” defies the conventions we have come to expect from Calvin and Hobbes.

In the fourth panel comes the reveal: “As a math atheist, I should be excused from this.” The whole speech and line of reasoning is an excuse to get out of his homework. As one person said when he saw this comic, it is “The greatest ‘my dog ate my homework’ of all time.” He has created a preposterous religious system with math as a god and declared himself a math atheist just to get out of doing the math in the first place. Through this, “Math Atheist” uses the logical fallacy of red herring (bringing up unrelated issues in order to distract the opposition from the topic at hand) in order to create the argument of the piece. In other words, Watterson intentionally used flawed logic and false appeals to logos in order to set up his parody of little children and his overall appeal to pathos.

Also important to the argument of “Math Atheist” is the tiger’s (Hobbes) response to the speech. The sarcastic comment about getting a lawyer with Hobbes’ neutral (rather than convinced) facial expression gives Hobbes the role of parent. Throughout the years Watterson wrote Calvin and Hobbes, Hobbes always played the role of sensible counterpart to Calvin’s antics. As Calvin’s role is parodying a child’s avoiding homework, Hobbes is parodying a parent’s role in the situation. While it may appear Hobbes is agreeing with Calvin, a close examination of Hobbes’ facial expression (when compared to his facial expressions in other strips), it becomes clear Hobbes is actually saying Calvin’s argument is ridiculous. Hobbes is basically saying, “Yeah right.” “Math Atheist” makes an undeniable argument of parent and child. However, in order for the argument to be universally understood, it must be universally understandable. Several key technical elements universalize and emphasize this argument

First, and most obviously, “Math Atheist” employs anthropomorphism. In short, anthropomorphism is applying human characteristics to animals. It is obvious the tiger (Hobbes) is not a human, yet he talks, thinks, reasons, and understands the concept of separation of church and state just as well as the boy (Calvin) does. “Math Atheist” accomplishes two things by employing this device. First, it forces the audience to suspend disbelief. The audience knows stuffed tigers cannot talk in real life. However, by showing a stuffed tiger doing just that “Math Atheist” forces the audience to put aside its preconceived notions of the world. This allows the audience to accept that a six year old understands the nuances of the separation of church and state. This suspension of disbelief gives the audience accessibility to the subject matter. Second, the use of anthropomorphism gives the audience a way to relate to Calvin and Hobbes. Almost every child had a stuffed animal or doll as a “pet.” Therefore, by using anthropomorphism, "Math Atheist" both allows the audience to both believe the scene and connect with the dialogue.

The second element “Math Atheist” employs is simplicity. Except for the lamp in the fourth frame, there are no extraneous illustrations. Even the chair “disappears” during Calvin’s monologue in the third panel. The table in the foreground in the first panel also has no properties except as a visual “spine” for the panel. This simplicity of artistry gives adds to the universalism of the strip in two ways. First, the lack of “artistic clutter” amplifies the message of the strip. Any extra drawings would serve no purpose than distract the reader from the message. Second, the large empty spaces give the audience a blank slate upon which to write its own interpretation.

In addition to the lack of background and foreground, the characters’ features are drawn very simply. Calvin’s face consists of an incomplete outline, a black spot for his mouth (with a tongue), simple eyes, and lines for his forehead and eyebrows. As Scott McCloud states in The Vocabulary of Comics, “When we abstract an image through cartooning we’re not so much eliminating details as focusing on specific details.” The abstraction of Calvin’s face allows the audience to focus on his emotion and facial expressions. Like a debater passionately arguing his point, Calvin raises his eyebrows as he pleads his case for separation of the math religion and state. Like a distant audience member, Hobbes wears a quizzical expression as Calvin lays a preposterous argument. The simplistic and unrealistic nature of the drawings allow the audience to access and focus on these emotions and amplifies the logos and pathos of “Math Atheist.”

The rhetoric of “Math Atheist” employs an impassioned speech riddled with logical fallacies. This speech has a surprisingly simple conclusion: “I shouldn’t have to do my homework.” Through the sarcastic response of the parent figure, we see the intended argument of a parody of a modern American family. In order to emphasis this argument and make it accessible to the general public, such devises as anthropomorphism and simplicity are used. The end argument is clear and unmistakable: Kids will be kids. And parents will be parents. There is no use in escaping natural human laziness, "Math Atheist" says. The only way to overcome it is to simply accept the fact that work is part of existance.

WP#2 Rough Draft

Every teacher and student knows (and probably uses) the excuses. “My dog ate my homework.” “I got sick, but then I was better when I woke up, so my mom made me come to school.” Or, the most common in the 21st century, “My computer crashed.” Every child wants to avoid homework. It is a natural part of life to want to avoid work as much as possible. This strip of Calvin and Hobbes, known to fans as “Math Atheist,” is a celebration and a parody of childhood laziness and a parent’s sarcastic response. Through devices such as anthropomorphism, simplicity, representation, and rhetoric “Math Atheist” presents us with universal appeals to logos which eventually get turned into the expected appeals to pathos.

Calvin and Hobbes was one of the most popular comic strips of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It appeared in thousands of newspapers across the nation and was read by millions. It has remained popular to this day through re-prints and book collections. In other words, almost everyone knows what the strip Calvin and Hobbes is and understands it is supposed to be a funny, sarcastic newspaper comic strip. Thus, the audience comes to “Math Atheist” with a certain set of expectations. It is supposed to funny, an expectation which Bill Watterson, the artist, understands. In “Math Atheist,” however, those expectations are not fulfilled until the very last panel. However, in order for the punch line of the comic to be universally understood, the strip itself has to be universal in appeal.

The rhetoric of “Math Atheist” makes the main argument, while the various technical elements discussed later amplify and universalize this message. The scene starts out simply enough with a boy (Calvin) doing his math homework at his desk. This is a recurring theme in Calvin and Hobbes, and the audience should expect Calvin to simply refuse to do his homework and play outside, as he does so many other times. However, this time Watterson defies the norm of Calvin’s behavior and instead launches into an impassioned, logical (though flawed) speech about how math is a religion. Math is not science but religion, Calvin claims, and there is a math “god” performing miracles. You either believe in math or you don’t. You have to take it by faith, and that makes it a religion. He appears completely convinced of his own position. Through these appeals to logos, “Math Atheist” defies the conventions we have come to expect from Calvin and Hobbes.

In the fourth panel comes the reveal: “As a math atheist, I should be excused from this.” The whole speech and line of reasoning is an excuse to get out of his homework. As one person said when he saw this comic, it is “The greatest ‘my dog ate my homework’ of all time.” He has created a preposterous religious system with math as a god and declared himself a math atheist just to get out of doing the math in the first place. Through this, “Math Atheist” uses the logical fallacy of red herring (bringing up unrelated issues in order to distract the opposition from the topic at hand) in order to create the argument of the piece. In other words, Watterson intentionally used flawed logic and false appeals to logos in order to set up his parody of little children and his overall appeal to pathos.

Also important to the argument of “Math Atheist” is the tiger’s (Hobbes) response to the speech. The sarcastic comment about getting a lawyer with Hobbes’ neutral (rather than convinced) facial expression gives Hobbes the role of parent. Throughout the years Watterson wrote Calvin and Hobbes, Hobbes always played the role of sensible counterpart to Calvin’s antics. While Calvin’s role is parodying a child’s avoiding homework, Hobbes is parodying a parent’s role in the situation. While it may appear Hobbes is agreeing with Calvin, a close examination of Hobbes’ facial expression (when compared to his facial expressions in other strips), it becomes clear Hobbes is actually saying Calvin’s argument is ridiculous. Hobbes is basically saying, “Yeah right.” “Math Atheist” makes an undeniable argument of parent and child, and several key technical elements universalize and emphasize this argument

First, and most obviously, “Math Atheist” employs anthropomorphism. In short, anthropomorphism is applying human characteristics to animals. It is obvious the tiger (Hobbes) is not a human, yet he talks, thinks, reasons, and understands the concept of separation of church and state just as well as the boy (Calvin) does. “Math Atheist” accomplishes two things by employing this device. First, it forces the audience to suspend disbelief. The audience knows stuffed tigers cannot talk in real life. However, by showing a stuffed tiger doing just that “Math Atheist” forces the audience to put aside its preconceived notions of the world. This allows the audience to accept that a six year old understands the nuances of the separation of church and state. This suspension of disbelief gives the audience accessibility to the subject matter. Second, the use of anthropomorphism gives the audience a way to relate to Calvin and Hobbes. Almost every child had a stuffed animal or doll as a “pet.” Using anthropomorphism allows the audience to connect with the dialogue.

The second element “Math Atheist” employs is simplicity. Except for the lamp in the fourth frame, there are no extraneous illustrations. Even the chair “disappears” during Calvin’s monologue in the third panel. The table in the foreground in the first panel also has no properties except as a visual “spine” for the panel. This simplicity of artistry gives adds to the universalism of the strip in two ways. First, the lack of “artistic clutter” amplifies the message of the strip. Any extra drawings would serve no purpose than distract the reader from the message. Second, the large empty spaces give the audience a blank slate upon which to write its own interpretation.

In addition to the lack of background and foreground, the characters’ features are drawn very simply. Calvin’s face consists of an incomplete outline, a black spot for his mouth (with a tongue), simple eyes, and lines for his forehead and eyebrows. As “When we abstract an image through cartooning we’re not so much eliminating details as focusing on specific details.” The abstraction of Calvin’s face allows the audience to focus on his emotion and facial expressions. Like a debater passionately arguing his point, Calvin raises his eyebrows as he pleads his case for separation of the math religion and state. Like a distant audience member, Hobbes wears a quizzical expression as Calvin lays a preposterous argument. The simplistic and unrealistic nature of the drawings allow the audience to access and focus on these emotions and amplifies the logos and pathos of “Math Atheist.”

The rhetoric of “Math Atheist” employs an impassioned speech riddled with logical fallacies. This speech has a surprisingly simple conclusion: “I shouldn’t have to do my homework.” Through the sarcastic response of the parent figure, we see the intended argument of a parody of a modern American family. In order to emphasis this argument and make it accessible to the general public, such devises as anthropomorphism and simplicity are used. The end argument is clear and unmistakable: Kids will be kids. And parents will be parents.