Porky Pig Cartoons
The following article first appeared in the Journal of Fluency Disorders, 12 (1987), 235-238 and is reprinted below with the permission of the author.
A CLINICAL STUDY OF PORKY PIG CARTOONS
GERALD F. JOHNSON
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Porky Pig is a hard core stutterer of long standing (since 1935), who will be with us for many years to come on television. This Warner Brothers' cartoon character stutters on approximately 23% of his spoken words and has a wide variety of stuttering symptoms. Porky Pig was predisposed to stutter since his father also is a hard core stutterer. In spite of negative opinions about this stuttering pig, these cartoons might be beneficial in therapy with children who stutter.
INTRODUCTION
Porky Pig, a Warner Brothers' cartoon character, was first introduced to movie goers in 1935. He "first appeared in 'I Haven't Got a Hat. . . .' and went on to become the trademark of Warner's cartoons" (Friedwald and Beck, 1981 p. xiv). It is doubtful that any person familiar with the Porky Pig cartoons would not classify Porky as a stutterer. Porky Pig's stuttering is the product of a "voice", most notably produced by Mel Blanc. Consequently, the type and sound of the stuttering cannot be called typical of that produced by "real" stutterers since there just is too much variety in the imitated stuttering. It is not unreasonable to suspect that Porky's stuttering was produced for effect and not much concern was given to accuracy. In addition, the entertainment value should not be
discounted. Even though the last theatrical release was in 1965, the cartoons are now being widely distributed and shown on T.V. (Friedwald
and Beck, 1981).
CHARACTERIZATION OF PORKY PIG
Generations of stutterers of all ages have been terrorized by Porky Pig's stuttering because it was an object of humor-a character flaw. In spite of Porky's somewhat harmless looking physical countenance and sometimes placid and accommodating personality, he was often put upon by some other character. The "Warner Brothers' cartoon staff soon discovered that Porky Pig wasn't so much an actor as a reactor, so they designed cartoons that paired him with other characters (like Daffy Duck) or put him into situations where he'd respond to the craziness around him (as when he goes in search of the Do-Do Bird)" (Maltin, 1985, p. xiv).
Porky Pig often starts out as a placid pig, usually minding his own business, but soon he becomes traumatized either by events going on around him or by another character-especially Daffy Duck. Examples of Porky Pig's traumas are wide ranging and in part include being plagued by termites, flying a plane, being a private in the French Foreign Legion, getting a mouse out of his house, being a picadore, and reacting to a talking dog, a giant, and a midget ant. Needless to say, Porky Pig went from one trauma to another, causing him great mood swings. Often, Porky would get angry at his tormentors and strike out in a highly emotional manner.
In a number of cartoons, Porky Pig is called a variety of derogatory names, such as "fat boy," "ham", and "fatso" and is often cast in the role of an inferior person at some point in the cartoon. In fact, Porky's father referred to Porky as a "good for nothing boy" ("Porky and Teabiscuit," 1939). However, Porky usually turns the tables and wins the day in some fashion. Uphill battles for Porky Pig are quite typical.
In spite of the severity of Porky Pig's stuttering, he has been successful at working in a number of occupations, such as a farmer, gas station attendant, sailor, railroad engineer, pilot, private in the French Foreign Legion, newscaster, and police officer. Through the use of this cartoon character, it could certainly be demonstrated that "people" who stutter can do most things in life. Porky's stuttering may have contributed to the way the other characters treated him, but a more plausible explanation for Porky Pig becoming the foil is simply the cartoon characterization that became Porky's trademark.
STUTTERING TOPOGRAPHY
Porky Pig was at risk for becoming a stutterer from the outset because his father also stuttered. Porky's father is a hard core stutterer, whose stuttering consists of part-word repetitions, insertion of the schwa vowel, starters, tight articulatory contacts, prolongations, and facial grimaces associated with the moment of stuttering. Porky's father, Phineas Pig, in the 1939 "Porky and Teabiscuit" stuttered on 11.6% of his spoken words, 51.4% in the 1936 "Porky the Rainmaker," and 36.7% in "Porky's Poppa," 1938. In these pre-Mel Blanc voice characterizations, the type of stuttering was more realistic. In the 65 cartoons which we observed and the 37 which we analyzed, there was no mention or observation of Porky's mother so nothing can be stated about her.
Porky Pig stuttered on 30% of his spoken words in the 1948 "Daffy Duck Slept Here", 21.3% in "In Curtain Razor," % in "Often an Orphan," 1949, and 17.2% in the 1950 "Boobs in the Woods." In "Porky's Poppa," Porky Pig plays a recording he made to the tune of "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" and hears himself stutter on the playback. He has a violent reaction to hearing himself stutter and he smashes both the record and the playback machine.
Porky Pig's stuttering topography consists of the insertion of the schwa, part- and whole word repetitions, struggle, word substitutions, circumlocutions, insertions of unrelated syllables and sounds, and retrials. Other behaviors associated with his stuttering include squinting, eye blinks, timed bodily movements, and facial grimaces. Porky also stuttered when using a voiced whisper, talking to himself outloud, saying his name, yelling, singing, asking questions, when angry, talking to animals, pets and babies, speaking with an accent, and reading aloud. Another unusual type of disfluency occurred when Porky tried to say his name and couldn't, so he tried writing it, but he wrote disfluently.
DISCUSSION
Porky Pig is a hard core stutterer who stutters, in part, at unusual times and in atypical ways at the discretion of the writers and the "voice". Porky Pig's audience, especially those viewers who know little about stuttering, could certainly get a distorted view about the disorder of stuttering and of "people" who stutter. Porky Pig's character was meant to be humorous and entertaining and to be different from all other cartoon characters, so he was given the characterization of stuttering.
It appears that although Porky Pig's stuttering was obvious, it was incidental to the story line. In spite of this, Porky's stuttering was bizarre enough to cause pain and suffering to some members of his audience. One person who stutters suggested that the general handicapped population "are supposed to be idolized and viewed as being courageous, but a stutterer is supposed to be a joke!". Another person wrote: "Porky Pig is embarrassing, humiliating and certainly not funny." Some parents of children who stutter have mentioned that whenever a Porky Pig cartoon came on the T.V., they would not let their children see it. Some children who stutter are called "Porky Pig" by their friends and enemies, and one child who stuttered asked his mother: "Why do I talk like Porky Pig?"
Porky Pig cartoons or portions of them could be utilized in therapy with
some children by asking the question "If you could teach Porky Pig how not to stutter, how would you do it?" A part of this therapy could be an analysis of Porky's stuttering, symptomatic modification, and fluency enhancement. A behavioral and situational analysis with a discussion about modification of these problem areas could also be accomplished. Utilizing Porky Pig for this purpose might also defuse the negative aspects of the cartoons, serve as therapy reminders, and bring therapy-reluctant children into the therapy process, initially, in a vicarious way.
According to Stromsta (1986, p. 158)
" .. . . .a locally-made series of five five-minute-long movie cartoons of Porky Pig ... was developed to teach children how to blend speech sounds into words and to use Porky Pig as a speech model." The cartoons and what they attempted to get across were readily accepted even by the youngest of children as often witnessed by their working on their speech before the therapist directed activities toward that end.
The author wishes to thank Jodi Pieczynski for her assistance.
REFERENCES
Friedwald, Will and Beck, Jerry. The Warner Brothers' Cartoons, New Jersey and
London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1981, p. xiv.
Maltin, Leonard, Porky Pig's Screwball Comedies. Warner Home Video Inc., 1985.
Stromsta, Courtney Elements of Stuttering. Oshtemo, MI: Atsmorts Publishing,
1986, p. 158.
added with permission, October 12, 1998This morning saw the world light up with hysterical headlines proclaiming the end of days. School holidays would be slashed from 13 to 7 weeks and kids forced to spend 9 hours a day in school.
: Tories plan to keep kids in school nine hours a day, 45 weeks a year
: Conservatives mull forcing children to attend school between 9am and 6pm EVERY DAY for 45 weeks a year
: Schools could open from 9am to 6pm for 45 weeks a year in move aimed to slash cost of childcare and stop the ‘summer slideback’
: Lengthen school days and cut holidays, says former Tory adviser
Well, as ever, the truth is slightly less dramatic. In fact this particular storm has been brewed in the tiny tea-cup of ex-special adviser, .
Kirby thinks he’s found the right stuff for a sure-fire Tory election victory: extending school hours by a whopping two-thirds to give students the equivalent of an extra 7 years in full-time education. And, who knows? Maybe he’s right? But whether or not his ideas ring a bell in the Tory heartlands isn’t really the issue. Should education policy depend on getting on the most expedient means of returning Cameron & Co to office?
No it shouldn’t. And Kirby, to his credit is aware of this. He sets out all the reasons why this policy gem would not only appeal to voters but is also the right decision on economic and educational grounds.
Here are his arguments boiled down to bullet points:
Extending the school day would allow more women to reenter the workplace and cut down on the need for childcare
There would be more time to extend the curriculum and give children a greater breadth of educational experiences
Long school holidays have a disproportionately adverse effect on the poorest children
The countries with the most academically successful school systems (South Korea et al) have much longer school days then we do
‘The evidence’ shows that extending school hours in the US has resulted in improved outcomes for the most disadvantaged students
Teachers with experience of working in schools with extended days actually like it because teaching is less pressured and they have more non-contact time. And, by staggering leave over the year, teachers’ holidays have stayed the same
There will be more space in the school day for “play, creativity, relaxation, exploration and exercise”
The costs could be paid for in part by changing the role of Teaching Assistants (who, Kirby asserts, actually cause more harm than good).
Any short fall in man hours could be covered by Boy Scouts and Girl Guides
Any extra funding required would be covered by all those mums going back to work
Kirby concludes with an interesting thought experiment asking, “If this new idea had been well established for the last 20 years and we proposed scrapping it, what would be the public reaction today? Relief, indifference, opposition?”
Let’s assume that today’s parents had grown up expecting that schools were open 45 weeks a year and 45 hours per week. This fitted into their full time jobs. They got the same holidays as their kids and a working day that fitted inside school hours. Their kids had a broad and rich education, with lots of enrichment. And then, in order to please teachers and save a little money, the Government of the day proposed closing schools for 7 weeks a year and shortening the school day by 2.5 hours. Suddenly, a couple of million staff (mostly women, probably) would have to give up work, or go part-time. School-life would be pared down to the bone – a crammed day, with stressful lessons, kids falling behind, kids falling out, no time of the sports or arts, no place for the community in the curriculum. There would be uproar. An Election promise to go back to what we actually have today would be the biggest vote loser in history. So why wouldn’t an Election promise for my 45 / 45 model be the biggest vote winner since 1945? It must at least be good for a 45% share of the vote. 45 – remember the number!
Compelling stuff. Or is it? Let’s have a look at some of his reasoning in more detail:
Kirby claims that “Four out of ten stay-at-home mums want to work and a fifth of mums who work want to do more hours”, with the assumption being that the reason they’re wishes aren’t being fulfilled is because of pesky schools and their ridiculously short days. If this is true and if we really want more women in the work place this could be achieved by allowing them to work more flexible hours. I realise my understanding of economics is far from complete and that I could be on shaky ground but this argument seems more like an excuse that a reason. But what if it isn’t true? Do legions parents really want to pack off their kids so they can work ever longer hours just to satisfy Mammon’s insatiable hunger? Maybe, just maybe, some of society’s ills could be cured by allowing more parents to spend more time with their kids?
The point about an extended curriculum offering a greater range of possibilities is an interesting one. I agree that cramming the day with maths and English to the exclusion of art and music can feel somewhat soul crushing. But let’ if you’re worrying about floor targets and someone waves a wand to give you an extra 3 hours a day are you really going to spend that time doing flower arranging or shiatsu? No. You’re going to find ways of cramming even more maths and English into reluctant children’s maws. Maybe this could be legislated against, but I can’t really see that being such a vote winner: let’s increase income tax to pay for your kids to go on more school trips. Anyone?
It’s true that Gladwell does point out that long school holidays are a scourge on disadvantaged kids’ life chances, although he’s referring to the much longer 3 month lay off that happens in some US states rather than the 6 weeks summer break enjoyed by British children. But what if he has point and longer holidays contribute to the ever-expanding educational gap between the poorest and the richest kids? Happily, Kirby has already posed an alternative solution to this problem. If we’re already planning to stagger teachers’ leave then we can restructure school holidays without having to make any other changes.
The countries that top the Pisa charts are, as Kirby points out, operating much longer school days. It’s statistically invalid to compare our system with theirs because we’re not comparing like with like. Culturally, we seem to value different things and are (or have been) less keen on consigning our children to longer school days and the relentless pressure of exam success at any cost. But maybe this has changed? Maybe we are now willing to plough this cheerless furrow? Well, before making a decision on this, I would urge you to read Amanda Ripley’s The Smartest Kids in the World. Here’s an extract from
describing the South Korean school system:
South Korea is a system highly praised by many, and rightly so – for its results. In this book, however, a different story is told. School begins early (8am) and continues late – study at school can go on until 7 or 8 in the evening. Students have special pillows they attach to their arms so they can nap during classes. A 12 hour day may seem familiar to most teachers, but I’d hazard none of us would want to deal with students subjected to this. But wait – there’s more! The hagwons, which are intense tutorials, take students all the way up until 10pm (legally) and beyond that time (illegally) – every day, after school.
Maybe this is what the majority of Tory voters want for our children, but I’m just not convinced that’s true.
But wait. If it works in America, then it’ll work here. Kirby cites these statistics:
After just 1 year, there was a 44% boost in maths proficiency, 39% in English and 19% in Science. And the achievement gap narrowed too – by 35% in English. The 57 KIPP schools in the US achieve remarkable results in the US’ most deprived areas. With 80% of kids from low-income families and 90% African-American or Latino, the KIPP schools’ results are 2 to 3 times better than similar schools elsewhere.
This is compelling stuff and something that certainly merits further study. But, having come unstuck with the quality of educational research in the past and being dubious about such measurements as effect sizes, I’d like to have a bloody good look before leaping to any conclusions.
Regardless of the potential educational advantages of spending longer in school, is it desirable? Kirby’s already done his maths:
The 45/45 school year equals 2025 hours. 45 hours is 9 to 6, or 830 to 530. Assuming 8 hours sleep each day, a kid has 5,840 waking hours each year. That means kids would still only be at school for about a third of their waking hours.
But is this what we want? Kirby argues that “in numerical terms” this isn’t a problem, whatever that means. But how much is too much? Children aren’t adults and don’t have the same endurance. They get tired. The South Korean solution of supplying special pillows for kids to kip through the day seems ludicrous. Maybe we should get the opinion of child psychologists and neuroscientists before rushing to make a judgement on this. Yes, I know we used to stuff the buggers up chimneys and use them to floss Fagin’s teeth, but I thought we’d agreed that kind of thing was a bad idea?
But what about the fury of teachers? Well, it’s very interesting that teachers with any experience of this kind of system are so keen on extending school hours. Is it really true that a longer day means you’re less pressured? I’d be keen to unpick the assertion that teachers are unanimously joyous about these changes. How do we know? More to the point though, I’d be deeply sceptical about whether schools really would use the opportunity afforded by longer days to give teachers more non-contact time. Potentially this could be wonderful, but if it means that teachers end up being expected to teach for an extra 3 hours a day, I think we’d push many beyond breaking point. Obviously the reality is that teachers don’t finish working at 3 as things stand. Most teachers spend additional hours every day planning and marking and it would be lovely to think we would be paid for doing this in school time. Like I say, I’m sceptical.
And that brings us to the cash. Would it really be as simple as changing TA’s job descriptions and drafting in Bear Gryll’s willing hordes? Kirby supposes that it would be straightforward to compel the 200,000 existing TAs to supervise homework and run enrichment. And there certainly is some damning evidence that teaching assistants don’t seem to have much in the way of positive impact on attainment. Maybe this suggestion is both preferable and possible, but won’t the guides and scouts be too busy at school to volunteer to help at, er, school? Will local organisation really leap to fill the gaps in the new, bulging school day? What if they don’t? The reality is that, in the words of the late, great George Harrison, it’s gonna take money: a whole lot of spending money. In fact it’s going to take plenty of money, to do it right.
George is unable to offer any insight on just how much money it’d take, but I’m convinced it would be a lot. Is this really the vote winner Kirby assures us it is?
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
[…] via Is extending school hours really such a vote winner? | David Didau: The Learning Spy. […]
The Secret of Literacy
The Perfect English Lesson
Get in touch
Enter your email to subscribe to The Learning Spy. You will receive notifications of new posts by magic.Join 677 other subscribers
Email Address
12:51 am By David Didau
When you make something a fetish, ashes and dusts will laugh at you, because they know even the most valuable fetishes will turn into dusts and
10:29 pm By David Didau
As favour and riches forsake a man, we discover in him the foolishness they concealed, and which no one perceived before. Jean de La Bruyère You
2:46 pm By David Didau
“For a difference to be a difference, it must make a difference.” William James We’re all different. Obviously. Just like snowflakes, human beings are all special, unique
3:20 pm By David Didau
I spent a good part of the past year or so railing against the injustices of lesson grading: My impatience with some Ofsted inspectors 24th July 2014 Ofsted:
3:21 pm By David Didau
Every truth has two sides. It is well to look at both before we commit ourselves to either side. Aesop This weekend I took part in
Powered by
| Designed by:
| Thanks to ,
%d bloggers like this:
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.