 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.loc.uk, David Graham writes:
> > I received my September/October LEGO club magazine today and I am amazed at
> > how rude the replies are to the letters that children have written.
> > If children take the trouble to write they could at least be given a
> > courteous reply.
> These Q and As were also seen in the latest issue of the magazine we get in
> the states as well...
>
> I agree with your assessment, David, except that I'm not sure that just
> ignoring questions is good. Better to answer them but, if the info can't be
> given, say so, don't give flip answers. Kids are smarter than some adults
> realise, my son rolled his eyes and said "why are they doing this"...
This is appalling. When did this patronising of children start? When I was
young I don't remember suffering this sort of thing. I remember reading my
dad's Eagle annuals from when he was a child (60's) and they had
fantastically detailed information about science and technology subjects. I
have no idea what age group they were aimed at except to suspect that the
concept of 'aiming' them would be completely alien to the writers but I had
no problems with them at the age of 7 or 8.
Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and ask
it of TLC are even more so.
As I say, appalling.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Simon Bennett writes:
> This is appalling.
Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong.
> When did this patronising of children start? When I was
> young I don't remember suffering this sort of thing. I remember reading my
> dad's Eagle annuals from when he was a child (60's) and they had
> fantastically detailed information about science and technology subjects. I
> have no idea what age group they were aimed at except to suspect that the
> concept of 'aiming' them would be completely alien to the writers but I had
> no problems with them at the age of 7 or 8.
I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We do
a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not mistaken)
and fun stuff like the Redini spots come back with positive marks. Sure, we
adults think it's a little silly. Sure, we might not remember our favorite
activities as kids including silliness like this. But I guarantee if you
were to go back in time, you would find that we all had some amount of this
that would seem dumb today. I recently found some old Spiderman comics from
my childhood... talk about "appalling" dialogue! I could barely make it
through those issues! Does that mean that the comics were inappropriately
pandering to children? No! It means that they were appropriately targeted
and appropriately developed! (I don't think you can argue with the success
of the Spiderman comics over the years)
> Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and ask
> it of TLC are even more so.
Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that? Sure kids can soak up info like a
sponge. This is the reason why kids only a year apart in age can be worlds
apart in mental development. Kids don't have to "learn" every second of the
day. Playing can be learning, as much as reading a book. But more
importantly, non-serious, educational activities have to be balanced by a
freedom to have fun and just be silly.
I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
important to remember that we aren't kids. Asking our own kids, or just
guessing what kids like isn't marketing research. For that matter, anything
outside of our own age range is hard to assume. At several past jobs, I have
worked on projects targeted to Senior Citizens, for example, and was
continually surprised how much my mid-20s mindset didn't mesh with their
issues. I could guess at what they wanted, but I certainly could judge for
certain until I asked a true representative sampling. (My own grandparents
for instance, didn't represent the opinions of the majority!)
> As I say, appalling.
One last thought: How many times has a parent or adult thought something
their kids were into was dumb? I know my parents thought my interest in punk
music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
Again, I hope this doesn't add fuel to the fire, but rather helps explain
where the Magazine team is coming from.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Sr. Producer
LEGO Direct
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
(snip)
> I know my parents thought my interest in punk
> music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
:-)
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I know my parents thought my interest in punk
> > music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> > music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
>
> Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> :-)
Tip #1 Stay away from it!
Tip #2 Don't forget tip #1
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > I know my parents thought my interest in punk
> > > music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> > > music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
> >
> > Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> > :-)
>
> Tip #1 Stay away from it!
> Tip #2 Don't forget tip #1
>
> ROSCO
Aw, Rosco, what's the matter? Not in touch with your inner Angry Young Man? ;p
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > I know my parents thought my interest in punk
> > > music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> > > music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
> >
> > Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> > :-)
>
> Tip #1 Stay away from it!
> Tip #2 Don't forget tip #1
How come? I happen to like punk music! (*)
:-P
Pedro
(*) I'm not a punk, though.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> > > :-)
> >
> > Tip #1 Stay away from it!
> > Tip #2 Don't forget tip #1
>
> How come? I happen to like punk music! (*)
Well I guess I've tipped my hand in another post in this thread - the first
band I ever played in did mostly punk (or punky versions of non-punk), so
I'm not quite as anti-punk as these 2 tips may suggest....
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > > Do you still listen to it, then? 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > Tip #1 Stay away from it!
> > > Tip #2 Don't forget tip #1
> >
> > How come? I happen to like punk music! (*)
>
> Well I guess I've tipped my hand in another post in this thread - the first
> band I ever played in did mostly punk (or punky versions of non-punk), so
> I'm not quite as anti-punk as these 2 tips may suggest....
:-P
I just *knew* there was a punk inside you!...
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
Eh? What kind of tips?
Start with:
The Velvet Underground
Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"
Nico's "The End"
New York Dolls
Ramones
Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks")
Early Siouxsie and the Banshees ("The Scream", "Join Hands")
Early Adam Ant ("Dirk Wears White Socks")
The Damned
The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
Dead Kennedys
Circle Jerks
Black Flag
The Nuns
Avengers
Agent Orange
Pere Ubu (some would disagree...)
Search WinMx for:
The Screamers
There are many ways to branch out too.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
>
> Eh? What kind of tips?
>
> Start with:
>
> The Velvet Underground
> Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"
> Nico's "The End"
> New York Dolls
> Ramones
> Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks")
> Early Siouxsie and the Banshees ("The Scream", "Join Hands")
> Early Adam Ant ("Dirk Wears White Socks")
> The Damned
> The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
> Dead Kennedys
> Circle Jerks
> Black Flag
> The Nuns
> Avengers
> Agent Orange
> Pere Ubu (some would disagree...)
>
> Search WinMx for:
> The Screamers
>
> There are many ways to branch out too.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
I guess we know who's in touch with *his* inner Angry Young Man!
:-D
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
> Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks")
Ummmm, wasnt that "bollocks"?
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
> Ummmm, wasnt that "bollocks"?
Yeah, I guess it was -- but that's misspelled, right?
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
>
> Eh? What kind of tips?
>
> Start with:
>
> The Velvet Underground
> Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"
> Nico's "The End"
> New York Dolls
> Ramones
> Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks")
> Early Siouxsie and the Banshees ("The Scream", "Join Hands")
> Early Adam Ant ("Dirk Wears White Socks")
> The Damned
> The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
> Dead Kennedys
> Circle Jerks
> Black Flag
> The Nuns
> Avengers
> Agent Orange
> Pere Ubu (some would disagree...)
>
> Search WinMx for:
> The Screamers
Good "classic punk selection"!
Don't forget Social Distortion (one of my favs)
Bad Religion
Green Day
and of course, the new White Stripes! (Complete with LEGO MTV Video!)
And another one of my favorites is 999...although it has been impossible for
me to find their album(s) anywhere since the early 90s. Great band though.
Have fun!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
LEGO Enthusiast
Webmaster - BI Portal
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/instructions
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jake McKee writes:
> Don't forget Social Distortion (one of my favs)
Must listen to them as well.
> Bad Religion
> Green Day
Know them both - I have all the Greenday albums, but frankly I'm losing a
bit of the interest I had in them... :-/
> and of course, the new White Stripes! (Complete with LEGO MTV Video!)
Yup! :-)
(I did post in .mediawatch about the clip when I saw it...)
> And another one of my favorites is 999...although it has been impossible for
> me to find their album(s) anywhere since the early 90s. Great band though.
Someone has told me about them too, and I did not find CDs either - it's a
conspiracy!!!
;-)
Thanks for the tips!
> Have fun!
That's mandatory - with all this music, "fun" is bound to happen!
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > Don't forget Social Distortion (one of my favs)
>
> Must listen to them as well.
Social D ! I've always liked their stuff, but I confess to prefering the
slightly pop-ier alternative selections from them...
-H.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 'Cause I need tips about good punk bands...
>
> Eh? What kind of tips?
>
> Start with:
>
> The Velvet Underground
> Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"
> Nico's "The End"
> New York Dolls
> Ramones
> Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks")
Done, like'em both.
> Early Siouxsie and the Banshees ("The Scream", "Join Hands")
> Early Adam Ant ("Dirk Wears White Socks")
> The Damned
> The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
> Dead Kennedys
DISlike them both. (Dead Kennedys performed here some weeks ago, BTW)
> Circle Jerks
> Black Flag
> The Nuns
> Avengers
> Agent Orange
> Pere Ubu (some would disagree...)
>
> Search WinMx for:
> The Screamers
The ones I did not signal, either I don't know them, or know them but have
no oppinion about them so far.
Thank you for the tips. I shall download samples for each band this weekend,
this way I can broaden my collection of mp3 (and hopefully CDs, I have
bought some after listening to samples from the web)
> There are many ways to branch out too.
True... in a way, that's the fun of it :-)
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
> > Dead Kennedys
> DISlike them both. (Dead Kennedys performed here some weeks ago, BTW)
Yikes! So now the Dead Kennedys are THE washed-up, has-been rockers that
continue far past any real interest in them. Who knew? Now they join the
ranks of Pink Floyd, The Stones, The Who, etc.
I wouldn't waste my time seeing any of these old acts *live* if that's what
one would call it. The only exceptions I might consider would be The Nuns
and The Cramps (forgot to mention them before); then again, ample
opportunites to see both have materialized and I never have gone yet -- I
guess I am saying I wouldn't rule out the possibility out of hand. Both
were early adopters of very overt sexual melodramatics on stage so the live
shows might be amusing on some level.
Some others I forgot to mention:
Generation X
Sham 69
Crass
X (another brilliant Los Angeles group)
Y'know, there are other groups that came to mind later on that made me
wonder how to, or where to, pigeonhole them -- just for the sake of
conversation. Most of these groups would be in the way of proto-industrial,
proto-electronic, new wave, and NY style "no wave". The time period is
about right, as is the general attitude (non-mainstream). Amongst these I'd
include:
Faust
Can
Joy Division
Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark ("Architecture and Morality" in particular)
Throbbing Gristle
Cabaret Voltaire
Killing Joke (the first album is VERY raw -- a personal fav)
Die Form
Lydia Lunch (various incarnations, certainly Teenage Jesus and the Jerks)
Foetus (defying all categorization)
Richard Hell and the Voidoids
Talking Heads (early stuff was very influential)
Devo
Ah, who knows...? It's just fun to jog the brain over old music.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > The Clash (maybe...and only early stuff)
> > > Dead Kennedys
> > DISlike them both. (Dead Kennedys performed here some weeks ago, BTW)
>
> Yikes! So now the Dead Kennedys are THE washed-up, has-been rockers that
> continue far past any real interest in them.
Dunno about the Dead Kennedys, but I've seen Jello Biaffra on his own and
he's worth catching.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > This is appalling.
>
> Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong.
>
> > When did this patronising of children start? When I was
> > young I don't remember suffering this sort of thing. I remember reading my
> > dad's Eagle annuals from when he was a child (60's) and they had
> > fantastically detailed information about science and technology subjects. I
> > have no idea what age group they were aimed at except to suspect that the
> > concept of 'aiming' them would be completely alien to the writers but I had
> > no problems with them at the age of 7 or 8.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We do
> a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not mistaken)
> and fun stuff like the Redini spots come back with positive marks. Sure, we
> adults think it's a little silly. Sure, we might not remember our favorite
> activities as kids including silliness like this. But I guarantee if you
> were to go back in time, you would find that we all had some amount of this
> that would seem dumb today. I recently found some old Spiderman comics from
> my childhood... talk about "appalling" dialogue! I could barely make it
> through those issues! Does that mean that the comics were inappropriately
> pandering to children? No! It means that they were appropriately targeted
> and appropriately developed! (I don't think you can argue with the success
> of the Spiderman comics over the years)
>
> > Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> > quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> > from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and ask
> > it of TLC are even more so.
>
> Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that? Sure kids can soak up info like a
> sponge. This is the reason why kids only a year apart in age can be worlds
> apart in mental development. Kids don't have to "learn" every second of the
> day. Playing can be learning, as much as reading a book. But more
> importantly, non-serious, educational activities have to be balanced by a
> freedom to have fun and just be silly.
>
> I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
> important to remember that we aren't kids. Asking our own kids, or just
> guessing what kids like isn't marketing research. For that matter, anything
> outside of our own age range is hard to assume. At several past jobs, I have
> worked on projects targeted to Senior Citizens, for example, and was
> continually surprised how much my mid-20s mindset didn't mesh with their
> issues. I could guess at what they wanted, but I certainly could judge for
> certain until I asked a true representative sampling. (My own grandparents
> for instance, didn't represent the opinions of the majority!)
>
> > As I say, appalling.
I wouldn't go as far as describing it appalling. I would find some of the
responses in bad taste. I find them really dumb, and not really fun (or
funny for that matter). I have seen some corny, dumb jokes, especially
in kid's publications, and some of them (especially ask redini) qualify for
lame-o jokes.
The rest of the magazine, at least in my opinion, was decent to good.
For getting it for "free" it was pretty good. The rest of the articles
were interesting enough for me, and I'm sure that the average kid would
find the articles informative and "fun".
I haven't got the next edition of Lego Club Magazine (the first/last
one I received was the July/August edition), and it had the same
"Ask Redini" in it.
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Personally, I think that these jokes are a bit rude. Disclosure of
information has never been a problem with the lego company, so why the
sudden confidentiality?
I can only form an opinion based on the two I saw in the post. In Australia,
we only get World Club mag every 3 (!) months!!! Even then, after 3 months
waiting, we don't get the Ask Redini. (Fortunately, it seems.) I'm actually
14, living next to some 10 and 7 year olds, and they get decent answers to
questions by *GASP* E-mail!
While some kids may not be able to use the net, they can probably dictate.
Just my (Very poor) 2 cents Au, or 1 cent American.
Grill if you will.
-Matt
In lugnet.lego.direct, Benjamin Medinets writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
<Massive Snip!>
>
> The rest of the magazine, at least in my opinion, was decent to good.
> For getting it for "free" it was pretty good. The rest of the articles
> were interesting enough for me, and I'm sure that the average kid would
> find the articles informative and "fun".
>
> I haven't got the next edition of Lego Club Magazine (the first/last
> one I received was the July/August edition), and it had the same
> "Ask Redini" in it.
>
> Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
<snip>
I can agree with all of what you said and still feel that giving blow off
answers was wrong. Write in a style that's accessible to children and a
style that's funny, and appropriate to their age group, sure. But if a
question is posed to you, either ignore it completely or answer it in a way
that doesn't make fun of the questioner or brush their question aside.
Neither of the two cited questions, in my view, were answered in an
appropriate manner. LEGO may well have good reason for not wanting to answer
certain questions but this is in my view (and of the non scientific sample I
took) not the way to do it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake,
I think it is disappointing and a bit sad that Lego would reply to letters
from children in such a manner.
In your post you mentioned this -
> Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and • ask
> it of TLC are even more so.
>
> Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that?
You are correct - children are extremely intelligent. (I'm often stunned at
what my two year old does!)
But you also have to remember that the little boy or girl who took the time
out from play and carefully prepared a letter to Lego did it in all
seriousness. From their point of view, they are writing to the big company
that makes the best toys in the world.
It may have been "fun" for the child to write the letter, address the
envelope, stamp it and take it out the mailbox. Helping a child write a
letter is fun and it is a great activty for a parent and child. But the
child still did it with all sincerity and with the expectation that they
would get some kind of reply.
Not a silly reply, but a reply that sounds like the big Lego company cares
about their letter and who wrote it. The replies to those two examples from
the latest magazine are almost demeaning.
I have not received my copy of the magazine yet, so I don't know if the
children's name and city are published below the questions. If they are, I'm
sure the children were at first thrilled to see their questions and names,
then disappointed when they read the "silly and fun" replies that brush off
their questions. And I bet the children did not want to look at the rest of
the magazine or play with their bricks.
> I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
> important to remember that we aren't kids.
I'm 32, but I remember how I felt when I was a kid. I wrote many, many
letters to Susan Williams in the late 70's and 80's. No matter what my
question or request was (1), I _always_ got a polite, respectful letter and
catalog back from Susan. Of course, I always thought Susan was a real
person. And I was thrilled whenever I received an envelope with the big red
Lego logo on it. The big Lego Company cared about me.
It makes children feel special and appreciated when you, being a parent or
an adult or a company, treat them with respect.
If a child approaches you or writes to you about something serious to them,
even if it is about a toy, they deserve a respectful reply.
If you cannot answer the question, it is still better to explain why rather
then dismiss the question/request or give an obviously silly answer.
I still have everyone of the letters from Susan Williams. Those letters
helped make me a life long customer. (2)
TLC is smart to use marketing research to put together a great kids
magazine. But letters from children are something TLC should treat very
carefully.
I hope this feedback helps.
Bryan Kinkel
(1) "My mom and dad went to Europe and brought back this great Lego train
catalog.
http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1980/c80eutr/index.html
Can you please sell these sets in the United States?"
(2) They are all in a shoebox, in their envelopes, in pristine condition. I
should scan them and post them to Brickshelf.
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:H2opB4.Gww@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > This is appalling.
>
> Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong.
>
> > When did this patronising of children start? When I was
> > young I don't remember suffering this sort of thing. I remember reading • my
> > dad's Eagle annuals from when he was a child (60's) and they had
> > fantastically detailed information about science and technology subjects. • I
> > have no idea what age group they were aimed at except to suspect that the
> > concept of 'aiming' them would be completely alien to the writers but I • had
> > no problems with them at the age of 7 or 8.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We • do
> a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not • mistaken)
> and fun stuff like the Redini spots come back with positive marks. Sure, • we
> adults think it's a little silly. Sure, we might not remember our favorite
> activities as kids including silliness like this. But I guarantee if you
> were to go back in time, you would find that we all had some amount of • this
> that would seem dumb today. I recently found some old Spiderman comics • from
> my childhood... talk about "appalling" dialogue! I could barely make it
> through those issues! Does that mean that the comics were inappropriately
> pandering to children? No! It means that they were appropriately targeted
> and appropriately developed! (I don't think you can argue with the success
> of the Spiderman comics over the years)
>
> > Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> > quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> > from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and • ask
> > it of TLC are even more so.
>
> Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that? Sure kids can soak up info like • a
> sponge. This is the reason why kids only a year apart in age can be worlds
> apart in mental development. Kids don't have to "learn" every second of • the
> day. Playing can be learning, as much as reading a book. But more
> importantly, non-serious, educational activities have to be balanced by a
> freedom to have fun and just be silly.
>
> I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
> important to remember that we aren't kids. Asking our own kids, or just
> guessing what kids like isn't marketing research. For that matter, • anything
> outside of our own age range is hard to assume. At several past jobs, I • have
> worked on projects targeted to Senior Citizens, for example, and was
> continually surprised how much my mid-20s mindset didn't mesh with their
> issues. I could guess at what they wanted, but I certainly could judge for
> certain until I asked a true representative sampling. (My own grandparents
> for instance, didn't represent the opinions of the majority!)
>
> > As I say, appalling.
>
> One last thought: How many times has a parent or adult thought something
> their kids were into was dumb? I know my parents thought my interest in • punk
> music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
>
> Again, I hope this doesn't add fuel to the fire, but rather helps explain
> where the Magazine team is coming from.
>
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Sr. Producer
> LEGO Direct
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Kinkel writes:
> I'm 32, but I remember how I felt when I was a kid. I wrote many, many
> letters to Susan Williams in the late 70's and 80's. No matter what my
> question or request was (1), I _always_ got a polite, respectful letter and
> catalog back from Susan. Of course, I always thought Susan was a real
> person. And I was thrilled whenever I received an envelope with the big red
> Lego logo on it. The big Lego Company cared about me. • <snip>
> I still have everyone of the letters from Susan Williams. Those letters
> helped make me a life long customer. (2)
At 30 now, I have the same memories of being thrilled seeing the Lego logo
on letterhead sent to me. I still get a thrill whenever I come across those
letters (which I also have stashed away somewhere). Getting the kind of
responses we got as children not only made us feel good, it not only made us
loyal customers, but it also taught us how to treat others. As we grew and
learned from that sort of experience we could offer better "customer
service" in our own relations.
...Back to the thread, let me start by saying I haven't subscribed for the
club magazine in a few years, so all I know here is the original quotes in
this thread. That said though, I would also agree with Jake that adults
cannot fully know what the next generation is like, as each is different.
But as the Sue Williams anecdotes from Bryan & myself suggest, the adult
community can guide the differences in the younger generations.
Regarding the issue of the possibly rude answers to questions sent to the
magazine, I think this problem is not exclusive to the Lego club mag, nor is
it exclusive to material targeted for children. I have read a number of
magazines over the past year that seem to have an increasing amount of this
kind of "humor". Some of these include those targeted for an older audience
(Maxim is one title that comes to mind, although some classier news
periodicals also do it now). Only the more serious scientific magazines
seem to stay clear of this new trend. There seems to be a growing
acceptance amongst the editors of these magazines to allow for this
snappy-sarcastic humor during surveys, humor columns, and reviews. I
suspect this trend started on the internet, where chat rooms and newsrooms
make it easy for this sort of humor to abound. It spread to magazines, and
now to children's periodicals where writers and editors think it is trendy
and are willing to sacrifice decent journalism (for any age group) for the
sake of making their magazine "cool".
Humor itself is an indication of intelligence (in fact an article in a
Discover magazine recently discussed this), and the healthier and more
developed a persons brain is, then the more sophisticated a joke must be to
be found funny. As has been said, many children are smarter than we think,
and these sarcastic remarks for answers might be viewed as immature even by
today's youth. And if adults can influence children's development (as
suggested above), why not give them more mature jokes and serious answers?
Of course, I haven't done research on this; I'm just offering some
possibilities to ponder.
My 2 bricks,
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:H2oGxy.Mv1@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.loc.uk, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.uk, David Graham writes:
> > > I received my September/October LEGO club magazine today and I am amazed • at
> > > how rude the replies are to the letters that children have written.
> > > If children take the trouble to write they could at least be given a
> > > courteous reply.
Don't you mean the July/August UK issue?
I have just received the Sept/Oct UK issue, with HP on the front, and have
to say that the Ask Redini page is much improved. All questions have been
answered sensibly: how many kids in the LEGO club? How to pronounce the Toa
names, How bricks are made, and last but not least, the funniest reply of
all is to the question "why do you only make sets of popular things?". I'm
not sure that answer the kid was expecting, but the answer given suggests
that they tried making "LEGO trip to the dentist" but it didn't do too well.
Best part of all, is that they have a picture of what such a set would look
like, and it's very funny!
Shame, then, that most of the rest of the magazine is just adverts for HP
sets...
Huw
| | | | | | |
