By Jeff Warren

Last week's article on "Fellion's Hellions" elicited a lot of e-mails. Apparently, many people could relate to the sheer joy of "putting one over" on the establishment.

No doubt others felt it was incendiary, dangerous, even irresponsible. What can be gained from romanticizing illegal, anti-social, even dangerous deeds? Wasn't it just encouraging youngsters to disobey laws or the rules in school?

Yet, one is perplexed. America's most famous youngsters, Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, are nothing if not mischievous. They are revered for their pranks. Coiling up a dead rattlesnake and placing it on Jim's bed – though funny on its face – resulted in Jim’s getting bitten by its mate. That's not only not funny – it’s life-threatening.

Faking their own deaths and attending their own funeral was hilarious to them – but probably not to their kin and grieving townsfolk. Yet, when we read it, we chuckle at their devilishness, cheek, and originality.

The title of each book was "The Adventures of "(Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn). Clearly, Mark Twain equated tricks and pranksterism with "adventures." That might be a clue.

One Christmas, my Grandfather was given a present. I have it on my book shelf. It is inscribed with his name, and the date--December 25, 1901. He was eight years old. The book was entitled Peck's Bad Boy.

This is not a book for the politically correct 21st century.

Not many of us today are on speaking terms with young Henry Peck. He was a bad boy extraordinaire.

The stories are filled with baby calves carried up stairs, stealing horse drawn wagons and the thrill of filching melons in the dark of night. Henry’s backside is well acquainted with his father’s switches.

Why did parents at the turn of the last century think that books about devilish boys were good for young kids?

Whether one is talking about Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, or Henry Peck, the theme is basically the same.

Throughout history societies have realized that young men have to be taught certain skills and rules in order to survive as adults. We're all familiar with the initiation rites of indigenous tribes which turn boys into men. As America became more civilized, these "rites of passage" seemed to disappear – or at least become less codified.

Learning how to "play the game" is important. If folks don't follow the rules, communal society is impossible.

But societies can't advance unless someone somewhere steps outside the box and breaks the current rules. From Copernicus to Columbus men and women have stretched the limits of established thinking, and taken us to places unimagined just days before their breakthroughs.

Risk takers advance society. They also can cause a lot of pain--sometimes death. Risk takers, adventurers, pioneers, creative artists – call them what you will – move civilization forward.

How does modern society train a new generation to take risks--to be creative?

It can't "lay down rules" for breaking rules. Legislating spontaneity is an oxymoron. By definition the actions must be original, random, and "anti-establishment."

"Play" is clearly one way to cultivate originality and encourage creativity. The child sees the existing order, and then on his own develops a trick or scheme which is contrary to that order. He creatively counters the established norm.

There are lots of rewards for breaking the rules--not the least of which is laughter. Attention is another by-product. Breaking the rules establishes an individual identity. Suddenly he's unique. Others walk down stairs. He slides down the banister.

However, society can't function if everyone tries to slide down the banister. Enter appropriate punishment . Without punishment the rules haven't been completely broken—acceptable norms aren’t clearly defined.

That's where today's helicopter parents blow it. They think of punishment as a failure--as somehow inappropriate. If the kid disobeys (establishes his separateness), instead of spanking him or sending him to his room, the mother "talks" to the child about it--and "explains" why it is wrong.

This robs the kid of the chance to establish his "otherness."

If he cuts class and the principal suspends him, the parent rushes in, lawyer in tow, so it "doesn't go on his permanent record."

Once again, the kid is robbed of his unique identity. He then either becomes an uncreative drone or has to search out more bizarre ways to separate himself from Mommy and Daddy's world. Drugs, anyone?

That's why pranks and punishments need to be encouraged. Our grandparents' parents knew that. We're so much smarter--we don't.

Today, it's pull a prank – call a cop. Either that, or mommy bails the kid out. The punishment phase of growing up is way out of whack.

Kids make mistakes. And kids intentionally break rules. Either way, they need to be allowed to pay for it in a quick, defined way – no TV – paint the fence – run laps – whatever.

That's the lesson of incorrigible Henry Peck. For each transgression he is punished. Usually on the backside with a board. The lesson is learned. The moral order affirmed. His identity is established as is the role of his father. The world makes sense.

Authority figures establish the guidelines and lay down the rules. Children need to be encouraged to challenge them. More importantly, children need to pay the price for defying the established order. It's what defines their "otherness" and allows them to become separate, creative individuals.

Shrinks don’t get it. Beatings bad. Spankings good. It’s not just about spoiling: Spare the rod and you cheat the child.

George Peck wrote, "Not all boys are full of tricks, but the best of them are." How come my grandfather’s parents knew that and we don’t?


























































Jeffrey Earl Warren
James Warren & Son
1414 Main St.
St. Helena, Ca.
94574
707-963-2748