[ SECRET POST #5538 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #793.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

It's not a great moral lesson because of the non-specific nature of holographic scales, I agree. Sharing is actually a fairly nuanced topic, as not everything should be shared, some things should definitely be shared, and while it's clear holographic scales are supposed to be an allegory for the latter, it's on the fish's body so it really really seems like the former. And to kids' tend to have such specific experiences that general lessons like this can impart wildly different things to kids.

but it's a great lesson on the reality of free association, that's wildly important for kids to know. if you want people to admire you, you have to be admirable....to them.

to your point OP, the problem with your "orchestrated ostracism" point is that Rainbow fish was already ignoring the other fish to begin with; it's not ostracism to stop giving him admiration (which is what he desired, the community aspects he was denying to begin with).

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I feel like way too many people take that book literally instead of as an allegory, which is clearly what it's meant to be. The point is that the Rainbow Fish had a whole lot of things that he didn't need all of while the other fish had none, and that by sharing them he could still keep some for himself while also being generous to other people and making them happy too.

[(Anonymous)]

Given that the other fish had zero need for his scales and getting one had no measurable impact on their lives at all, the allegory is a stupid one. At least make it something that would have affected something, as opposed to "heehoo sparkly"

[(Anonymous)]

Most 4 year olds don't really have the capability to enact meaningful change in the world around them. They do have the ability to share cookies, or stickers, or turns on the see-saw and other things that are heehoo sparkly.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but when it comes to personal possessions, as opposed to public amenities, they shouldn't be told "give your shit to anyone who wants it or you'll be hated." That's a very bad way to frame the virtue of generosity, and s very good way to teach kids that boundaries are bad and having them makes you unpopular