Recently, I have read an article about authors’ donation to a Foundling Museum. It says that fiction characters going on an adventurous journey of passion and growth, such as Harry Potter, Superman and Oliver Twist, are usually those separated from their parents.
It makes me reflect on the meaning and purpose of parenting. Without the aid of helicopter parents, the looked after characters must tackle difficulties by themselves. Without the comfort zone zoned by protective parents, the characters are free to march their footsteps to the unknowns and dangers and wonders of the world.
Harry Potter has lost his parents, but no one will deny the fact that he is a better person and more heroic character than his cousin–the ineffectual bully Dudley Dursley who always have the protection and backing of his parents no matter he is doing right or wrong.
It’s not that parents are unnecessary or wrong or that they should not care for their children, but that very often, indulgent parenting hinder children’s development, especially in terms of problem-solving and the courage to face challenges by themselves.
It’s not really a fresh point of view, I admit, rather, it’s a repeated one. But why something is repeated, in different forms, in various ways? Because it has not been listened yet. Look at the Kong Kids phenomenon, the little emperors in China, the children who need feeding, the teens who need parents’ company in a university interview.
At last, I’d like to share a saying of wisdom from Anna Quindlen, ‘We are good parents not so they (children) will be loving enough to stay with us but so they will be strong enough to leave us’.