No place for Kermit - Likeabilty and Eighteenth Century Literature

 Recently, I wrote a little piece about puppet theatres in the eighteenth century. As a little game, I decided to try and cast eighteenth century works with The Muppets but I quickly came upon a particular problem, there were very few roles for Kermit.

Kermit the Frog is not a complete paragon of virtue. He is easily exasperated (though is given extreme provocation), he can sometimes give in to more boisterous elements and I think he is pretty cruel in his indecision over his relationship with Miss Piggy. He is, however, a decent chap/frog, he is essentially likeable and he needs to be cast as such. In the Muppet adaptations we have, he is Bob Cratchet in The Christmas Carol, Captain Smollett in Treasure Island and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz. While Smollett is actually quite a strict, steely character, Kermit plays him with his usual good-natured charm. That simply doesn’t fit in well with the eighteenth century.

I thought about The Beggar’s Opera. It would seem natural to cast him as Macheath, he’s the main character and it’d be fun dressing him in a little highway outfit and having Miss Piggy and Mary Sue Pig (or Spamela Anderson) fight over him. It’s not a terrible fit, there’s a haplessness about Macheath that Kermit could play, but there’s a harshness too, and although having the two pigs fight over him would be funny, and play to their characters (and it would be hilarious with dozens of pigs coming at the end, claiming to be his wife) Kermit’s romantic nature is indecisive, not playboy. 

Stick him in the world of Defoe - he could make a passable Crusoe, would be sidelined in Roxana or Moll Flanders and I can’t imagine him picking pockets as Colonel Jack. He’d be a decent enough Gulliver I suppose, an okay Tom Jones (though again, he’d lack the vim of that character). He’d make the worst Lovelace possible… though he might be okay as Evelina’s Count Orville and I’d pay good money to see him as Count D’Elmont in Love in Excess.

The reason for this seems to be that Kermit is a decent, likeable kind of frog, and eighteenth century literature is not all that interested in providing its readers with that kind of character. The worlds of Smollett, Swift, Fielding, Haywood, Burney, are not ones full of likeable people. They are worlds where people face tough moral decisions, or are slaves to their unreasons and whims - they aren’t worlds for decent types for the most part. Even decent characters in eighteenth century fiction, like Tom Jones or Parson Adams, have issues with sex, violence or hypocrisy that make them simply more than the bland and likeable. 

This seems to be a problem for modern readers, who seem to expect to like the characters they read about. Reader reviews of modern books often complain about the lack of likeable character.  They say they can’t follow Crusoe’s adventures because of his colonising the island and othering of Friday (even as he learns to appreciate his companion), or that The Beggar’s Opera has no likeable characters because everyone is in it for themselves. To be honest, I think this is a flaw in the modern reader rather than older books, writers of the past wanted to present vivid characters, interesting characters, they didn’t seem to be so interested in likeable ones.

On writer did set out to create an intentionally likeable character, my old frenemy, Samuel Richardson. He wrote Sir Charles Grandison to be good, decent and likeable. Even among those who like Richardson (and I do find him a chore), Grandison is a dull book. Readers have described his goodness as repellent, many have just said he’s boring. Seeing as the book is over 1500 pages long, I shall not be rushing to it.

While it’s unfortunate that our pal Kermit doesn’t have many roles available in eighteenth century literature, I say that’s probably a good thing, and those books are the better for having big, unlikeable characters than Sir Charles Blandisons. Likeable is overrated, I say.

Goldsmith on Puffins

 Last Wednesday was half term and a gloriously sunny day so my parents and I went to Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire to see the nesting seabirds.

The place was packed with guillemots, razorbills and kittiwakes. We saw gannets performing their strange bowing, head-shaking and beak-fencing behaviours, and we also looked for puffins. Those adorable, colourful beaked fellas are really quite hard to see. They’re smaller than many of the other birds, have a tendency to nest deeper in the crevices and didn’t gather the same way the others did, scattered among the rest. I hear this isn’t the case in ‘puffin islands’ like Anglesey and Lundy, but it was the case at the cliffs in Bempton.

We looked and looked, enjoying the antics of all the other birds, the bright, blue sky and the turquoise sea and eventually our patience had results, we saw puffins. A few were chilling on the cliffs, whilst others flew around, their hurried flapping noticeable against the more relaxed flying of the other birds. It was pretty magical. 

Oliver Goldsmith, in his An History of the Earth and Animated Nature describes puffins, and it seems, unlike some of the other entries, that he might have even seen some before. He says that, “words cannot easily describe the form of the bill of the puffin,' before giving a paragraph on the size, shape and colour of it, warning that it “bites most terribly”.

Goldsmith describes how the birds nest in burrows and holes situated up large cliffs but that they aren’t terribly good flyers and sometimes need to make several tries to fly up to their nests. He also describes how a small number of puffins appear to scout out an area before the larger force comes (maybe it was these scouts we saw).

He says how puffins descend on Anglesey, kicking rabbits out of their burrows and making a nuisance. He then talks about a subject which never ceases to amuse me in his natural history book, whether puffins make good food or not. He describes the meat as rank, unless well salted and pickled and says how the church exempted the puffin from being described as meat on feast days.

Moving away from the description of puffin-meat, he celebrates their indefatigability, that after being preyed on and hunted by humans and other animals, they always come back in as many numbers as before.

I love reading An History of the Earth and Animated Nature for the odd and outdated details some of the entries contain, like the description of their meat, but (if Goldsmith’s sources are correct) I did also learn a little of the hard life of a puffin.

It was a pleasure to meet a few.