Monthly column on the arts: gotta catch 'em all

Even grown-up kids like myself have been caught out by this one. Anyone who has followed recent crazes, watching youngsters trading Magic Cards or seeing fashionable toys banned from school by zealous teachers, is aware of the addictive nature of many of today's playthings - parents, who end up paying for them, even more so.

And Pokemon bears many similarities to its predecessors. The appeal to the completist in every kid, the lure of the valuable card that might be in the next pack you buy, the magnetism of a new and alluring mythology into which the game draws you, the precarious balance between TV toy programmes and TV toy advertising, the necessary link with technology - we've seen all this before, and, to echo an anonymous Old English poet: 'That passed by; so may this.' Look out for most of today's Pokemon desirables in next year's Oxfam shops.

And yet, this is different.

Japanese origins

First the history. The Pokemon mythos is the invention of a Japanese inventor Satoshi Tajiri, whose boyhood insect-collecting obsession led to the game. In the West, most of the Pokemon names are changed: thus the central character in the TV series, Satoshi, becomes Ash. Only Pikachu, Ash's sidekick, remains unwesternised.

The Nintendo game that started the popular craze involves you taking on the role of Pokemon trainer, aiming to collect all 151 Pokemon species (it mean 'pocket monster', because when collected they are kept in Pokeballs and are pocketable). The more Pokemon you collect, the greater your power. To collect Pokemon you need the help of other Pokemon to subdue them. Nobody dies in Pokemon, and losers in battle can be resuscitated. The brilliant twist is that it exploits the possibility of linking two Nintendo machines by a cable; you can search on other people's Nintendos for Pokemon you don't have on yours. Immediately the way is open for collectible trading card games reminiscent of an earlier best seller, Magic: The Gathering.

We're in the money

From this storyline have developed computer games, card games, toys, books and comics, a TV series and a blockbuster film. The amount of money involved is huge. Westernising each TV episode costs around $100,000. The money is recouped. Pokemon is the number one children's programme in America, shown daily and twice on Saturday in most areas, and is extremely popular in this country too. Pokemon: the First Movie took $25 million at the US box office in its first two weeks. Nintendo's Christmas Pokemon sales were predicted at 1,500,000 units in Europe, and if you want to buy a Pokemon toy, it can be very difficult to find a shop with any stock left.

The marketing power behind it all is immense and worrying. This is not just another 'My Little Pony' craze. We are talking film revenues of the order of Titanic. The balance between a successful toy and one that exploits children is always a delicate one. For example, accusations of making some cards deliberately rare to compel kids to buy are not new in this industry. The note of completism is new, though: in Magic, you just searched (and paid) for the cards that you needed to make you invincible in your style of play. But the Pokemon slogan 'Gotta catch 'em all' is at the heart of the game.

Quite a few people have argued that there are educational values here. And children do develop reading, comprehension and conceptual skills from Pokemon; the over-riding ethos of the game is kindly rather than violent, though much of that is part of the Westernising process; the values are simple ones rather than the vacuous, world-conquering cliches of many trading card games.

Is it harmful?

And yet . . . is it good for kids to become financially and recreationally obsessed to the extent that they will, for example, try to raise large sums to buy rare cards? How about the Pokemon/non-Pokemon segregation in many playgrounds that has led to some schools banning the cards altogether-and the undesirable social behaviour when a child wants a certain card at all costs? How happy are you to have your children treated as the cash cow to fund one of the largest bonanzas in the modern business world? And to what extent are children affected by the world of Japanese anime and manga, the film cartoon styles that have been extensively used for violent and pornographic images that older children and siblings sometimes see in comics and videos?

The Pokemon message seems unlikely to corrupt a child who has been exposed to far worse in everyday British culture just by being alive in AD 2000, though I find much less to admire in Pokemon than in many other products. What does worry me is that the saucer-eyed children and endearing pocket monsters could be the doorway into much more disturbing areas of exploitation and the imagination that go way beyond Pokemon. I doubt if the interests of global commerce and the fortunes at stake will keep those doors tightly shut at all times.

What can parents do? My suggestions: talk to your children about why they like Pokemon. Play the games yourself, so you understand their appeal. Work out a strategy of limiting Pokemon in your home - if you ban it, they are sure to have access to it in other ways. And pray for your children's protection. The merchandisers who are targeting them are not monsters, but the spiritual welfare of your children is not their top priority.

Monthly column on the arts: gotta catch 'em all

A look at the latest phenomenon of Pokemon among children

And yet, this is different.

Japanese origins

We're in the money

Is it harmful?

David Porter

Main Articles

Other articles