I was recently in charge of throwing our Captain Underpants party at the library. In preparation, I reread one of the books (admittedly I did not commit to reading all 10). After reading, I felt like reflecting. This should not be surprising.
For those who are unfamiliar, let's recap:
George and Harold are two fourth graders who frequently get in trouble and accidentally turn their nasty principal into Captain Underpants by hypnotizing him. The duo creates comic books which frequently become real through a series of mishaps. Adventures often include villains like toilets, Professor Poopypants, or evil lunch ladies. Parents and educators love to discuss how offensive the series is, for the following reasons:
-"Gross" language?
-Rejection of authority
-Many comics and pictures are present even though they are chapter books
However. . .
Is it really any different than reading Archie comics? The Archie gang was overtly sexual and mature, but I still devoured any issue I could. The same goes for Gossip Girl, which also includes blatant alcohol/drug abuse. Captain Underpants may not be Jane Austen, but that's the point. Fourth grade boys aren't nearly as likely to be pulled in by tepid stories of animals or heartbreak. I'm willing to bet that, for the typical 8-12 year old boy (potentially older, too), burping, farting, and all other bodily functions are Funny with a capital "F." They eat this stuff up, and Dav Pilkey has tapped into a goldmine.
As for rejecting authority, many heros and heroines in classic works have fought "the man." As Jessica Roake points out in this article from Slate.com, even Huck Finn didn't follow directions. Let's face it, a book about boys who follow all the rules probably won't engage reluctant readers.
For the record, our attendees loved throwing bean bags in a toilet, and wearing men's underwear during a relay race. Pilkey has a strong following, and my latest run-in with Captain Underpants reminded me that it is with good reason.