Let’s make Goldilocks the villain. A housebreaking, food stealing, chair smashing, unapologetic, run away. A real princess.
She always got the good press didn’t she. Those scary bears, that too hot porridge. The hopeless chairs. Never that she was actually a burglar, thief and vandal. Whoever would have thought it. What was the moral of the story, the point. Put her in a hoody with a nose ring and lots of tats and however pretty she might have been it would have been the youth court and the bears in counselling.
Those bears eh. Always the villain. How about the victim. Tidy, clean house. Beds made. Breakfast on the table. Walk in the woods before breakfast. In the stories I have read (with pictures) they even had clean windows. Taking care of the children, drying their tears etc. They probably even meditate. And they are victims. Yes victims. Of this housebreaking crim.
Maybe it is all in the name. Goldilocks. Bit like Janice. She is a librarian. Her name says it, she becomes it. Lily is a bit flaky but pretty and kind. Jane is calm and reads. Clean shoes. But Goldilocks. That look and look again prettiness. Wholesome. Blonde curls. Big blue eyes. Butter wouldn’t melt etc.
So call her Metal. It’s a name. Or Garbage. Or Chardonnay. Not the same picture eh. Not so much “that poor child”. Bit more “oy, get out of my house”.
What was the moral of the story anyway? The google tells me: the need to respect the privacy and property of others and how your actions hurt others.
Ok. So far so good.
I think the moral of the story is that if you call your child by a stupid name (Metal, Chardonnay), it will be seen as a housebreaker, if you allow it to voice it’s opinions (Goldilocks doesn’t show emotion or even speak, pretty and blonde is enough of a description of character) even to stand it’s ground and apologise – it will be in trouble. And if you are called Goldilocks and are white young and pretty you will be a legend.