The Boy Who Cried Wolf | A story read by generations, understood by none.

2,506
109
Joined Aug 23, 2005
The Boy Who Cried Wolf | TheLastPsychiatrist.com

2600 years ago a fable was written, read by generations, understood by none.

The boy cried, Wolf! and the villagers came, but there was no wolf. And the boy laughed, amused with himself and by their gullibility. He did it a second time with the same results; and a third time, each time to him more amusing.

But the next time was not a joke, a wolf indeed came, and killed most of the flock, and almost killed him. Wolf! Wolf! But no one came, of course. It was too many times.

Even when a liar tells the truth, they are never believed.
II.

The winter came, and the villagers were cold and hungry, and many died, for there were no sheep. An old man from another village shook his head: why was such an important aspect of their survival trusted to a boy? How much did you expect from a child?

He seemed really mature, observed one man. And we're really just children ourselves. We didn't notice much of a difference.

Why continue to leave him in place after the first lie? Or the second? Clearly he doesn't take the job seriously. If you no longer trusted his call, why did you leave him there? "But we were busy with other things."

Perhaps you knew wolves were coming, inevitably; there was no stopping them. And rather than try and fail, you didn't want to be the one blamed.

Or perhaps you expected that because he lied about the wolf, that there was no such thing as wolves. Not: he lied because there are no wolves. Since he lied, therefore there are no wolves.

Other than the solitary boy you left in the field to do a job you didn't trust him to do, what other warning signals were you expecting?

The boy grew up, resentful at the villagers' resentment towards him, what did he do wrong? He called them and they did not come. They told him they would. They lied. And like the children they are, they took no responsibility-- they tried to blame him.

The adults in the village failed, the blame is theirs entirely. Wolves exist, you don't throw a boy to the wolves. And when you send a boy to do a man's job but still treat him like a boy, then the problem isn't the boy, the problem is you.
 
17,578
1,163
Joined Apr 7, 2008
I'm pretty sure that's not what the story means. Whoever wrote that is reading way too much into a simple fable.
Word. It's an interesting "devils advocate", alternative way of looking at it, but it's obviously not the story's moral. Moral of that story is dont be a ******g **** and lie because it will come back on dat ***.
 
2,506
109
Joined Aug 23, 2005
Whoever wrote that is reading way too much into a simple fable
Allow me to present that this is simply what you want to believe because you already have a pre-existing understanding of the story...

In the conventional moral of the story, the focus is on the individual (i.e. the boy). If you (the individual) lie, no one (society) will believe you when you're honest, so don't lie.

Here is another quote that is relevant, but apply it to the villagers in the story.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

The idea being that he who takes no steps to guard himself after being fooled once, welcomes it the second time. The fault is not on the other person for fooling him, it is on him for not doing anything about it.

Does the quote not apply to the villagers in the story? Why or why not? Why would the villagers welcome being fooled by the boy?

View media item 484337
The people delude themselves into thinking they care more about teaching the boy a valuable lesson about honesty than they do about the wolf.
 
Last edited:
1,216
386
Joined Feb 20, 2008
"A fable read by generations, understood by none"... Nah son, that's a stretch.

This article adds way to many variable factors and accepts them as concrete only because they help the authors argument. You can counter and argue that the boy (albeit immature) was the most qualified for the responsibility in the first place, ie. he had the best vision to spot wolves in the village, the strongest voice in the village to alert the huntsmen deep in sleep, etc. so his position was given to him for a reason, so much so that even though the entire village knew of his prankster antics, he was still the best person in the entire village for that lookout role. "Never let a boy do a man's job" need not apply here because this boy was special, and no man, woman, or other child came even close to being more qualified than the boy. This boy's pros as a lookout outweighed his cons as a jokester. This village placed all responsibility on the boy, but they had no other choice, he was their only hope. So now who is at fault? Was the village simply destined to doom if the boy could not succeed?

See what I mean, you can add whatever you want to build your case. Let the original fable keep it's simplicity.
 

Mark Antony

Supporter
50,142
60,450
Joined Apr 30, 2010
:lol: You can't just take a well documented and researched fable with a clear point and change it to fit your own "it takes a village" philosophy. And be condescending with it, come on now.
 

akajae

formerly akajaedeuce
12,186
10,077
Joined Sep 2, 2005
this is the stupidest thing I've read...

thank you OP.
 
2,506
109
Joined Aug 23, 2005
"A fable read by generations, understood by none"... Nah son, that's a stretch.

This article adds way to many variable factors and accepts them as concrete only because they help the authors argument. You can counter and argue that the boy (albeit immature) was the most qualified for the responsibility in the first place, ie. he had the best vision to spot wolves in the village, the strongest voice in the village to alert the huntsmen deep in sleep, etc. so his position was given to him for a reason, so much so that even though the entire village knew of his prankster antics, he was still the best person in the entire village for that lookout role. "Never let a boy do a man's job" need not apply here because this boy was special, and no man, woman, or other child came even close to being more qualified than the boy. This boy's pros as a lookout outweighed his cons as a jokester. This village placed all responsibility on the boy, but they had no other choice, he was their only hope. So now who is at fault? Was the village simply destined to doom if the boy could not succeed?

See what I mean, you can add whatever you want to build your case. Let the original fable keep it's simplicity.
I agree with you! But now ask this, why is THIS version of the story the most dominant one and not another? Why don't more people read the core premise of the story offered in the quote and think "Why didn't the village decide after the first time he lied that he could not be trusted with that responsibility?"

Also consider that it's the author's version isn't even really make sense to the historical role of a shepherd. People historically didn't put someone in charge of watching the sheep that needed to call the whole village over the first sight of a wolf, right? The whole fable doesn't even make sense historically. What matters is that everyone knows the story in one specific way. And the symbolism here is what's significant.
 
Last edited:
6,348
1,109
Joined Oct 14, 2007
interesting take, only have one problem with it

I always thought the boy was just a regular boy, not the security guard for the rest of the village. A civilian, warning others just because that type of ish happens in that village.
 
2,506
109
Joined Aug 23, 2005
I love when people try to be smarter than the masses and fall flat on their face
smarter than the masses?! Really? It's just trying to provoke thought. What's with this resistance to perspective changing stuff??

Is it not clear, that a society that continues to blame the boy in this story will always be apathetic to important issues in the world like the one we live in?\

I'm srs br0s. Do you wanna go down the rabbit hole with me?

View media item 484684
If you loved the Matrix and other action movies (like myself) I really would recommend starting with this Action Movie Fairy Tale

If you think you're addicted to online porn I would recommend this: The Effects of Too Much Porn

It doesn't necessarily have to be "for you" to gain any benefit from changes in perspective. The blog offers a really great review of Inception and some other movies as well. It gives a great change of perspective on a lot of forms of popular media, which can give you an understanding of the message at least most people in society are receiving from movies and TV.

Like Jay-Z? What Do you think about this post? Jay-Z is A Genius

Like Louie CK? Tell me, When was the last time you had your *** kicked?

View media item 484691
 
Last edited:
2,425
32
Joined Aug 4, 2012
def. a take on it I never thought of. 

are fables supposed to have simple lessons? if so, then the first/original lesson should stick around
 
2,506
109
Joined Aug 23, 2005
Posts: 20
Views: 608
20/608= 0.03289

"So I saw Drake Today"
Posts: 39
Views: 831
39/831=0.04693

View media item 484820
Are you guys a bunch of women, or do you wanna explore your minds and your social environment in a meaningful way?

Ask questions. Sip on some haterade. Do anything but nothing.

If that comic on the first page really doesn't make any sense to you, don't be afraid to really think about it. What doesn't make sense about it?
 
Last edited:
4,948
1,056
Joined May 23, 2013
I'm pretty sure that's not what the story means. Whoever wrote that is reading way too much into a simple fable.
for real tho

edit: the whole point of a fable is that they have very basic morals that can be interpreted by a wide range of intellects, so wide in fact theyre told to children and they comprehend the lesson. . . but it would be cool if all fables had some deep treasure map explanation behind them on some National Treasures stylo
 
Last edited:
1,927
1,996
Joined Apr 5, 2012
First world problems. It's a simple test. Tell the story to a bunch of kids. Include the facts of the story (boy alone to guard etc). Have them choose what moral they take from the story. That's the point. Why make it complicated? Of course most stories can have a main point, a secondary point, etc.

The point of that story is an about an individual. It's not a story about society, or collective thought. It's about how your actions as an individual have weight. The story would of could of been written a different way if the point was to highlight the 'stupidity' of the villagers/society.

OP your take is not different, it's just wrong. Reading comprehension fail.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now