Hard-boiled Muppets and the End of the World

I recently finished a novel by a Japanese author, Murakami, that got me to thinking about a few things. In general, Muppets. Though the novel had nothing to do with Muppets or yarn-haired foam puppets of any kind. The connection exists only as the completion of the novel and failed conversation (one-sided I might add) about Muppets overlapped . . . cognitively within the confines of my own mind or subconscious reality of my own creation (read the novel to find out more). But I digress. On to Muppets.

I asked my co-worker Troey which was his favorite Muppet to which he replied Kermit. Mine is Animal (An-ee-mol!). He then recanted citing Cookie Monster as his true favorite. This then brought up the obvious question: How does one define Muppet? As you probably know Cookie (if you grew up during the 70s and 80s or were raising children at the time) Cookie Monster is part of the Sesame Street universe. Within the lax "rules" of that universe the creatures there-in are referred to as "monsters". Not referenced only by outsiders commenting or criticizing the universe but within the universe itself. Elmo, Telly, Cookie Monster, etc are monsters. Bert and Ernie, however, are not. What, then, are they? The most logical answer would, of course, be Muppets. I think this is inaccurate for several reasons which I will discuss. But still the question remains: If not Muppets, what, then? Maybe we will come to an answer together.

Let's first look at the difference between traditional Muppets and Sesame Street monsters and other characters. If we go back in time, 1969, the debut of Sesame Street pre-dates the Muppet Show (1976). However, like I mentioned before, the term "Muppet" was not used within the Universe of Sesame Street but rather "monsters". In 1976 The Muppet Show debuted to mediocre reviews despite being semi-hip. Of course Sesame Street is still on today. The term "Muppet" was popularized because of the show. These characters, of which Fozzie Bear and Animal, among others, are a part, were collectively dubbed as Muppets. Could it be, then, that the term was retroactive? That all characters created by Jim Henson, past and present, fall under the category of Muppet only because the same person created them?

True sometimes monsters and muppets have crossed the fourth wall separating them and interacted within each other's universe. The difference is that Sesame Street is an island in itself while the Muppets share a universe with us human-folk.

I believe that at some point Henson just accepted the fact that everyone was referring to both entities as Muppets, the collective consciousness' lexicon as its most lazy, and allowed the blending of universes and the term to cover all his puppets, including the bastardized version of both known as Fragle Rock; a failed Muppet/Monster incestuous offspring that, thankfully, perished some time ago.

So we have Muppets. But does Big Bird, or Elmo appear in the much beloved animated Muppet Babies? No. Though certain characters seem to have access to both universes.

Another key difference is the audience for each show. Sesame Street, is clearly for children (and makes no apologies for it). The Muppet Show, on the other hand, is much more of an adult program. This key difference makes the citing of all these creatures as Muppets uncomfortable.

But let's face it, the term has been used to describe any Jim Henson creation of the puppet variety. Similar puppet type creatures of the same era could also be considered Muppets if not for the fact that Jim Henson had no hand, yarn, or googlie eyes, in their creation. For example: the universe of Sid and Marty Croft entered in such interesting creatures such as HR Puff 'n' Stuff. No one makes the mistake of naming this genius as Muppet. Maybe because the title character was really a guy in a suite much like Barney or Yo-gabba-gabba of today: both of which I would not call muppet. A small victory for Muppets (the original Muppets that is).

The result of this collective nomenclature of Jim Henson creatures is a loss, in some part, of the Muppet identity. I imagine Gonzo sitting alone in a park feeding pigeons asking to no one in particular "Who am I?" Gonzo, you are a Muppet. Not a monster. Elmo you are a monster, not a Muppet.

I have no problem with the interaction of the two factions. But maintaining a separate identity that is unique and culturally significant is important for any race, imagined or not. Perhaps this assimilation of sorts is a metaphor for continuing globalization and the loss of self. At any rate a unique identity is important. It helps promote diversity, individualism, and self-expression. It's too late for the Muppets, they lost their identity in 1976, and have been riding the yarn and foam coattails of the Sesame Street monsters ever since.