the boy who cried wolf being read as a tale of expectations is brilliant, actually. because it doesn't matter who the child is, not really. it doesnt matter if he is, as conner says, "a brat"; it doesnt matter if hes just a kid trying his best who wants to take a break and make a joke (sound familiar??? alex interpreted cinderella as a fairytale she could see herself in--and conner sees himself in the boy who cried wolf! and it's actually sort of insane because i think alex narratively is a rags-to-riches happy ending and conner is a tragedy, and we see it even from the start. john tells alex the curvy tree story and conner the walking fish story. which one ends in tragedy? conner's. ok i got off track hang on--) it doesnt matter who the kid is. why? because he is a kid. that is a child. his parents--heck, the whole village--have an obligation to raise, care for, and protect him! if he cries wolf, they need to listen! whats the moral we're supposed to take away from the big bad wolf--"this kid deserved to be viciously torn to pieces because he played a prank"? "this little child deserved to be mauled because the adults around him found him irritating, thought he was lazy, their pride was wounded by a child playing games"? conner and i choose to read it differently. the boy who cried wolf is about how adults give up on their children when they dont act properly, and then blame the child when bad things happen to them. "he got what he asked for--" HE WAS A CHILD. and conner's right, why was he left alone where wolves could eat him, anyway?