The fantasy / fallacy that all things are forgivable in life and nothing has permanent consequences is also damaging.

Just had a good friend’s nephew drown in a pool. He had snuck in a backyard pool, skirting past or under the fence. As a parent the whole thing was a nightmare for me to imagine, but I did think about how or if to communicate to my kids that there are things they can do that will have permanent consequences or effects. I do my absolute best to shield and protect them, but I also hope and pray they make the right choice if (when) I fail in that.

I’m not saying that the punishment in that episode was appropriate, but simply that the concept of permanent consequences is a life lesson we all must learn at some point. And it’s incredibly difficult to teach kids.

I'm sorry to hear that, and I share your hope that I can avoid any such nightmare by being sure to talk about those dangers to kids (in my case that would be my teenage siblings just starting to drive cars).

But at the same time, I like to think there's a reasonable amount of breathing space between noting the show's excessively haunting atmosphere and indulging in a fantasy of a world completely free from consequences, and that with sufficient good faith I can do the former without having to disavow the latter.

But I definitely share your observation about the show's tone, and it's interesting to note that different people can see value in the show for opposite reasons. Some see it as wholesome, others as delivering needed lessons on the severity of life.

I should have been more clear. The very next episode ("Henry To The Rescue"), Henry agrees to help, and leaves the tunnel (which conveniently, The New Yorker writer forgot to mention).

https://youtu.be/dWtNGzGZTCo?t=2m28s

I agree they left it kinda weird, especially if you only ever watch that one episode. And that's why it was later edited.

The whole article seems very poorly-researched: the primary material wasn't consulted, and it's extremely easily available[0]. The moralising is extremely obvious when you're reading 2-3 stories at a time.

0: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Tank-Engine-Story-Collection/d...

An episode is a self-contained narrative unit and it chose permanent incarceration as it's point of closure. I don't think a child audience, left with that impression until next weeks episode, puts two and two together in such a way as to dissipate the previously established creepy atmosphere.

I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's brilliant review of Fight Club, where he pointed out that, given the visual medium, the images and themes you choose to put in front of a viewer (again, a child audience!) speak for themselves, and whatever the writer "thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get."

> permanent for purposes of that episode

What does that mean though? Generally kids who are old enough to follow the story know that the universe is reset in each episode.