Gaylord

Recently, on a sister blog post over at Board To Death, I covered the story of The Game of Life, which was redesigned by a man named Reuben Klamer. BUT, that wasn't his initial success story, and, as I mentioned in that post, he also was well known for the creation of a toy dog...named Gaylord.

As I mentioned in my two parter about Furby's, I have always been a big fan of animatronic toys, especially ones based around animals. In the early to mid 2000s, we saw an influx of "robotic pets", which really were mostly just tiny yipping dogs that did weird flips and ran on way too many batteries. There were eventually some higher end examples, and the dogs became a lot more...robot like, leaving behind any sort of actual animalistic features whatsoever, but I still enjoyed these. I had a few of them, even. But apparently, Gaylord was the first. Released in 1962 right before the holiday season, he was a huge winner for the company that produced him and was an extremely popular toy.

He's got a motor inside of him that makes him move, with the help of, once again, a shit ton of batteries, and a magnet in his mouth so he can easily pick up his bone. If you tug gently on his leash, he will walk. Honestly, Gaylord sounds fairly revolutionary for something that came out in 1962. For kids who maybe didn't have dogs or couldn't have dogs for whatever reason, Gaylord likely became a really good stand in for that companionship they were lacking. I know that, for me, that was a large part of why I was drawn to these sorts of toys personally. I had trouble making friends, and while I did in fact grow up with two dogs, I never really felt like they were my friends proper. But these toys? They were just for me. They were gifts given to me. They were there to make me happy.

If we're being honest, though, making a toy - something already designed to appeal to kids - look and/or act like an animal - something else kids love - is kind of a mean marketing technique that's going to succeed no matter what. It's a no fail scenario. It's why stuffed animals have been as pervasive in society as they have been for as long as they have been, because it's a comforting thing for children that looks like something children would love. Bears, rabbits, dogs; all animals kids love, and they're easily huggable and become your best friends. It's why people sometimes, even in their 40s or 50s, still have stuffed animals they maybe sleep with themselves or have given to their own children to appreciate. Gaylord, as I mentioned before, is honestly really ahead of its time, and not just in the idea of a animal toy but an animal toy that actually moves and reacts to the kid playing with it. That was fancy high tech stuff in 1962, and I'm really impressed.

Sadly, it seems like Gaylord might be somewhat a relic of the past, and never been given a proper continuation or re-release. A crime, especially considering how apparently wildly popular and monetarily successful he was! You'd think they'd want to keep that money train rolling. But...toys have become secondary to technology, there's no getting around that. Everywhere you look, a toy has been replaced by a tablet or a phone or a gaming device. I grew up with gaming consoles too, but having been born in 89, cell phones didn't really become prominent until the early 2000s at best, and really weren't ubiquitous as they are now until about 2010. Tablets even less so. Tablets only really came soaring into popularity around 2015 it feels like. So I grew up playing with a lot of toys. I don't really see kids with toys anymore, unless they're of course more in the toddler age range, under 5 or something.

Toys really took a hit as far as being the number one plaything for kids, and I think it's amazing that so many have stuck around as well as they have considering that fact. But it doesn't make it any easier to accept that others, like good ol' Gaylord here, have really fallen by the wayside and been primarily forgotten by anyone who either didn't have one, never knew about it or simply aren't into the history of such things like I and other toy enthusiasts am. Maybe one day a company will pop up that rivals that of Shout Factory for obscure toys, gathering the rights to and re-releasing these old magnificent bastards back to their well deserved glory, but I doubt it. Folks don't often give up rights to things, because they fear whoever will buy said rights will somehow manage to make it profitable, and then they'll feel regretful for having sold it in the first place.

It's why, much as it does happen now and then, a lot of TV shows cancelled too soon, critically acclaimed or not, rarely actually make the jump to another network. Because if that other network somehow manages to net it popularity and make money off it, the original network will forever be kicking themselves. So they tie up the rights to things for decades, leaving them to rot in the dust because they're too afraid they won't be able to sell it themselves and even more afraid someone else will be able to sell it if they sold it to them. Copyright and patenting is such a goddamned joke, and it's keeping so much fantastic stuff away from new generations that could be thoroughly enjoying things like Gaylord right the fuck now if only we were given the opportunity.

I'm all for archival. I'm all for the continuation and perpetuation of a thing. I don't necessarily mean, in this case, television shows. I think once a show is over it should stay the hell over (for the most case, obviously in other situations like cartoons it really depends), but I am definitely for the archival or things like band catalogues and films and especially toys and games. Why should Gaylord be forgotten simply because he wasn't deemed worthy enough to make money in this day and age? Bullshit. Let Gaylord belong to the people. Let us love him again like we loved him once before. You think you're afraid he won't sell well? Well here's on buyer right here, guys. I'll pay good money for this puppy, and I bet I could find many others who would do the same.

It saddens me to know that things that were designed to bring happiness and laughter to children (okay, yes, they were products, I'm not blind to capitalism, but let's at least try and stay optimistic here alright?) have just been outright abandoned. That's the entire purpose of the movie Toy Story for fucks sake. Woody always says, "You're a childs toy, it's your job to make them happy." And while some may argue that it isn't their job, that isn't a fair argument because real toys don't have pseudo autonomy like Woody does, so it isn't a fair comparison. A real toys job IS to make a child happy. Or, hell, a 30 something year old woman like me happy! And it's depressing to know that, instead of doing the singular thing Gaylord was designed to do, he's just been left to gather dust somewhere, only to be appreciated now and then via some dweeb like me discovering him through a photo on the internet.

I've adopted two dogs, and I'm ready to adopt a third. Let me give Gaylord a home.

It's what everyone, toy or not, deserves.