Dr Seuss: Pro-Life Crusader!

The BBQ Pit
1

Scylla, you bastard: you’ve obviously been telepathically spying on me. I started this article last week before I got sick, but you posted your brilliant and witty Seuss deconstruction first. Next time I shall be sure to compose while wearing my tin-foil hat. [sub]Stealing my ideas…<grumble>[/sub] :wink:

This is my crackpot literary theory. Everyone else gets on and I don’t see why I shouldn’t get to have a crackpot literary theory too. Cecil discected the Wizard of Oz=the Gold Standard and a while ago, over in GD, there was a theory about Tolkien and Homoeroticism. These inspired me and so, without further ado:

Dr Seuss: Pro-Life Crusader!

“A person’s a person, no matter how small”. Could any pro-life crusader have said it more succinctly? The whole point of Horton Hears A Who is that a small “speck” has life, a soul and the actions of the other animals, especially as evidenced in the nightmarish trial sequence at the end is straight out of Jack Chick’s worst nightmares.

For those unfamilar with this story, the premise is simple. Horton, while standing in a clover patch, hears a cry for help from a speck of dust. He catches the speck on a clover and hears that the Whos of Whoville (these are the same Whos from the The Grinch Who Stole Christmas. The fact that the Whos celebrate Christmas will become shockingly relevant in moments) are worried. They’re a microscopic people adrift in a bigger world. They plead to Horton (who can hear them because of his huge ears) to help and protect them. Protect them the way a mother protects her unborn child!

Horton, being kindhearted, agrees as he’s done once before (I’ll explain further in the article). He begins to care for and protect the clover with the speck on it. He speaks to the Whos often. Since no-one else can hear the Whos Horton is soon ridiculed by several other animals most notably a female kangaroo and her baby 'roo too. The subtext that even a woman (or female kangaroo) who presumably knows the miracle of birth can be sucked into the insidious evil of the pro-choice crowd is a particularly subtle one)

Finally, “for his own good”, Horton is arrested, the clover confiscated and in a nightmarish vision of the future, should pro-choice radicals get their way, Horton is arrested and put on trial. The clover is about to be dropped into a vat of boiling oil (aborted) when the Whos manage to gather enough lung power to cry out loudly enough for everyone to hear. The trial is dismissed and the detractors, who wanted the Whos dead until they cried out are now solicitious of the “newborn” Whos.

Could anything be more obvious? Clearly, Horton represents mothers, the 'Roo and the rest of the animals are pro-choice radicals and the Whos are the unborn child (is it a coincidence that the Whos are also Christians? I think not. Clearly Seuss sees the anti-Christian status of the pro-choice radicals). Is it a concidence that the Whos aren’t considered people until they take a breath and cry? Clearly Seuss is parodying the “It’s not a baby/person until the moment it’s born”-types.

Horton has had one other adventure, which deals with the same topic. In Horton Hatches an Egg, Lazy Bird Mazey leaves her egg with Horton who promises to hatch it. Again, Horton is mocked and ridiculed and goes through great tribulations to bring the unborn child to term. The birth of Horton’s egg is one of the most beautiful and powerful in all literature.

Horton’s famous refrain becomes haunting in this context “I meant what I said and I said what I meant: an elephant’s faithful. One hundred percent!” Clearly this is an allegorical tale with the idea that a woman’s covenant with God, when she is granted a baby should be treated as sacred. The detractor who mock her are, again, a clear parody of pro-choice radicals.

One final thing to consider: even though pro-life and pro-choice people are found on all sides of the political spectrum, only one of the two major parties has a pro-life stance in it’s platform. And Horton is an elephant. Coincidence? Not likely.

Given this, I think it’s clear that Seuss’s pro-life message makes him a hero to pro-life crusaders everywhere. I believe that all pro-lifers should wear buttons with pictures of the unsung hero Horton on them.

(Note: Posted in the Pit, given the vitrol that I know pro-choice radicals will react with.)

Fenris

2

Can you present evidence that Dr. Suess was pro-life or pro-choice? A quote? Anything?

Wasn’t Dr. Suess an atheist?

I think it is a coincidence. The reason for the elephant is 2-fold
1-Size. It’s quite the contrast between lil bitty Whos and a huge old Horton.
2-What other animal has the ears of an elephant?

3

I’m pro-choice, but I just thinks that’s funny as hell.

Dr. Suess. Heh. Will you be doing the Dick and Jane series next?

4

Fenris, the principal will be along shortly to discuss your recent choices in reading and playthings.

5

Fenris, you nut! I pulled a muscle in my back this morning, and now it hurts when I laugh. So ha ha ouch! Ha ha ha owwww! Bastard!

6

Er, PLG?
wwwwwhhhhhHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSsshhhhhhhhhh

7

Well, I think that Fenris just did would qualify as evidence.

No, he was an Anabaptist.

Yeah, but we’re talking about a dust speck here. A shrew would be monstrous compared to a Who.

What other animal has the ears of a duck? While elephants do have large ears, they are not known for their hearing especially. Why are elephant ears a prerequisite for hearing whos? Elephants are known for their trunks. The trunk of course is a phallic reference symbolizing that the only route to female empowerment is through nurturing life. Thus the natural place for women is within a pro-life stance, otherwise they disempower themselves.

Fenris:

Hmmmm. I guess I’ll just have to recalibrate for tin-foil. That should be no problem.

8

Horton is an elephant for one reason: pure accident. Seuss had drawn a number of pictures and was looking over them when a breeze blew a picture of an elephant onto a picture of a tree. He started wondering what an elephant would be doing in a tree, decided he’d be hatching an egg, and wrote the story. In his words, “I’ve left that window open ever since, but it’s never happened again.”

If you want to criticise something of Seuss’s as propaganda, go after The Lorax.

9

Uh, andros Sweetie? I know I didn’t include a smilie, or a wink, or a “nudge nudge”, but I was playing along with the OP.
Next time, I’ll be sure to include a sign or something.

10

  1. I’m not even going to use the word hijack sine I’m not even worthy of being called that, but… has anyone thought of the parallels between the story of Frosty the Snowman and the Christian religion?

  2. God is made incarnate through the human birth of His son/Frosty is brought to life with the magician’s hat.

  3. Jesus is persecuted by the Pharisees/Frosty is persecuted by the magician (which by the way looks like a very bad anti-semitic cariacature of a Jewish person.

  4. Jesus allows himself to be killed to save humankind from their sins/Frosty melts away while protecting Karen by the fire.

  5. Jesus is resurrected and transported to Heaven/Santa resurrects the puddle of water with an icy winter breeze and takes Frosty to the north pole.

  6. Jesus’ last words on earth were somethimg to the effect of “I will be with you till the end of time.”/Frosty says. “I’ll be back again some day.”

What do you think?

11

So if the Whos weren’t that big, then that means the Grinch was just a small. Hmm…interesting. And Max, too. Little tiny dog Max.

12

I think the OP is tongue and cheek, but I should probably mention that Horton was published in 1954; Roe v. Wade was 1973. Now, I know RvW didn’t happen in a vacuum, but was the abortion issue so big in 1954 that writers were hiding propaganda in children’s books?

I’m not sure, but it seems unlikely.

13

Lissener- Dr. Seuss…or should I say, Theodore GEISEL- was ahead of his time.

But here. What about my childhood favorite, The Cat in the Hat, as well as its follow up, The Cat in the Hat Comes Back? Sure with its simple vocabulary (couldn’t Seuss have said “Returns” as opposed to “Comes Back”?) it looks relatively bland, but beware. It bodes much.

Obviously Cat in the Hat is a symbol of welfare. Now, you’ll have to remember, Seuss was ultra ahead of his time. That said…

The plot revolves around an interloper who enters the house of a well-to-do middle class family. Notice the well-dressed children who own a piano. The Cat in the Hat wears only a hat. He’s basically poor. He imposes upon the children, giving them amusement…yet look deeper. He ruptures the fabric of their lives. Turns the house around, messes things up- this is what happens, Seuss tells us, when the bourgeoisie has to pay welfare. (Like I said…ahead of his time.)

The children are half intruiged, half wary of this cat. Much like the average middle class American, they want to join in (or help out the poor) but they are cautious (hand outs aren’t good- that’s socialism!). Thus, there is a moral dilemma.

The Cat IS stopped…or at least, someone attempts to stop him. Yes, the fish! The orange fish who continually leaps to the edge of his bowl screaming at the Cat to just lay off the kids. Who does he represent? Of course! The Republican Party!! He only comes partially out of his bowl, much like a Republican only comes out of his/her atmosphere. Come on, do politicans (in general) ever really go to places where welfare recipients hang out? And plus, he is a FISH. Fish = jesus fish = religious symbol = Republicans (as they tend to ally themselves with the religious right). Like I said, Seuss was ahead of his time…he anticipated all this controversy.

Now, we get to the mother. Mother knows best, right? The children are terrified at the thought of their mother finding out about The Cat. Obviously Mother represents more than a maternal figure- she represents authority, the law. And it is only when the threat of Mother is brought into the story that the cat decides to clean up his act…he suddenly “finds” his machine and tidies up.

Thus, Seuss tells us that only when authority is applied rigourously will the poor learn to cope and deal.

Oh, and Thing 1 and Thing 2? They represent drugs and crime, respectively, two things that go with poverty. If those two menaces don’t represent drugs and crime…I mean look at 'em! And the little cats he kept under his hat? Teenage pregnancy! Seuss was advocating birth control, he was telling us to educate the lower classes so that they wouldn’t have huge families- thus they wouldn’t be as likely to need welfare.

God…this was really fun. Deconstruct my thesis if you like. :slight_smile:

14

Johnboy,

A friend of mine and I noted that parallel, too. What brought it up was that we were both indignant that in recent airings, they actually leave out the part at the end where Frosty is resurrected. What a downer. Our conclusion was that it was like telling the Easter story and leaving it with Jesus’ body still left in the tomb.

15

I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s a thing of beauty, perfect and complete!

16

Thank you for your concurrance YWalker. About 8 years ago I revealed this revelation to a friend and he thought I was totally insane! I guess the SDMB is the last bastion of sanity.

17

:stuck_out_tongue: ::blush:: Why, Fenris, you know just how to flatter a girl.

One other thing- the sequel to Cat in the Hat in which our protagonist returns illustrates the vicous cycle of poverty…if we keep giving out handouts, it simply re-occurs. God, this analysis of Dr. S is addictive!!