Steve Golden's Review of Ruth K. MacDonald's Dr. Seuss

Ruth MacDonald’s book Dr. Seuss was written as part of an authors series for young adults, and it highlights the life and work of Theodore Seuss Geisel, better known as Seuss. The first chapter is devoted to the life of Seuss, and though it does not cover the breadth of years that other Seuss biographies may, it does offer some insight into the influences on his verse. The chapters following discuss the techniques Seuss utilized in writing and examine a fair selection of his 65 books, including the Beginner Books and the debate-sparking “message” books. Since this was the first book written about Seuss, there are some inconsistencies with his history that the Morgans’ biography, Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel, clears up. MacDonald does attempt to analyze some of his works, but her criticisms are very obvious, and those that are not tend to be overreaching.

Concerning Seuss’ influences, MacDonald writes, “The one clear influence on his life was his father,” Theodor Robert Geisel, to whom Seuss dedicated his two most successful books, If I Ran the Zoo and McElligot’s Pool (1-2). The other was his mother, Henrietta Geisel, whose maiden name he used as his pseudonym. After the family’s brewery was shut down because of Prohibition, MacDonald tells readers that Theodor Geisel was forced to take a position with the local zoo, and by doing so he taught his son an important lesson: “That perseverance in finding another occupation, and doing it well, is the best way to conduct a life” (2). However, the Morgans write that after the brewery was closed, “a family crisis was averted only by an inheritance from Grandfather Geisel and his Springfield real estate” (27). So it seems that a job at the zoo was not what saved the family, but an inheritance.

After a very concise history of Seuss, MacDonald delves into the work. She tells us that because his work reflected a belief in a child’s ability to read (15), Seuss designed his verse so that the anapestic tetrameter “helps this movement by carrying the reader forward, helping to predict the pronunciation of words and encouraging progress through the book” (16). His books are simple, with a beginning, middle, and a closed ending. Using And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street as an example, MacDonald points out that the book uses a refrain to push the reader further into the book: “And that is a story that no one can beat / And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street.” Furthermore, the main character, Marco, is not concerned with maintaining a believable story; rather, his imagination takes flight and invents such laughable things as a blue elephant.

But what of this blue elephant? The illustrative style is unique in its vibrancy and child-like look: “That the elephant is blue—rather than ordinary gray, or even clichéd pink—makes the change even more vivid” (22). MacDonald asserts that Seuss seems to celebrate the use of imagination in many, if not all, of his books, and his illustrations work to further encourage the widening of the reader’s imagination. (28) Some of the best examples of text and picture working together are in The Cat in the Hat: “There is only one illustration per two-page spread, and nothing appears in the text that is not also presented in the illustration” (116). However, MacDonald does not note that the illustrations contain many items that are not in the text. Some young readers become confused if the picture does not fit with the verse, and Seuss may not have been as successful at avoiding those instances as MacDonald leads us to believe.

MacDonald begins her analyses with three books: Thidwick, the Big-Hearted Moose; Bartholomew and the Oobleck; and Horton Hears a Who. She asserts that Seuss began writing messages in his stories, probably stemming from his time under Frank Capra’s direction in the military. (49) In Thidwick, MacDonald determines the moral to pertain to being hospitable to guests, but “it certainly does not mean subjecting oneself to peril . . . [that] could easily be avoided with the shake of the head” (56).

In Bartholomew, the moral is something even more obvious—the power of an apology. MacDonald admits that in reality, an apology cannot undo damage like the Oobleck caused, but since Seuss has written a fairy tale, it is okay to give the apology such power. (63) But she takes her analysis a step further, saying, “The message is a particularly modern one when viewed as a possible political message: no ruler has the right to proclaim himself the mightiest in the world” (63). She does confess, though, that it is not clear whether Seuss had a particular political leader in mind when he wrote this book.

Finally, in Horton Hears a Who, MacDonald’s skills for analysis are put to the test. Her assertion is that Who-ville is representative of Japan, a nation for which Seuss must have had a fondness. MacDonald writes, “The diminutive stature of the Whos resembles the Japanese at the time, not only because Orientals are physically smaller than Caucasians and blacks, but also because . . . the Japanese were without influence or sympathy in the world community after World War II” (76). That certainly does sound like the Whos of Who-ville, but, if they are Japanese, then Horton, as their protector, is what the United States should be. And so MacDonald furthers her argument, saying that Seuss, through Horton, “points a finger directly at the United States as a superpower who must therefore also be a protector of smaller governments’ rights to exist” (76).

Her analysis could be very convincing if her readers had never opened Horton Hears a Who, but there are some flaws in MacDonald’s very specific ideas. Granted, Horton is dedicated to a Japanese person; that dedication, though, is the only solid evidence that could lead a reader to conclude that Horton is based on the Japanese. In his early work as a political cartoonist, Seuss was criticized for drawing the Japanese with slanted eyes and calling them “Japs.” (Minear 117-118) However, the Whos are not drawn to look like the earlier Asian people Seuss drew, including the “Chinese man” from Mulberry Street. MacDonald tries to back up her claim, writing, “Seuss himself admitted that the story is a political allegory” (77). To her detriment, though, she fails to mention what “political allegory” Seuss intended; rather, she asserts her own idea to be his. The message in Horton is vague enough that it could indeed be about small governments’ rights to exist, or, as a friend of mine concluded, it could be a pro-life/anti-abortion message. After all, the argument for pro-life advocates is “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

Even after this somewhat failed analysis, MacDonald extends herself further for a religious analysis of How the Grinch Stole Christmas. She writes that the Grinch “is closer to Old Nick, or Satan, in his attitude toward the Whos and Christmas” (97). But Satan lacks motive to be involved in a story about stealing a Christmas where Christ and Christianity are not even mentioned. Her support for her claim is that the Grinch tells lies—like Satan would—and that “the red in the whites of his eyes burn like demonic fire, and . . . his suit does not cover his tail and the hat does nothing to conceal his pointed ears or vile expression, [which] further suggests his demonic qualities” (97). The Grinch had ears and a tail? And his eyes burned with “demonic fire”? Not in the illustrations printed as early as 1957. The Grinch is not drawn with a tail or ears, and his eyes are a pinkish hue consistent with the limited coloring available at the time. MacDonald works too hard in this passage to give readers a new analysis of an old favorite, and fails terribly.

The rest of MacDonald’s criticisms are straightforward, especially in The Lorax, published in 1971. It was a book with an obvious message—don’t pollute. She writes that through the story of a small creature’s battle with a polluter, Seuss worked to raise pollution awareness: “The Lorax is a model for the child reader of yet another course of action—the reader can speak out and oppose the actions of polluters with strong environmental advocacy” (153).

Program in Children's Literature | Department of English | Kansas State University

Last updated Monday, February 12, 2007.