Horton's Hullabaloo
Dr. Seuss must be turning in his grave. Pro-lifers are claiming there's an anti-abortion message in Horton Hears a Who, a movie based on his second book featuring the lovably loyal elephant. From NPR:
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant. And an elephant's faithful, 100 percent."
That's one of Horton the elephant's best-known mottoes. But with a movie version of Dr. Seuss' much-loved children's book opening Friday, another Horton saying has drawn attention from activists who see a message in the movie — a message that suits their purpose.
That message: "A person's a person, no matter how small."
"Exactly," say abortion foes.
Using Horton's innocent words to support the personhood-at-conception argument? It's a world gone mad. Frankly, I like it better when they protest popular lit (à la witchcraft in Harry Potter), because an angry social conservative is a lot less irritating than a self-satisfied one. Observe:
In Horton Hears a Who, Horton discovers that there's a whole town (Whoville) full of tiny people (the Whos) on a tiny speck of dust that's come floating his way. His neighbors think he's lost his mind. But Horton decides it's his calling to protect the life on the speck: "A person's a person no matter how small," he insists.
When Jim Carrey, the film's Horton, said those words during the Los Angeles premiere of the film last week, demonstrators who'd slipped into the theater started to yell. It was a surprise, to say the least, for the premiere audience.
"I thought maybe there was a nut loose in the theater or something," says Karl ZoBell.
Just the one? Just checking.
Audrey Geisel, Dr. Seuss' widow, has objected to the demonstrations because the Geisels didn't want to see Seuss characters used to advance any political purpose.
But that argument is a little misleading, because Dr. Seuss has always been about politics. Seuss, né Theodor Geisel, previously tapped his illustrative genius as a left-leaning editorial cartoonist with a 
razor-sharp pen. And many of his most enduring children's books slip in very liberal political messages. The Butter Battle Book gave grim commentary on mutual deterrence during the Cold War, and The Lorax was a rallying cry for tree-huggers everywhere. Yertle the Turtle, meanwhile, provided a rather proletarian critique of monarchy, or capitalism, or something.
Given the history, you could just as easily argue that Horton Hears a Who is about valuing people who are less economically
well-off, who are of a different race, who live in a different part of the world — or who may just be vertically challenged. In short, pun intended, people who are easier to ignore, neglect or even persecute.
The problem isn't that pro-lifers are politicizing children's literature. That happens all the time. It's that they really need to do their homework. Out of ignorance, they're disregarding Seuss' rich liberal legacy — and in the case of Horton, what could be a very different political message.
Mikki...Yes, absolutely, in a perfect world. In this world however, my best friend was raped/molested almost since birth by her father (while Mom turned a blind eye) and became pregnant...by her father...as a CHILD....a VERY young child...not even a teen.
That wasn't damaging enough...we should make an 11 year old go through pregnancy and chilbirth so she can give birth to her Fahter's child. THAT is criminal.
The pro-lifers only seem to make room in their minds for their very narrow view of the way they believe life should be. Life isn't always so black and white... irresponsible women just not in the mood to be bothered by kids.
Posted by: Red | March 20, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Still...
"A person's a person, no matter how small."
That even applies to the smallest of all.
And whether you call me a saint or a freak
II'll still be a voice for the child, who can't speak.
The murder of a child is forever wrong.
Posted by: Miki | March 19, 2008 at 09:09 PM
This thread demonstrates the main problem with these bastardized Dr. Seuss adaptations: everybody suddenly becomes an expert on the author's motives in writing such-and-such, since the author is no longer around to defend his work. Therefore it's unwise and unfair to draw a conclusion as to any socio-political purpose of any of Mr. Geisel's stories other than to entertain readers and encourage a love of reading.
(It is safe to say, however, since biographical information backs it up, Dr. Seuss disliked interpolations on his material--such as the added gags in Bob Clempett's cartoon of "Horton Hatches the Egg"--because they spoiled the rhythm of the poetry.)
If Audrey Geisel had any class, she wouldn't have authorized any of these features she had to know her late husband would have had--at the very least--strong reservations about. Surely the royalties from the books themselves are more than enough to keep her comfortable.
Posted by: Ironman Carmichael | March 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
1) Once a work of literature--even children's lit--is out there, its meaning is open to interpretation and can't be fixed by a single reading. The extent to which a work should be interpreted in the context of its creation, including the life of the author and her or his oeuvre, is also not set in stone. Audrey Geisel has my sympathy but it's not like you can do anything about how a line, or a whole work, is interpreted.
2) US law, about abortion or otherwise, has (or should have) nothing to do with Christian doctrine (which is itself VERY open to interpretation). While much of the Constitution is also open to interpretation, the separation of church and state is pretty clear cut. If you want to use what Jesus said about abortion (nothing at all, as far as I know) to talk to me about the morality of abortion, I might listen out of politeness. If you want to use his words or any scripture from any religion to talk to me about what the law should or shouldn't be, I stop listening and stop caring what you think.
Posted by: James W | March 16, 2008 at 04:33 PM
I think someone should do their research about this group's message.They never said "Dr. Seuss" wrote this book for the ending of abortion or even as a pro-life message... they just said it sounds like a parallel between Horton's message and the message that every child in the womb is a child that needs to be protected. They have done nothing illegal and quite frankly I think it is about time America is face with the taboo issue of abortion.
And to say that it's something children shouldn't hear... ask any child they will have no problem telling you no one should ever kill a child, no matter it's size. It's adults who don't get it. And people need to be confronted with this issue I believe.
Posted by: Missy | March 15, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Dr. Seuss may have been a liberal, but one has to consider that Christ was one in His day. To that end, if any message can be construed from this tale it is that there are things in the universe that are larger than ourselves -- beginning with caring for one another -- a basic principle of Christianity. I am saying this as a minister who regularly uses popular music and literature to take a text from as much as I do the Bible.
Posted by: garrow | March 15, 2008 at 08:37 PM
The damask rose and the martin.
Here, in the
deep and intense
atmosphere of
the first morning,
the rising sun
appears in a magical
sky and always,
like the light
of my mind, a
pleasure returns.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by: Francesco Sinibaldi | March 15, 2008 at 02:10 PM
I love how all you left-wing nutjobs go crazy when a few pro-lifer's find one sentance that has a positive message about the innocent unborn in a children's movie.....even though an overwhelming amount of movies have liberal "values" of casual sex , anti-americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity that rarely get criticized. You people already routinely mock and belittle christians enough, why do you need one more battle? I love how you preach about being open-minded above all else.....unless of course someone's conservative. Then you pounce.
Posted by: Phil | March 15, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Wow! How completely lame! Thank goodness I wasn't at the screening - I would have lost it!
I'm not surprised though.
We've seen it before - the ultra-conservatives denouncing movies before anyone has even seen them - Dogma, The Golden Compass, etc.
Next time, do your homework, see the movie and then find a forum (how about OUTSIDE the theater) to state your opinion.
Posted by: AG | March 15, 2008 at 10:30 AM
The debate about Horton reinforces the idea of context. I loved Suess when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. While my parents fit the conservative religious mindset, I always saw Suess as a
#1 funny and
#2 about valuing everyone regardless of social status.
I am positive that Seuss wrote from that perspective because that was the social context of the time. While literature shapes our conversations, it is still our responsibility to do the interpreting. Literature that lasts always gets reinterpreted. Everything from Star Wars to the Bible. So its all what we make of it.
I'm taking my 5 year old son to Horton sometime soon. FOR FUN!
Posted by: Steve W | March 15, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Don't be an idiot. No such thing as pro abortion. Pro choice.
Posted by: John h | March 15, 2008 at 08:23 AM
So in the end, who’s right and who’s wrong. In my opinion, the answer is, everyone’s wrong. In no way should a children’s book character be heralded as a political icon for one movement or another. Yes, Seuss had meanings behind everything he ever wrote, but he didn’t imagine that the very same people that grew up reading his books would think about them in such a way. Before the movie came out, nobody protested the Seuss books for either one of two reasons. One, it would be impossible to protest a massively beloved children’s book, or two, nobody ever really had it click in their mind until the movie came out. Horton is an elephant, Seuss is dead, and the people in Whoville just want to be left alone by the political and protesting world.
Posted by: B.S.F | March 15, 2008 at 08:04 AM
The world has changed greatly, even more so since the departure of golden days of youth, when Dr. Seuss was read, not as a political expose on the world at large, but, as a children's book taken as such. As I get older, I yearn for the days of being a child, since everything around me is misconstrued into things and ideas that baffle me. Since when did Dr. Seuess support abortionists? Was he writing books just for them, or for the innocent children for the sake of writing? Just how everything became topsy turvy? Does everything in life have to have a secret hidden agenda? Does "Harry Potter" promote devil worship because of magic being used, and technology is king to all?
If the apocalypse ever occurred, we wouldn't know about it, since we are self-deluding ourselves in many ways. Now, I suppose I'm going to hear from the right and left wingers out there about these comments. To take stringent stands is to be a tree during a hurricane. You cannot stand in the face of changes happened, and you will be blown away, flooded out, and devastated by the events unfolding. You can make all the signs about the world is ending, or has ended, and now, chaos is supreme. You can say, with all your lung power, that I am wrong, and your ego's will prevails, because they will, according to you. What's screwing us all up is our pride and our ego's, mine included. I just Horton has more common sense, as well as Harry Potter, than the rest of the world, since we're not using it at all.
Posted by: jcw | March 15, 2008 at 07:27 AM
As usual...."The Uneducated Masses"....what my husband calls the Right Wing Pro-Life Christian Conservatives....God forbid they open up a book and READ anything besides the Bible or the very narrow perspectives their Pastors "APPROVE" of.
Here's a concept...how about doing a little RESEARCH and READING before you start distorting the life's work of someone who most likely wholeheartedly disagreed with everything you stand for?
I think Mr. Geisel's wife should sue them.
Posted by: MH | March 15, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Dr. Suess may have expressed some liberal values, but is there any further evidence that he was pro-choice? Unless he explicitly said that he is pro-choice I don't thing it is right to suppose these protestors are causing him to "turn in his grave." I'm not saying that pro-lifers can say that this story was meant to be pro-life, but it may express some pro-life values, whether intended by Dr. Suess or not. I think this argument comes up short in that it does not give sure proof that Dr. Suess was pro-choice; some liberals are in fact pro-life. The author of the blog seems to make the same mistake that the protestors made in determining for themselves Dr. Suess' beliefs.
Posted by: Kelly R | March 14, 2008 at 10:39 PM
That's funny, 38 years ago, when I was in grade school, I heard the same message......nobody whispered into my ear. And if you recall, that was before Roe v Wade......maybe that was his message.....
Posted by: Mary | March 14, 2008 at 05:41 PM