It was interesting to learn how influential and revolutionary The Cat in the Hat was when it was published. I found Flesch’s theory about phonics incredibly interesting. Unlike Menard, I cannot remember reading my first word. (How the heck old was he to remember something like that? I can remember knowing how to read simple words when I was four, and my memory doesn’t really go back farther than that. Was this kid eight before he learned how to read?) And yet though I don’t remember learning the very basic aspects of reading, I do remember sounding out words in elementary school. Once I was able to figure out how a word might sound, I could connect it to a word that I had heard. Although perhaps the first words must come from memorization, I think that Flesch is right that later words are mostly learned through phonics. I think to some degree we still do this as adults when we see an unfamiliar word. In contrast, when I studied French in college I had to memorize words. Not being familiar with oral French, I had no idea what “est-ce que” or “les petits pois” meant, unless I looked it up and memorized it. Although in some ways this is a very effective way of learning, it’s also kind of boring and it does take a lot longer to learn that way. I don’t really care about “the sad sad cat”anymore than Flesch did, though I do remember reading books like that as a child.
But I must repeat myself; this article was really weird. I was never personally a big fan of Dr. Seuss as a child, in fact I think I like him better as an adult. You might say I was suspicious of all the strange rhyming words, and weird characters doing absurd things. What was with the king's obsession with stilts anyways? Didn’t he have a country to be running? If he was the king he was presumably rich, why not commission some new stilits? I'm sure the stilt industry could use a boost anyways. And why did the Sneetchs care so much about stars anyways? (Obviously I hadn’t quite grasped the concept of metaphor.) But worst of all were those green pants that walked around by themselves, scaring that naked yellow animal that looked like a cross between a lamb and a bear. Damn did those pants piss me off sometimes. And yet… I’m not sure if I really buy into the Cold War conspiracy theories about pink stains. Maybe the cat was just doing what he did best; causing chaos. Maybe he never washed his hat before, and the red dye bled. And though I agree that the mother was sort of unstable, or at least neglectful, to leave her children in the care of a fish for the day, we don’t really know that she was having an affair. Neither does calling the bed "Dad’s bed." The kids may have said that for the sake of simplicity. And maybe she was just going shopping, or having tea, or doing whatever house wives did in the fifties.
P.s. Those pants are still stupid.
"Did anyone else find Louis Menard’s article “Cat People” extremely weird? Don’t get me wrong, parts of it were really interesting. And it definitely was amusing. But it was also really weird."
ReplyDeleteWell it was from The New Yorker.
I think the cold war theory makes sense, whether or not it was intentional. I wouldn't say it was a statement about capitalists and communists or anything like that, but the children were definitely afraid of having reckless fun. I grew up afraid of all reckless fun, and it probably wasn't too healthy for me. I think it was a statement about being watched, and loss of innocence due to the resulting paranoia. Both sides of the cold war were guilty of this. They could have irrepressibly damaged the social conscious of multiple generations on both sides of the wall.
On a different note:
I always loved Dr. Suess' books, but I didn't remember any of the stories until I read them again in high school for some reason or other. I just read them again and again as a child for the illustrations. I just loved the wacky art and could care less about what was going on.
Yes, I definitely did think that the "Cat People" article was incredibly strange. Growing up, I was always a huge fan of Dr. Seuss because I loved how the entire story was made up of silly rhymes. Even when I got older and had to analyze some of Dr. Seuss' work, I never thought to try to factor into the story why the mother had left her two kids alone to begin with. I honestly have no idea how someone was able to reach the conclusion that the mother was leaving in order to partake in some illicit activity, but it did amuse me to think about it from such a standpoint. It really changes the entire feel of it when one looks at it from this more sadistic aspect. Either way, I will always enjoy stories like "Cat in the Hat" and continue reading them from the more child-like mindset as opposed to this new, more menacing idea that the kids were actually afraid to be alone with the Cat and did not really amuse themselves. Some things are better left unchanged.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that I {loved} Dr. Seuss books, but I was fond of the rhymes and pictures. I also can't remember learning to read, I can kind of remember learning to write. My memory kind of sucks anyway. But I know that I was a great speller and participated in spelling bees. Didn't win but I got pretty far. Nonetheless, I mastered the practice of sounding words out, which, I agree, it comes from memorization of other words...phonics. Did Dr. Seusss assist in this aptitude?? Maybe, maybe not. I know for one thing, I never paid attention to, or even cared for that matter, anything more than having fun reading the rhymes and enjoying the "wacky art" (other than the strange made up words of course).
ReplyDeleteI didn't find the article weird, but I did find it a bit self-indulgent. It reminded me of the the pschoanalyst's view of Little Red Riding Hood: in-depth, fascinating, well-supported by the text, but still completely wrong. Stephen's point is what keeps me from believing any of it. The illustrations are what I think of when I recall Dr. Seuss. Sure there were funny words and rhyming but that's not much different than a lot of other children's books. But the illustrations, they are a breed of their own. If any of the sub-text that the article mentions were intentionally placed in the story, it is so disguised from the intended audience that it may as well not exist. Some guy wanted to teach kids to read in a different way, and some other guy wrote some funny words and drew some over-the-top pictures to achieve that result. I could find just as much innuendo about current events on the back of a box of Cheerios if I tried, but that doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteI also find it hard to believe that Menard actually remembers reading his first word. As far as the Cold War theory is concerned, I think Stephen has a good point when he mentions the paranoia exhibited by both sides. Whether it was intentional or not may still be open to questioning. I wonder if there exists any commentary by Dr. Seuss himself on the topic. What I found to be most interesting in the article is using only a limited number of words to write a book, even if it is a children's book. The fact that he only used fifty words to compose "Green Eggs and Ham" is fascinating to me.
ReplyDelete