A further purpose of story is framing out lessons and teaching people, particularly the young, but certainly not exclusively, what we value as a culture and society. So, I don't really *get* the objection to Seuss on the grounds that he “moralizes.” Inherent in any book for children are lessons and opportunity for reflection, and though they often seem like heavy-handed lessons when viewed through adult eyes, I'm unconvinced that children experience them that way, or that it's necessarily problematic if they do.

I also think it's important to note that–as proven by the Family Circus cartoon–different people have vastly different experiences of different texts. (I, for one, found that pretty funny, and my cat is not at all in harm's way.) Not all kids find Seuss engaging and hilarious, but some do. I think the possibility of joy and laughter that comes with a child engaging with a book they love and find funny–the literal and literary worlds that opens up for them—far outweighs the threat of “degradation” of language presented by Seuss.

If my nephew giggles his way through a book, delighting in the sound and cadence of words, I'll reread the book to him over and over, even at the risk of him thinking “wocket” is a real word for a day or two.

I'm not missing it; I just don't agree. Then again, I also don't subscribe to the model of malleable souls that you're taking as a given.

Also, the cartoon above that has you so upset is not directed at children. It's directed at adults who are familiar with Family Circus. I suppose that a particularly sensitive adult might still be traumatized by that cartoon, even if they did understand the context, but that's rather difficult for me to get worked up about.

Certainly, Dr. Seuss stories are not realistic, nor are they meant to be. Neither are the Greek myths, or the legends of Camelot, or any number of popular and influential stories that have been told in various cultures since the dawn of civilization. You talk about reading children “real literature,” but surely some of the literature you have in mind involves some kind of magic, or talking animals, or something that could not happen in real life. People need metaphor and fantasy to contemplate abstract concepts, to hone their imaginations, and for a host of other reasons. And in my view, the very notion that we have “souls” that can be “damaged” is ultimately just another such story. Like “The Cat In The Hat,” the story of “souls” is a story that resonates with a great many people, but it's ultimately important to separate the comfort and joy we find therein from the reality in which we live.

Above, you say “To my knowledge, nobody has done any actual research on Dr. Seuss,” and that is far from the truth; a number of books and articles have been written about him; some are academic works. Seuss also had an extensive career outside of children's books, so quite a bit is known about him, his points of view, and his philosophy of art and language. His wikipedia page is a good starting point for such stuff, of course, although I'm sure you're not interested. You also say that Seuss “does, in spite of his avowal to the contrary, moralize,” and he certainly does moralize, but I can't imagine him avowing to the contrary. The Lorax, for example, is plainly about environmentalism. The Butter Battle Book is plainly about war. Oh The Places You'll Go is about the value of self-esteem. Green Eggs And Ham is about keeping an open mind, etc.

That's a bit of a stretch, considering that we're having this discussion on a web page that exists for the purpose of presenting an essay about Dr. Seuss, and the cartoon was chosen specifically in order to go along with that essay. Context really does matter.

“I can't imagine anyone being so concerned about the real-life quality of a comic strip that one would think it necessary to portray cruelty in any form as a means of objection, let alone humor.”

Hard as it may be for you to imagine, that's what is going on in that cartoon. I understood it right away, but then, I learned to read with Dr. Seuss, so my mind has been warped.

Watch out for that Lewis Carroll; Jabberwocky is a doozy.

i) Children who are brought up without Dr Seuss and television 'tend to be better writers.'

ii) Children who are brought up without Dr Seuss and television 'tend to be less likely to engage in any of the cartoonish characterizations and caricatures in our world.'

(and just added)

iii) [Real literature] leads to good vocabulary, comprehension, moral development, and a good general education.

The studies that are cited in the Time article address the effects of television on some specific aspects of cognitive development (such as language acquisition), but not on what you assert. Also, the latter two links that you provided are editorial in nature, not experimental research.

I understand that you hold these opinions. If you wish to assert them as fact, however, you need to provide evidence (such as scientific studies comparing the writing ability of individuals who were or were not exposed to Dr Seuss as children) to support your case.

Can you please provide a reference to a study that substantiates this assertion?

This cartoon is part of a series called the “Family Circus Redemption Project.” For those of us who grew up hating the original Family Circus for its insipid insistence that children are always adorable and that all is good in the world, it can be satisfying to see that particular fragile reality shattered by the introduction of disturbing elements from real life. The joke here is about the relationship between life and art; it has nothing to do with cats. The artist is implicitly recognizing the horror of what's being described; that's why he's using it, because it's so horrible.

If you think that the reference to a disturbing act, separate from the act to which it refers, is a problem in itself, then you might enjoy the original, unsullied Family Circus cartoons, whose value was essentially that they never contained even the vaguest implication that there was anything unpleasant going on anywhere.