Talk:Horton Hatches the Egg

Untitled

The moral of the story IS "always keep your promises". It's "don't demand the result of someone else's work". Anyone? —msh210 22:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say it's that perseverence and dedication pay off, so that you bear the fruits of your labours; and if you don't have that perseverence and dedication, you won't have anything to show for it. Having said that, I recently heard someone say it was about adoption - which makes some sense, though I doubt that was the intended meaning because it would cast natural parents in a highly negative light. Roger 22:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

minor edit

I removed the following section from the article, because it is controversial and referenced only by a self published book which has no standing. If someone wants to argue for a specific interpretation I think it should be better referenced. Significant Gravitas Shortfall (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC):

Interpretations

Some critics have suggested that Seuss may have intended the story to increase awareness of the impact men could have on their children's lives if they would only become more involved in day to day childcare activities. Others, however, claim that it demeans the women who would stay at home to care for their children, indicts women who have interests outside the home, and feminizes men who would consider engaging in childcare activities. I personally think that it is about foster children and the love someone can develops for a child they did not create.

Themes

I think that this article would benefit greatly if someone explored the implied racial overtones that were prevalent throughout most the story. Although not explicitly depicted, the elephant did copulate with the bird which becomes clear when they hatch at the end, being half elephant and half bird. Horton did not supply half the chromosomes solely by sitting on the eggs. We are clearly not given the full story here, which could be expected given Dr. Seuss' target audience, children. Other books written by Dr. Seuss had implicit political themes and messages that were not specifically geared towards children (The Lorax &You're Only Old Once! : A book for Obsolete Children are both excellent examples of this). Mayzie, the mother in this story, is your typical mother from the ghetto, clearly she had no intentions of raising her children and is only capable of making selfish decisions. Seuss was making a statement about the types of parents who willfully neglect their children, and are surprised when they grow up to be social outcasts (What niche could a half-bird, half-elephant possibly fill in nature?) or a product of government intervention (Would government be able to provide the same quality of upbringing as two caring parents?). The elephant, a symbol of the predominantly white Republican party, is the only party concerned for the welfare of the children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.10.140 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should we read so much into a children's story? There is no basis for the opinions expressed above. The point Seuss was making is that if we neglect our responsibilities, we'll lose control over them and eventually, ownership of them. 123.100.93.103 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Fish suicide

This is the oldest WB cartoon I've seen with this gag but it definitely appears a year later when Porky Pig's cat shoots himself after seeing the Flea carrying Porky and his dog on a silver platter in "An Itch in Time". Is the line "Now I've seen everything" followed by a self inflicted gunshot to the head some kind of pop culture reference similar to the use of the "Hut-Sut Song"? Brendanmccabe (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Horton Hatches the Egg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks very good. Well-written and well-sourced, covers major aspects (including contemporary and later reviews). Thanks again for your work here.

• "manager things he can find an elephant" -- should this be "thinks"?

fixed

• "notoriety worldwide" -- why "notoriety" -- per dictionary, "the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed"? Also, this probably needs citation; the later indicators--Book of the Month, NEA, Bartlett's--are all American.

I'll need a little time to dig up a source for this one.

No problem; the "worldwide" phrase could simply be cut if you can't find it, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I couldn't find anything. I guess I got ahead of myself. I mean, I hear Dr. Seuss is pretty famous across the world, but I don't have any hard evidence. So I'm just going to remove the claim. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Book sales figures are notoriously hard to come by unless you subscribe to expensive databases for them, unfortunately. Thanks for the tweak. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that we're not supposed to use amazon as a source, both for reliability reasons and because we avoid commercial links; it would be better to just cite the videotape itself for this info. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to cite the video, but I'm not really sure how to cite a video.

I'm not sure of exact format either, but no specific ref format is required for GA. That'll do fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "According to Geisel's biographers, " -- this phrase is slightly confusing as Cohen is also a biographer. Perhaps "official biographers"? First biographers?

Changed. I'm looking at the book right now, and although it doesn't say "Official Biography" on the cover or anything like that, the authors did have the cooperation of both Geisel and his wife, so I guess that makes it official, right?

Good question. Probably? I'm looking for a definition of this now. Maybe we can say "first" or "authorized" if we can't find a conclusive answer to that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you say to just saying "According to G's biographers Judith and Neil Morgan" and sidestepping the issue? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost positive "official" is fine, but if you think the change is for the best I'll make it. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• "However, this account is probably spurious;" -- this is a bit POV, endorsing what seems to be the take of only one source over one other source. How about just adding "However, according to later biographer Charles Cohen, this account..."? I'd also suggest cutting the phrase "in reality", which is a bit empty anyway; simply stating those facts make it clear they take place in reality.

I'm on it. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor clarity points/fixes suggested above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright problems.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not sure about Amazon as a reliable source; worldwide fame needs source.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See minor note above about Morgan/Cohen's contrasting accounts
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

1940 vs. 1954 books

Hello - Could we confirm that this article should be in Category:1940 books? It is currently in Category:1954 books (which I think applies to "Horton Hears a Who"). Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely published in 1940. I'm looking at the Morgan biography right now, and that confirms it. Bobnorwal (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OK - I changed the 1954 category to 1940. KConWiki (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Inspiration

Some would neglect their kids, if they had the money, bunking off to Palm Beach, or whatnot, and leaving servants and/or relatives to care for them. This is the most likely inspiration for the story - but what made Seuss address this particular isssue? Had he had experience with it, or was there a famous case, or what? I have always wondered, and finding out could improve the article.

Another example of this in kids fiction is Eloise, at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Notice how she is left by her mom with an English nanny while her mom is off jet-setting around meeting Coco Chanel and so on. Result: Eloise sounds rawther like Nanny. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:D81E:8737:F106:7A4C (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Backgound

This section appears to exist only to promote an unofficial biography. It seeks to create controversy where none exists. So Ted drew a picture of an elephant earlier. He drew a strange wiener-dog sitting on an egg earlier. He even drew a whale in a tree earlier. How does any of that detract from Ted's own tale of the wind blowing a picture of an elephant on top of an egg being the spark for writing one of his best books? If I can find some time I'll do a rewrite that simply lays out the steps, without attempting to create a false narrative. Is there really any need to reference C at all? The implication of Ted changing the story makes him... seem a dishonest person. This for a person who wrote I meant what I said and always faithful 100%? Alec Mayo the younger (talk)