December 16, 2002
A FISH TALE:
CAT PEOPLE: What Dr. Seuss really taught us (LOUIS MENAND, 2002-12-16, The New Yorker)The Cat in the Hat was a Cold War invention. His value as an analyst of the psychology of his time, the late nineteen-fifties, is readily appreciated: transgression and hypocrisy are the principal themes of his little story. But he also stands in an intimate and paradoxical relation to national-security policy. He was both its creature and its nemesis—the unraveller of the very culture that produced him and that made him a star. This is less surprising than it may seem. He was, after all, a cat.Every reader of "The Cat in the Hat" will feel that the story revolves around a piece of withheld information: what private demons or desires compelled this mother to leave two young children at home all day, with the front door unlocked, under the supervision of a fish? Terrible as the cat is, the woman is lucky that her children do not fall prey to some more insidious intruder. The mother's abandonment is the psychic wound for which the antics of the cat make so useless a palliative. The children hate the cat. They take no joy in his stupid pet tricks, and they resent his attempt to distract them from what they really want to be doing, which is staring out the window for a sign of their mother's return. Next to that consummation, a cake on a rake is a pretty feeble entertainment.
This is the fish's continually iterated point, and the fish is not wrong. The cat's pursuit of its peculiar idea of fun only cranks up the children's anxiety. It raises our anxiety level as well, since it keeps us from doing what we really want to be doing, which is accompanying the mother on her murderous or erotic errand. Possibly the mother has engaged the cat herself, in order to throw the burden of suspicion onto the children. "What did you do?" she asks them when she returns home, knowing that the children cannot put the same question to her without disclosing their own violation of domestic taboos. They are each other's alibi. When you cheat, you lie.
Actually, he wasn't a cat...he was a fictional character...in a children's book... Posted by Orrin Judd at December 16, 2002 10:46 PM
This guy has a serious problem with projection.
Posted by: Buttercup at December 16, 2002 10:56 PMThis reminds of the interview NPR did with HA Rey's widow a few years ago. The interviewer asked her about complaints that "Curious George" was inherently racist: the dark African is "rescued" and brought to America to entertain the white man (in the Yellow Hat). After a second, Mrs. Rey laughed, and in her French accent said "Zat is reediculous...it is zhust zee story of a leetle mone-key...."
Posted by: Foos at December 17, 2002 8:25 AMOne of the worst courses I've ever taken was on psychological interpretation of fiction. One of our papers had to be the interpretation of a children's book. I chose "Curious George." It was, I think, the worst grade I ever got on a paper; the word "pedestrian" floats out of memory even as I type. Now, of course, I realize I could easily have gotten an A if I had just added the sentance: "The book quakes with the effort necessary to repress the clear message of homoeroticism that threatens the transgression of our most basic societal norms."
Posted by: David Cohen at December 17, 2002 9:02 AMThe Shadow is, in reality, Lamont Cranston, a fictional character.
Posted by: Bob Hawkins at December 17, 2002 10:52 AMAsked what he thought about Freudianism, Max Beerbohm replied: "They were a tense and peculiar family, the Oedipuses, were they not?
-Joseph Epstein
