The Dr. Seuss issue

[hildea]

Originally Posted by John F

So this is an actual law? Any chance for a link to the law?

Um, publishers are allowed to stop publishing books, obviously. Do you think there's some law that requires a publisher to keep all books they've ever published in print, forever?

[pwalker8]

Nice attempt at spin.

You - Nothing to see here, they are just cutting poor selling books, no outside pressure. (ignoring the many links showing outside pressure)

Me - Dr Seuss doesn't sale well? Really?

Me - Dr Seuss is selling pretty good. Here is a story about Dr Seuss selling 1.2 million copies in the week following the announcement. The sales figures for the 6 books in question are not given.

You - How dare you show data. snark, snark, snark.

Even 17,000 copies for books that are 80 years old is really good. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Dr Seuss books remain best sellers is simply spinning a narrative. The Dr Seuss franchise is a gold mine that the Dr Seuss institute mines. They draw in millions of dollars a year.

I would tend to argue that the directors of the institute have a moral duty to defend the books and keep them in print rather than cave. It's not like people are going to stop printing articles about how racist Dr Seuss is because the institute sacrificing six books trying to appease such people. In the long term, such actions hurt the franchise.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Again: I don't care what you think of me personally. But if it makes you feel better to type it--have at it.

As for the data: I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse.

Me: the 6 books in question were poor sellers
You: Seuss a poor seller? You want to stick with that?
Me: yes the 6 books in question were poor sellers.
You: there's been a huge surge in Seuss sales after the kerfuffle. Do you still want to stick with your story?
Me: Yes. The 6 books in question were (and still are poor sellers).
You: Do you deny that this triggered a run on Seuss books?
Me:

I've never once denied that this tempest in a teapot caused Seuss sales to spike after the fact. But primarily because it wasn't relevant AT ALL to my point that the 6 books that the Seuss Foundation decided not to reprint were poor sellers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You - Nothing to see here, they are just cutting poor selling books, no outside pressure. (ignoring the many links showing outside pressure)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would call it influence, myself. So I'm not going to pretend that external forces didn't influence their decision in any way. I just don't think it rises to the levels of bullying or negation that most of those who are foaming about censorship, nazis, and cancel-culture want (or need) it to be.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Dr Seuss books remain best sellers is simply spinning a narrative. The Dr Seuss franchise is a gold mine that the Dr Seuss institute mines. They draw in millions of dollars a year.

They sure are. And anyone who thinks I have denied any of that is quite delusional.

But until you're willing to accept that you're talking about ALL SEUSS BOOKS and I'm only talking about THESE SIX SEUSS BOOKS, there's really nothing nothing further to discuss. I leave you to the delusional argument you're having with someone other than me, apparently.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by hildea

Do you think there's some law that requires a publisher to keep all books they've ever published in print, forever?

No. Some countries have laws that go the opposite way, and some people want to suppress books that they disagree with even in countries where freedom to read is traditional. But I have never heard of one that requires keeping books in print or eBooks for sale. I am OK with a law that has such an effect by putting withdrawn eBooks in the public domain. The reason I only say "OK" is that copyright-holding book suppressers could evade the law by putting a ridiculously high price on any title they wanted to keep me, or my heirs, from experiencing. So the law might not do what I would hope.

Theodor Seuss won three Caldecdott children's books awards. The Geisel heirs, or their assigns, are suppressing two of them (If I Ran the Zoo and McElligot's Pool) because they, or someone they hired, think some words, or more likely drawings, in those books embody ideas they don't agree with. It is a bit disappointing that, on a reading site, this isn't seen as a general problem.

As for the idea that they ever gave Caldecott honors to books that were unambiguously racist, pushing children to hate each other, I don't buy it. Much more likely they gave Caldecott honors to books that are subject to multiple interpretations.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

As a kid, I didn't see the sneetches as about race. It was more about elitism.

Wow...I *always* saw the sneetches as being about race.

Shari

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'm sure that the run on Dr Suess books was triggered by the concern of "what's next". There are already articles saying that the Cat in the Hat is a racist book.

I really think the run on the books is for investment purposes, hoping to flip them after all the copies run out on eBay. To make money.

I've never been a big Dr. Suess fan, nor did I buy or read them all to my kids. Some I found 'off', way back when. My daughter and son-in-law have some Suess for their kids, but no, not all of them. I can't remember the titles for sure, but the ones being retired could certainly be the ones we've avoided.

I do think his books are a 'hit or miss' thing. Some of them are just not worth the purchase. Just like not all Disney movies work. (We don't like The Little Mermaid so much. And my daughter and granddaughters aren't really fans. They never ask to watch it. But love some of the others.)

I have no problem with the Suess books being retired by the publishers or copyright holders, for any reasons. I just think this rush to buy is about making money, not supporting the books themselves.

[John F]

Originally Posted by MarjaE

...

If they don't think these are appropriate as children's books, current law allows them to stop publishing. And possibly republishing them with notes about these issues.

...

Originally Posted by hildea

Um, publishers are allowed to stop publishing books, obviously. Do you think there's some law that requires a publisher to keep all books they've ever published in print, forever?

Since "current law" was mentioned, I was wondering if there was some sort of morality law.

I would think that if there was a contract, the publisher couldn't just stop publishing something if it broke the contract.

In this case, the Suess estate appears to be both the copyright holder and publisher, so they can pretty much do what they want?

[SteveEisenberg]

Although you can't buy the suppressed eBooks, I just made public library reserves on the two Caldecott honor titles (If I Ran the Zoo and McElligot's Pool), as well as the title issybird recommended in post #1 (And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street).

So within 24 weeks, I expect to have a better idea of what folks at Seuss Enterprises don't want read to, or by, children.

I might then say they are terrible eBooks. But unless I have a brain transplant between now and then, I don't expect to become reconciled to suppression.

EDITED: I didn't mean to imply that anyone else lacks a brain. What I meant is that freedom to read is such a high value for me it is unlikely to change.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Although you can't buy the suppressed eBooks, I just made public library reserves on the two Caldecott honor titles (If I Ran the Zoo and McElligot's Pool), as well as the title issybird recommended in post #1 (And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street).

I found those three books and another of the suppressed books, Scrambled Eggs Super!, on the Internet Archive.

As it happens, some public libraries are pulling the books from their shelves. However, others are standing firm.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I might then say they are terrible eBooks. But unless I have a brain transplant between now and then, I don't expect to become reconciled to suppression.

Were I stocking a children's library, I wouldn't include any of the six books in question, or at least none of the four that I have seen. I just don't find them all that remarkable. There are far better books out there. I much prefer the books of John Burningham, Gomi Taro, Oliver Jeffers and Shaun Tan to name just several.

However, if they were already in a children's library, I wouldn't remove them. I don't find any of the images "racist" or "harmful". I certainly can't see any child being traumatized by them, especially not if there were plenty of other rich and diverse books in the classroom/library.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by shalym

Wow...I *always* saw the sneetches as being about race.

Shari

I think if the sneetches had been say blue or yellow, or significantly visually different in some way, I would have interpreted it that way. But they are visually identical except for the little star.

The cartoon (and I saw it as a TV cartoon) showed the absurdity of one group snooting it over another group, when in reality, they were identical.

I'm not sure what the author's intended meaning was.

I will also add, I thought the cartoon was pure genius, lyrically and visually.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I think if the sneetches had been say blue or yellow, or significantly visually different in some way, I would have interpreted it that way. But they are visually identical except for the little star.

The cartoon (and I saw it as a TV cartoon) showed the absurdity of one group snooting it over another group, when in reality, they were identical.

I'm not sure what the author's intended meaning was.

I will also add, I thought the cartoon was pure genius, lyrically and visually.

Never saw the cartoon. I believe I read the book in a doctor's office as I don't remember having any Dr. Seuss books at home. It was one of the Dr. Seuss books which I really liked and which I would include in a children's library.

I didn't interpret it as being about race at the time as I don't remember thinking about the concept of race at that age. I just saw it as being about the ridiculous focus of some people on superficial differences although I naturally wouldn't have been able to articulate in that way at that age.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I think if the sneetches had been say blue or yellow, or significantly visually different in some way, I would have interpreted it that way. But they are visually identical except for the little star.

Maybe it was meant to be like the yellow star Jews had to wear in Europe during WWII. (Before they were all shipped off to the extermination camps.)

[MarjaE]

Originally Posted by John F

Since "current law" was mentioned, I was wondering if there was some sort of morality law.

I would think that if there was a contract, the publisher couldn't just stop publishing something if it broke the contract.

In this case, the Suess estate appears to be both the copyright holder and publisher, so they can pretty much do what they want?

I mean as opposed to shorter terms or mandatory licensing. Either of which would allow 3rd parties to publish. But in that case the original estate and/or publisher would still not be required to continue publishing the books in question, and could still curate a recommended list.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Maybe it was meant to be like the yellow star Jews had to wear in Europe during WWII. (Before they were all shipped off to the extermination camps.)

And another person drags the National Socialists into the discussion. If nothing else, yellow patches go back long before the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Are you also denouncing the caliphates going back to the 8th century? England? The Germanic states? Rome? Portugal? France? Pretty much all of Europe.

Admittedly, the caliphates required all dhimmis to wear special clothing or markings not just Jews. If you weren't Muslim, you were also obliged to pay jizya (a special tax for dhimmis). For those who are interested, there is currently still discussion about dhimmi and how to apply it today.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Maybe it was meant to be like the yellow star Jews had to wear in Europe during WWII. (Before they were all shipped off to the extermination camps.)

According to wiki, the story was a reaction to antisemitism, and also to discrimination in general.