Suess[sic] isn't Homer. Children's books change. No kid is reading pulp novels from the 30's anymore.
I don't see what your point is here. The best interpretation is that Seuss lacks the literary merit of comparative worth that Homer has, (which is a position you contradict yourself on later by saying art is subjective, so you can't have this position in order to be consistent.) because a literal interpretation would just mean Seuss isn't the same kind of writer as Homer was, which is true, but doesn't counter anything I've said. Though part of the reason we're not reading pulp novels from the 30's is because they're not as timeless or iconic as Seuss is, which implies Seuss has more literary merit through sheer endurance.
Also, just because children's books change does not justify removing old books, or in any way mean that the newer work is more worthy or better. The books still exist, and you can still show future generations them. This isn't rocket science.
What a leap saying I have to discredit the Odyssey of all things?
The parallel is that Seuss wrote more or less in poetry for his books, just as Homer did for the Odyssey. I was trying to make you apply a consistent standard to your apparent views, because the Illaid and the Odyssey both were a part of a student's education in Ancient times and were core during their formative years.
It's interesting when you cling to that part when I also brought up Lewis Carrol with books like "Alice in Wonderland," which stylistically are pretty close to Dr Seuss's work in terms of surrealism and the exploration of complex ideas mixed with satire intended for children.
When did I suggest Suess[sic] was "mandatory"?
I said that the Odysseys and the Iliad were mandatory parts of (Ancient) Greek education, meaning that every pedagogical institution or mentorship would have students read them. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that you thought Dr Seuss was mandatory. I think you've confused your syntax to try and put words in my mouth here.
The books in question aren't even popular works in comparison.
Irrelevant, as we're talking about the issue of censorship and removing books because they are offensive to modern tastes rather than representative of what they were during their time. Popularity is not a factor in that equation
Besides, being the first to do it doesn't mean Suess[sic] made the "best" allegories or the most effective teaching structure.
I never claimed Seuss was the first to do anything, or that he was the best in doing it, but I was arguing that because of incorporation of these complex ideas and themes implemented without clear-cut answers in an ambiguous way would mean that Seuss's work contains some literary merit due to its components, such as seeing if works contain certain elements which is common in works accepted to have literary merit.
Historical value is seprate[sic] from educational value and relevancy.
Whether or not Seuss is relevant or has educational value (which both are true given the ever-present dangers of climate change, bigotry, and mutually assured destruction, and his works tend to be effective in teaching children morals that stick) is not a refutation of my point in regards to censorship of material because of its depictions of things which were not controversial in their times is inherently wrong.
Consumer views change. Certainly there is a lot of emotional attachment to the books from those who grew up with them though.
Yes, and there's clearly a demand for these books given their amazon and ebay listings, when they were still up, went to hundreds of dollars. No consumers were complaining about the depictions in the books, the publishing company just did it on an arbitrary whim rather than out of a large outcry. It's the definition of astroturfing.
Then don't. The value of art is subjective.
The discussion of the value of art and censorship is separate, though I don't completely agree that the value of art is strictly subjective when you can apply certain principles like consistency, integration of themes to the story in a logical way, the seven principles of art, etc.
Even then, this discussion is at most tertiary to my point about censorship, which is the crux of my argument.
Again, I don't "have to" discredit these other famous children's authors your brought up simply to strenghen[sic] your argument and broaden the scope of the discussion into historical value.
If Seuss lacks merit because of the reasons YOU have cited, then by your own argument, you must also discredit Lewis Carrol and Homer. For instance, you were making a false comparison between Mozart (A composer who was EXTREMELY offensive. He literally wrote a song called "Leck mich im Arsch," for reference, yet we don't censor him) and Da Vinci (A polymath from the Renaissance known for his engineering and mathematical formulations along with pioneering artistic understandings of human anatomy and mathematical proportions) and Seuss, whose greatest crime was using the term "Eskimo" and drawing stereotypical depictions of other cultures in some books.
By your own logic, the Odyssey and Alice in Wonderland are both antiquated children's books who both can be discarded just as flippantly with no consideration for artistic value because "consumer's views change."
You also misunderstood my argument. I'm not disparaging childrens'[sic] literature as a whole because they're for children, I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't NEED to be Suess.[sic] He is not the end-all master of teaching colors and rhymes.
The fault of your argument is that there doesn't NEED to by ANY art, and that logical can be used to censor literally anything for any reason. Why does it NEED to be that Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass are still published? Why does it NEED to be that we still read about some bronze-age stories about Troy? Why do we NEED to know our own history?
Necessity is not a factor in terms of literary education or literary merit, because most novels are not meant to be imperative like that. It's a malformed notion because only few things are necessities in life, and art is not one of them, but society without art would not only be miserable, but lack introspection and the ability to hold truth to power or authority.
He is not the end-all master of teaching colors and rhymes.
I would say that is very reductionist considering that Seuss had interesting moral lessons and explained a lot of complex socio-political ideas in a way that young kids could understand, which is fairly pivotal, as well as your traditional teaching of rhyme schemes, vocabulary, and diction.
Also, this is not an argument that counters my point about WHY ARE YOU CENSORING HIM in the first place.
So who cares if some of his works fall out if[sic] relevancy and popularity over time? We don't need to defend it as some sacred text.
"Who cares if we commit an iconoclasm to destroy all the heretical shrines to the old gods of Greece and Rome? Who cares if some of their works fall out of relevancy and popularity over time? We don't need to defend it as some sacred text."
Might as well burn the library of Alexandria while you're at it. It's full of antiquated ideas that will regress society back to paganism
It's the same thing that happens when adults complain about children's TV shows being diffrent[sic] from when they were young in reboots.
Usually the argument is not that the TV shows are different, but that their quality is definitively worse or does not capture the spirit of what made the original better, or is explicitly designed to push an agenda or make money before telling an interesting or compelling story.
See: The Powerpuff Girls reboot, Teen Titans GO!, Thundercats ROAR, The She-Ra reboot, Ghostbusters (2016), most live action adaptations, The Sequel Trilogy, Charlie’s Angels, or one of the million other cash-grabs Hollywood and the entertainment industry has come up with today.
You really need to work on your apologetics, man. This line of arguments is legitimately one of the worst defenses we've had in this entire thread
@okdudeswow
Fair enough, I guess I'm too used to 2spirit's argument that "fire stations are socialism"
@immortalartisan
