This is typical of the most mindless sort of literary analysis. The author even admits Dr. Seuss did not intend the Lorax to be analyzed in this way. It is typical conservative skewing of the facts (or in this case a literary work) to justify their views. Liberals are often guilty of the same thing, but as conservativism is ascendant at the moment, they are the most common perpetrators. This is the problem with ideological blindness: things can only be viewed by one framework. If one wants to disagree with the themes of an author's work, that is fine, but do not interpret the work in a way the author never intended and probably would have laughed at. If the author of this message wants to make a point about the commons, he should find either a work that is actually related to this theme or else write one himself.

When I read The Lorax to my daughter over a decade ago, I pointed out that a person who really wanted to make money would have cut down only some of the trees, then planted more so he could harvest them later and make money for years and years to come. If you want to make money from something, it's stupid to use it all up right away--and since trees make seeds, you never have to use all the trees up.

Jonathan - for several years I've used *The Lorax* in my intro econ course in the section on environmental economics. I've gone through all the theory, then asked the students to read the book and write a short essay on how they now interpert the moral of the story. The alternative interpretation you offer here is exactly the one I hope my students will come up with: the problem is not (just) that people don't care about the environment but that there are not the well-defined and enforced property rights, among other institutions, that would enable even the "environmentally-neutral" to have the knowledge and incentives they need to conserve the resource.

Like any over-fishing problem, the truffula trees are exhausted because there is no incentive to do anything but exhaust them, and no set of market signals to provide information about what to do instead.

And no one is saying this is "the" meaning of the text. In fact, the great part is that it leads to really good class discussions between those who see the institutional reading and those who see the reading that the author intended. It's not ideology but critical thinking that leads one to draw a different lesson from the same story.

I think Mr. Landis protests too much.

It seems to me that any reader of any text should be free to interpret it in any way he or she sees fit, irrespective of the intent of the author. The fact that different people interpret texts differently and then discuss them in reasoned discourse is one reason why we humans have achieved our current level of intellectual development. Besides, it's a practice that's ingrained in our culture -- ask any lawyer.

I don't recall Dr. Seuss ever publishing an explanation of his stories supporting this or that interpretation (of course, I might well be wrong as I am not a Seuss scholar, merely a fan). I suspect his goal in writing was to entertain and to promote thinking and imagination, especially in children. If I am correct, then he probably would welcome any interpretation of his stories, so long as it was well reasoned.

In any event, it seems to me that the interpretation of The Lorax as an illustration of the tragedy of the commons is at least as valid as the one promoted by environmentalists.

Jon,

Relax. It's just an interpretation.

There was no "disagree[ment]" with the themes of Seuss's original work. There was no attempt to use Seuss to "justify" Adler's views--Adler has far better tools than a children's book for that task. There was no assertion that Seuss intended his work to be interpreted as Adler suggests. And there was no "skewing of the facts."

It's just an entertaining intellectual exercise to show that a set of "facts"--even fictional ones like the those set forth in The Lorax--can be interpreted in more than one way.

I hope you consider re-reading Adler's post. A more carefull reading shows a willingness to look at an old work with new eyes, which is the opposite of "blindness."

It seems that it is you, not he, who can see this work "by [only] one framework."

If you believe that the "facts" in the Lorax do not bear Adler's interpretation, that his interpretation is "mindless" and his facts "skewed," then you should set forth the facts and reasoning that support your view. Your rhetoric was unsatisfactory in this regard.

Thanks. I've always hated the Lorax (and, for that matter, Rainbow Fish) because of what I saw as their heavy-handed messages and therefore felt the need to intersperse my own comments when reading to my girls. I'm glad to have this "alternative" interpretation to give them (at least the youngest one) when I am next forced to slog thru the tale.

Jeff

Thank you. I feel confident that I will find this thought useful repeatedly. Just the right length for a dinner party defense of the market, simple enough to be understood by those who'd ignorantly attack it, and solid enough to deny any easy dismissal from more educated companions. It makes sense that others have gone here before you.

It looks like Jon didn't understand the lecture. Plus these bits are kind of illogical:

a) "Seuss did not intend the Lorax to be analyzed in this way"

b) "the problem with ideological blindness: things can only be viewed by one framework."

c) "but do not interpret the work in a way the author never intended"

Either I don't get what you want to express or you are demanding in (a) and (c) that Mr. Adler shall only view the story by the one and only original framework that was set up by the author.

Jeff:

I'm so happy to find that I'm not the only one who found Rainbow Fish to be exceedingly socialist. From the first time I read it, all it said to me was "you can buy your friends."

I just came across a Lorax parody. It ends:
http://tobiesrandomrants.blogspot.com/2005/06/lorax-parody.html

And baby, oh baby! How business did grow!
Now chopping one tree at a time was too slow.
So I quickly invented my Super-Ax Hacker
Which whacked off four Truffala trees at a smacker.
We were making Thneeds four times as fast as before.
And the Lorax?...Pretty soon he was back at my door.
"You fool!" he berated. "Can't you just understand?
Your supply is too high, it exceeds your demand.
It makes no fiscal sense to deforest this land!
My boy, what you need is a good fiscal plan.
If the market you glut, then you lower the price.
Four times as fast may sound awfully nice,
But you'd do a lot better if you heeded some facts,
And started using your brain, instead of an ax.
You've got a monopoly making these Thneeds
A larger supply is the last thing you need.
You don't need more Thneeds, they're fine as they are
What you need, my boy, is some brand new PR!
We'll spread the word of your Thneeds to near and to far!
'Ecological genius!' 'Friend of the Trees!
He never cuts more Truffalas than he needs!'
Take, for example, the brown Bar-ba-loots
Who are thinking of pressing some class action suits.
'Cuz you've taken their land and they're all getting crummies
Because they have gas and no food in their tummies.
And boy, I can tell you, we don't need class actions
So give them some land- as a tourist attraction!
They loved living here, so here they shall stay,
On their own piece of land that's not far away.
All day they can frolic, those brown Bar-ba-loots,
They can play in the shade, eating Truffala fruits,
And go frisking about in their Bar-ba-loot suits,
And people will pay just to watch them all do it!
Bar-ba-loot Land with restaurants and piers!
And, of course, lots of stores selling Thneeds souvenirs!
I took his advice and Thneeds, Inc. grew still more,
With the big Bar-ba-loot Land booming next door.
And I kept right on biggering, biggering, BIGGERING
With the Lorax beside me to do all my figgering.
And now, said the Once-lar, and he puffed his cigar,
And now, said the Once-lar, that's the way that things are.
I own a big business, I drive a big car.
The fame of my Thneeds has spread near and far.
And now I am wealthy, from my toes to my thorax,
All due to the fiscal advice of that Lorax.

Interpreting the story of the Lorax as a failure of private ownership hinges on the Once-ler’s note to himself that if he doesn’t cut truffula trees down somebody else will. Nobody else shows up to cut truffula trees down and the Once-ler stays on the land even after the last truffula tree is cut down. This indicates that the Once-ler actually did own the land and was rationalizing his cutting down of all the trees. The Once-ler gave the boy the last truffula seed because he knew it grow on the land he had ruined but that the boy might take it to a suitable spot.

Even if you accept as fact that truffulas were growing in a common area and anybody had a right to cut down the trees, he had effective ownership by the fact that nobody else cuts down trees despite the passage of time it takes for industry to grow. If somebody were to choose come to cut down the last few trees he had developed the wealth to buy them off, if he wanted to preserve the last truffulas.

Thus the story of the Lorax is still naturally interpreted as a story where the Once-ler regrets his greed rather than one where he regrets inevitable consequences of the incentives created by the lack of property rights to the truffula trees.

bertram,

So The Lorax is a good 19th century parable on the difference between enlightened self-interest and unenlightened self-interest.

In the TV version, the Once-ler gets a report over his intercom that his stock price keeps going up and up- just as the last tree gets felled. Sounds like the Once-ler would've been looking at some SEC violations, or the capital markets in Suess world are very inefficient.

And remember, Suess wrote a book against the arms race in the '80s (The Butter Battle Book, or something like that), in which the two contesting sides were the same except for how they buttered their bread. That's the West vs. Soviet Bloc right there, no essential difference, right? He shoulda stuck to the Cat in The Hat.

Roger

I see _The Lorax_ as a parable of multinational corporations doing mineral extractions from lands in the third world. The Lorax represent the indigenous people living on the land. He doesn’t know the modern theories of property rights so his speaking for the trees may represent his claim to the land. Other possible interpretations are that he considers all the lands come with a conservation easement or that trees as living creatures also have rights and he is acting under a conservatorship.

Anyway he was there first and so has rights that are being ignored. Truffulas represent mineral wealth that is not renewable or timber taking over 60 years to become commercially viable so the Once-ler doesn’t bother to reforest.

Although in the real world multinational corporations don’t become regretful for greatly reducing the biological diversity of the land.

If we assume that Truffulas grow to commercial value in a few years then we have a nice little story about the need to save and reinvest, a valuable lesson for our children, but if we assume Truffulas take a100 years to become mature then we have story of wrong choice and regret. It’s nice to have both.

David,

Given the Dot com crash and Enron, Tyco, etc, assuming SEC violations and/or capital market inefficiencies hardly marks an author as not being sophisticated enough to make parables on economic matters. Although I do suspect that Suess had less faith in free market economics than is deserved.

Well that certainly flushed out a bit of posturing! In the original post, Alder says:

The Once-ler has no incentive to conserve the truffula trees for, as he notes to himself, if he doesn't cut them down someone else will. He's responding to the incentives created by a lack of property rights in the trees, and the inevitable tragedy results. Had the Once-ler owned the trees, his incentives would have been quite different

But as Bertram points out at 14, this is an often made error of partially educated economism. In fact the dynamic result is dependent on the growth rate of the resource in respect of the discount rate (give or take maleability of capital). So the new incentives may have the same result.

By all means use the Lorax to illustrate the analysis of the "commons problem," but give your students the whole story. The world abounds with examples of rational economic decisions by sole owners to liquidate the renewable resource and go into private health care provision or some other venture with the proceeds.

It seems to me that any reader of any text should be free to interpret it in any way he or she sees fit, irrespective of the intent of the author.

Try saying that of the Bible to a creationist...

David:
And remember, Suess wrote a book against the arms race in the '80s (The Butter Battle Book, or something like that), in which the two contesting sides were the same except for how they buttered their bread. That's the West vs. Soviet Bloc right there, no essential difference, right? He shoulda stuck to the Cat in The Hat.

Dr. Suess was doing propaganda for the U.S. Government during World War Two before Cat in the Hat even crossed his mind.

So, in essence, he was just returning to his roots.

P.S. He did some pretty slick propaganda pieces too. Google it and see. His Tojo is to die for.

Robin,

What is your solution to the problem you describe? If sole owners exist that implies that property rights have been defined and compensation paid to a previous owner. The case described is not a commons problem, but rather a case in which a private entity does something with their property that you don't like. It may be unfortunate, but I would suggest rather than expecting private individuals to meet your expectations of how they should behave, that a more economic approach be taken. Just as a corporation looks at resouces and sees potential profit (something they value), you (or a larger, wealthier organization) can also look at resouces and see something you value (an opportunity to perseve environmental beauty). Similar to the trade-offs a corporation must make in choosing one investment over another, you must also be willing to make a trade-off between perserving the environment and something else you value. You can't simply state the importance of the environment and expect that it will be saved. What is a clean environment worth to you (or someone else)? What are you (or someone else) willing to give up to ensure a clean environment? An ipod? A new car? A bigger house? With scarcity there is opportunity cost associated with every decision: something you can't do because you chose to do something else.

My father told me an very interesting story about the village where he was born. My grandfather was a local official and he also owned some land there. There was a clear water lake in the village and my grandfather ensured (not as a part of his official duty) that nobody polluted the lake. For years villagers enjoyed access to drinking water. After my grandfather died, slowly villagers started using the lake for washing clothes and their livestock. Guess what, lake is no longer usable for drinking water and lies unattended. And villagers have to beg government for drinking water or have to get it from government installed wells in the nearby villages. Even those are drying up because of wastage of water.

I was just wondering if my grandfather (or for that matter anyone else) would have had property rights on that lake wouldn't the result been much better? He could have sold the lake to somebody else who could have taken care of that lake and sold water to the villagers. It doesn't matter who would have got property rights on that lake as long as other villager simply recognized those property rights. The result would have definitely better than the situation right now.

I just reread the book and nowhere does the Once-ler say that if he doesn't chop down the trees, someone else will. In fact, we never see or hear of any other humanoids who might do such a thing. (All we ever see of the Once-lers are their arms, which are green and lumpy.)

What the Once-ler does do is assert that he must get bigger and bigger. Suess obviously sees him as greedy AND short-sighted. He calls up all his relatives to work at his factory--and they do and are busy and prosperous, for a while. But as he is at the height of boasting about "biggering and BIGGERING", the last tree is cut and production soon stops, with everyone leaving and the business shutting down.

I'm delighted to see so many comments on THE LORAX--it's perhaps not so surprising, since THE LORAX is still one of our most cherished environmental icons.

Bertram (in 11) remarks that the interpretation hinges on the internal dialogue of the Once-ler (this occurs in the TV show, not the book), and I agree that it does--the internal dialogue strengthens the case for an "institutional" interpretive framework.

The Once-ler says to himself "Aren't you ashamed, you old Once-ler? You should be locked in the hoosegow, you should. The things that you do are completely ungood." And he replies, "Yeah. But If I didn't do them, then someone else would!"

To my mind, this statement refers to the set of incentives faced by someone who must compete with others for resources in a common pool. Obviously no other competitors appear on the scene in the story, but that doesn't change the incentives.

At the very least, it's clear that if there is an institutional system in place, it isn't working properly. If the Lorax owned the property, then his property rights were not enforced.

I suppose you could read the Lorax as an indigenous person whose land is claimed (illegitimately) by some kind of frontiersman. If so, then the Once-ler (who appears to be a driven [greedy] and gifted inventor, entrepreneur and businessman) must be monumentally stupid. Why would he deplete this renewable resource (the Lorax tells us it takes ~20 years to grow new trees) when he could have guaranteed profits for years to come?

At the end of the day, I think the most interesting tension created by considering these two different interpretations is how they differ with respect to solutions. In the mainstream reading, the solution is for us to somehow change human nature--while the Once-ler is not as thin as many Hollywood-created corporate executives, I'm not sure convincing him to temper his own self-interest would prove a fruitful project.

In the "institutional" reading, on the other hand, the solution is to come up with a better set of institutions--institutions that will create a set of incentives that will harness corporate greed and make stewardship a wise long-term business decision.

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot [and helps develop a properly functioning set of institutional arrangements], nothing is going to get better, it's not. SO...you're in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds...Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care. Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air. Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack. Then the Lorax and all of his friends may come back."

(One of the students at the seminar came up with a Queer theory interpretation of THE LORAX if anyone is interested.)

paul feine,

Thanks for clearing up where to find the statement, "But If I didn't do them [cut down the trees and make thneeds], then someone else would!" It is in the TV show but there is no hint of it in the book. The statement that it takes ~20 years to grow new trufula trees is also not in the book. Nothing is said there about how long trufulas take to grow.

However, Seuss was alive when the TV show was made and I don't think it's unfair to assume that he agreed with the additions.

I would LOVE to hear the queer theory interpretation.

I'm thrilled with all the comments. I'd have responded sooner but I've been fishing in the British Columbia wilderness for the past several days. I will post a follow-up post shortly.

JHA

"And remember, Suess wrote a book against the arms race in the '80s (The Butter Battle Book, or something like that), in which the two contesting sides were the same except for how they buttered their bread. That's the West vs. Soviet Bloc right there, no essential difference, right? He shoulda stuck to the Cat in The Hat."

The most entertaining thing about the Bitter Butter Battle, Suess' book about the arms race, is that it manages to prove exactly the opposite of what I think he was trying to say. While the story is meant to deplore the arms race and mutually assured destruction, a careful reading makes it obvious that if the Zooks hadn't kept up with the Yooks and vice versa, the other team would have blown them off the face of the planet. At the end of the story, only the fact that the other guy is also holding a bomb keeps each of them from nuking one another. A strangely compelling argument FOR the whole tactic.

As was always the case, Dr. Seuss created a fantasy world - devoid of the entanglements of civilization, to make a very simple point about how greed can diminish life. To read more into The Lorax is wrong. Furthermore, the responsible reader should suspect the motives of anyone who suggests that private property is a desired outcome of The Lorax.

Read my full response here.

Along with The Lorax and The Butter Battle Book, Seuss also penned Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose which is clearly a jab at the welfare state. Thidwick attracts a growing horde of free-loading critters who live in his antlers. He is too nice to tell them to leave, "A host above all must be nice to his guests." Eventually they become so burdensome that they separate him from the moose herd and almost lead to his death at the hands of hunters. In the end, he only escapes by jettisoning his antlers, guests and all, and swimming across Lake Winnebango to rejoin the moose herd. The antlers and inhabitants end up stuffed and mounted on the Harvard Club wall. All in all, a most satisfactory result.

The idea that it is "wrong" to read an alternative message from this book is itself incorrect. Seuss constructed a fantasy world and wanted us to take away the message that unchecked capitalism destroys the environment. Good for him. However, people rarely agree on the "moral" of real world events. Why should agreeing on the moral of a story be any different? By the act of publishing this story, Seuss in effect released his control of its meaning to the reader. He did his best to influence what we take from it, but he has no right to demand that we respond to it in the same way he did.

Jon Landis said "If one wants to disagree with the themes of an author's work, that is fine, but do not interpret the work in a way the author never intended and probably would have laughed at."

Can we get people to say the same thing about the Constitution now?

Ref 1.: Whether Seuss meant this interpretation or not, he created a little world with an economic system. That system can be analyzed by others as a good model of our own or as a bad model of our own.

Ref 25 & 27.: With this interpretation of Lorax, with this interpretation of the Butter Battle and with Thidwick, is it time for a reevaluation of Seuss? Maybe his position as a darling of the left is misplaced?

I concede that wrong may be too strong a word. How about "misleading" then.

By the way, my criticism of the conclusion that The Lorax provides a justification for enclosure - well, that's just my interpretation, and an equally legitimate one by Carl's standard of freely allowing the reader to make of the book what he chooses. It's a little disingenuous though, don't you think, to say that Dr. Seuss would appreciate his books becoming fodder, for example, for a movement that is antithetical to conservation - how about the Wise Use movement to name just one.

Yes Mr Landis' reaction is typical of the modern Liberal. they profess to favor free speech and the free exchange of ideas above all, except when someone tries to express one that does not fit into their ideology - then its "sensorship ahoy!"

They either attempt to shout down the other idea without addressing its merits or logic, or simply deride it as "evilly connservative" and "going against the author's wishes" or some other made up nonsense.

Now I read the above article and found it interesting but would note that the article was one which espoused Capitalism and private property ownership, not necessarily Conservatism. In fact, although, I can't read the article while I write this I do not believe it mentioned Conservatism once nor did it even use that word. So Mr landis - only Conservatives believe in private property rights? (I think he should read what D-Rep. Waters has been saying about property rights, post Kelo decision, perhaps he might want to re-think that position!)

Anyway, as to the nonsensicle position that only the author's view or interpretation of his or her work should be discussed or thought of - I wish Mr. landis had told my High School and College English Professors, it would have saved me from writing a whole lot of papers about the classics! (Oh who can forget the countles essays about the themes in Huckelberry Finn that Mark Twain probably never intended to be the focus of his work -(Alcoholism, homosexuality etc etc. ad nasueum!)

Give it a rest Landis. Interpreting peoples' literary works in different fashions is what makes reading fun.

Get over yourself.

We could argue for quite a long time over interpretations of The Lorax, and probably still not come to a consensus on its meaning. Instead of focusing on whether Liberals, Conservatives, or Libertarians should be allowed to infer a meaning from Dr Seuss' story that he did not intend, another path of debate might be more fruitful. That is, we should focus on all (or at least many) of the possible interpretations of The Lorax in an attempt to come up with one (or, more likely, a few) that give us a better understaning of the environmental problems we face and the best solutions.
For me, Professor Adler's "revisiting" of The Lorax is useful in revealing some of the flaws in the modern environmental movement and for proposing an alternative viewpoint from which to address environmental problems.
For too long environmentalists have expected that corporations will change (profitable) business practices if they just scream loud enough. But if we approach environmental problems from the viewpoint that Professor Adler's reinterpretation suggests, solutions are possible. We are finding that in countries that define and protect property rights, and where regulation does not cause an overabundance of rent-seeking that environmental problems are addressed seriously and effectively. If property rights are defined and laws are in place to punish nuisance or tresspassing, corporations that currently pollute will find other (more environmentally friendly) ways to make a profit.

If it is permissible to broaden the discussion of the Lorax to other literary works, let me suggest two that I've found also open to divergent interpretations - Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" and Wagner's "Ring."

The first is the story of a poor Norwegian village about to open a spa resort which the town's fathers hope will issue in an era of economic growth. The village Doctor (aka local "intellectual") decides to take a sample of the waters and sends it out for bacterial analysis. In the story, that single sample (we have no idea whether the doctor has been careful with the sample, whether it might have been contaminated during transit, whether he's found an outlyer or whatever) is found unhealthy. The Doctor wishes to publicize that "fact" which might well dissuade the wealthy (the prospecive customers for the resort) from coming. The Doctor is villified ("enemy of the people").

The standard interpretation of this story, like that of the "Lorax", is that economic interests seek to hide risks, that safety requires a non-economic interest (the "health" concerns of the good doctor). But, in fact, if the doctor is right, then one would think the promoters would be the first to seek to delay the openning. After all, wealthy people have many alternatives and if a premature openning led to widespread sickness among the guests, it is unlikely that the resort would survive. Since the resort is a substantial investment, it is unlikely that a profitable openning would alone prove beneficial. This suggests that the spa's owners are either bad managers or convinced that the doctor is wrong. Since their money is at risk, they may be right.

Moreover, as the story unfolds, it appears that the local tannery might be contaminating the water flowing to the baths. The owner of that facility -- the "evil" capitalist in the story -- proposes to buy the spa at discount. Fears that the spa may fail have driven down its price. This is seen as "greedy" but, of course, if that purchase is affected, the new owner will have internalized the externality (a natural tendency when the evolution of property rights has not been constrained). In effect, the spa's owners may rightfully be interested in joint-venturing with the tannery owner to improve the overall value of both tannery and spa.

Thus, this work too has an alternative readingl as did the "Lorax." And, as many have noted in this thread, a good work can have many interpretations. Indeed, such diversity suggests one does have a good work.

Let me briefly mention also Wagner's Ring. This work is often given a Marxist interpretation (George Bernard Shaw did, fo rexample). The ugly but highly productive dwarves (capitalists) steal the Rheingold, which is then stolen by Wotan and Loki (the establishment) which then uses that stolen property to compensate the giants for a massive public works project (Valhalla). Wotan wishes to escape payment (he wants to keep the ring for himself) but his power depends upon the institution of honored promises -- contracts - and thus to violate the rule of law would be to undermine the legitimacy of his own rule.

Tne next 16 plus hours of the opera describe Wotan's effort to place the ownership of his property on a sound legal basis (a contract secured by stolen property has weak legal standing). He seeks to use mankind as his "independent" agent in this endeavor but his selected agents (Siegmund, Siegfried) prove difficult to manage (they're the heroic revolutionaries). When they exercise their independence, his effort fails and ... Gotterdamerung!

Free marketers might note that this is exactly what one expects when neither property rights nor contracts are honored.

As I see Jonathans point and much of the discussion, stories are useful in differentiating the cultural value theory of traditional environmentalism (man is greedy, we need a new ecological consciousness to protect our planet) from the free market institutional perspective (mankind tends to operate in ways that advance individual self-interest, the environmental challenge is to evolve institutions such as property rights to evolve to better align self-interest with the public interest).

And, finally, it is nice to find that even Dr. Seuss may have been (even inadvertently) a closet libertarian.

Submitted by Fred Smith, August 6. 2005.