As a child, it is easy to accept many forms of fantasy. From talking animals, to inanimate objects, dancing fancy-free. But upon further examination, some questions arise. As my school is engaging in a “One-Book, One-School” program, I’ve begun to question some of the story elements.
If you’re my age or the parent of someone growing up in the early aughts, you may be familiar with a particular story, “Stuart Little,” written by E.B. White, famed author of the Arachnid Deception and the Porcine Ploy. In that story, we had anthropomorphic animals that could not speak to humans but communicated with written text in web form. That is all well and good, and pretty easy to accept. The same cannot be said for the plot of Stuart Little.
In the film adaptation, it is made clear that the Littles adopt Stuart, the only orphaned mouse. This is a unique and enjoyable plot that provides some heartwarming messages… but if you look at the source material… well, let us just say that things are quite different.
“Stuart Little,” was written in 1945, far earlier than many would expect, and it is established very early on that… Mrs. Little is indeed Stuart’s biological mother. Stuart is described as being very small with mouselike features… NOT a Mouse!
Effectively Stuart is a human child but has the size and appearance of a mouse. Mr. Little, and even George seem rather nonplussed by this fact, though the same cannot be said for the rest of the world.
Hopefully, you can recognize that this is wildly abnormal.
Little Mouse, Big Questions
By: Drew Swenson
Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when publishedAccepted in the film
due to clear adoption
but checking in the book
while that’s a whole ‘nother option
A little child, with mouselike features
yes technically not a rodent creature
Immaculate Conception?
Or Micro-Mammal romp?
These are some strange circumstances
and they require a bit of pomp.
1945 E.B. White, what went on in your head?
Does Mr. Little realize what happened in his bed?