Speaker 1: Guess what, mango? What's that? Will? So I know we're
Speaker 1: both big fans of Shell Silverstein, But do you remember
Speaker 1: this poem that was called Prayer of the Selfish Child?
Speaker 1: You know that name sounds so familiar, but I don't
Speaker 1: actually remember the exact words. How how to go? All right?
Speaker 1: So this is one of my favorites. But it goes. Now.
Speaker 1: I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord
Speaker 1: my soul to keep, and if I die before I wake,
Speaker 1: I pray the Lord my toys to break so none
Speaker 1: of the other kids can use them. Amen. I love it.
Speaker 1: So I've spent countless hours over the years reading Silverstein
Speaker 1: with both of my kids, and I'll never forget probably
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe like seven or eight years ago,
Speaker 1: reading this poem with my daughter and just seeing her
Speaker 1: get this little smirk on her face when I read
Speaker 1: it to her, and it was as though she was thinking, Okay,
Speaker 1: I know that's wrong, but I also get it and
Speaker 1: it's pretty darn funny. Yeah. I think most kids can
Speaker 1: identify with that feeling in some way, Like there's something
Speaker 1: about Shell Silverstein's writing that allows us to be a
Speaker 1: little dark or maybe a little naughty, But also really
Speaker 1: silly at the same time. That's exactly it. So you
Speaker 1: know what we we thought it was time to dedicate
Speaker 1: an episode to one of our favorite children's authors to
Speaker 1: talk about his fascinating and successful career well before he
Speaker 1: was ever pushed into writing for kids, to hear what
Speaker 1: he thought kids wanted to hear, and also how he
Speaker 1: felt about happy endings. So let's dive ina. Hey there,
Speaker 1: podcast listeners, Welcome to part time genius sim Will Pearson,
Speaker 1: And as always, I'm joined by my good friend Manges Ticketer.
Speaker 1: Of course, Mango is joining me today from the always
Speaker 1: friendly Mouth Media Studios in New York City. And Mango,
Speaker 1: you're missing this, but on the other side of the
Speaker 1: soundproof glass building a sailboat with the wood from his
Speaker 1: childhood apple tree. And I'm actually I'm kind of getting
Speaker 1: choked up as I say this. That's our friend and
Speaker 1: producer Tristan McNeil. And you know, I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: far off place he plans on going with that, but
Speaker 1: it must be a pretty important trip because I know
Speaker 1: how much Tristan loved his old family apple. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just getting choked up again. So I'm
Speaker 1: wondering about this because I asked him a little earlier,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like he just plans to tool around
Speaker 1: the coast on the weekends, you know, like assuming he
Speaker 1: ever gets this boat finished. Oh well, that that that
Speaker 1: kind of took a dark turn from what I thought
Speaker 1: it might be. But you know what, that that actually
Speaker 1: might be appropriate for today's episode because Shell Silverstein was
Speaker 1: certainly not your average Sachran sweet children's author. Now, most
Speaker 1: people know him for his tongue twisting rhymes he penned
Speaker 1: for childhood classics like Where the Sidewalk Ins and A
Speaker 1: Light in the Attic, but they were also long and
Speaker 1: varied parts of his career where most people they don't
Speaker 1: really know what he was up to, including some fairly
Speaker 1: unsavory stints as a playwright and a raunchy songwriter and
Speaker 1: a cartoonist for Playboy of all places. So with these
Speaker 1: different sides of the artists in mine, I thought we
Speaker 1: should check out some of the lesser known stories from
Speaker 1: Silverstein's life and you know, try to get a sense
Speaker 1: of how he became one of the most beloved and
Speaker 1: even most controversial writers of the twentieth century. Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: once he became famous as a children's author, details of
Speaker 1: his earlier life and his other work kind of faded
Speaker 1: from public consciousness. And another big reason why those stories
Speaker 1: aren't so well known is that Shell Silverstein was also
Speaker 1: a pretty private guy. Like he rarely gave interviews. He
Speaker 1: never wrote a memoir or sat down with a biographer
Speaker 1: or anything like that. And as a result, we really
Speaker 1: don't know much about Shell's childhood, which is kind of
Speaker 1: ironic given what he's known for. I mean, we know
Speaker 1: the basics, right, like, we know he was born in
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty to middle class Jewish family in Chicago, but
Speaker 1: things actually get kind of hazy beyond that. Well, there's
Speaker 1: at least one other thing we know for sure about
Speaker 1: the young Shell Silverstein, and that is that he was
Speaker 1: positively obsessed with the Chicago White Sox. In fact, in
Speaker 1: a rare nineteen interview with Publishers Weekly, Silverstein said, when
Speaker 1: I was a kid twelve to fourteen around there, I
Speaker 1: would much rather have been a good baseball player or
Speaker 1: a hit with the girls. But I couldn't play ball,
Speaker 1: I couldn't dance. Luckily the girls didn't want me. Not
Speaker 1: much I could do about that, so I started to
Speaker 1: draw and write well. I mean, you've got to appreciate
Speaker 1: his honesty, right, Like, not very many authors would admit
Speaker 1: that a career writing was their plans c. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously after playing baseball and being a professional casanova. I guess. Well,
Speaker 1: while Silverstein was a little too unathletic to turn pro
Speaker 1: at either of those things, he did have one early
Speaker 1: gig in professional sports, or at least in the same ballpark.
Speaker 1: And that's because he actually spent five years selling beer
Speaker 1: and hot dogs at the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White
Speaker 1: Sox stadiums. And not only did that gig help pay
Speaker 1: us way through school, it actually also gave him some
Speaker 1: valuable life lessons. So, just as one example of this,
Speaker 1: when a reporter asked him what he learned about people
Speaker 1: from his time time as a hot dog vendor, Silverstein replied,
Speaker 1: I learned they like mustard and that they like a
Speaker 1: hot bond. Did you know that if you steam the
Speaker 1: bond first, they'll really like it? I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: sort of wisdom you can't vibe. But speaking of Shell's schooling,
Speaker 1: he actually had a pretty tough go of things. So first,
Speaker 1: he attended the University of Illinois, but was quickly kicked
Speaker 1: out due to his bad grades. And then he tried
Speaker 1: the Art Institute of Chicago, where he wound up dropping
Speaker 1: out after about a year. And lastly he went to
Speaker 1: Roosevelt University, which is also in Chicago. I guess he
Speaker 1: studied English for a full three years there. And this
Speaker 1: last attempt at college life at Roosevelt was probably the
Speaker 1: most crucial for Shell because it was actually where he
Speaker 1: first started writing and cartooning for the school paper. And
Speaker 1: of course, his flair for flaunting authority and you know,
Speaker 1: all those established norms was even there in his earliest work.
Speaker 1: So we found the first cartoon he ever published, and
Speaker 1: it shows this naked student smoking a cigarette in front
Speaker 1: of this angry professor, and the caption just reads, what
Speaker 1: do you mean no smoking? I thought this was a
Speaker 1: liberal school. I do kind of like that. There's that
Speaker 1: hint of his absurd ast slant, you know, right there,
Speaker 1: from the very beginning. But I'm curious though. It sounds
Speaker 1: like Silverstein finally found a decent fit or a home
Speaker 1: there at Roosevelt. So did he eventually get his degree there? No,
Speaker 1: he never did. Actually, Uh, it wasn't his fault this time,
Speaker 1: like before, Shell had the chance to finish he was
Speaker 1: drafted into the Korean War. This was in a I
Speaker 1: think in nineteen three, and of course Shell being Shell,
Speaker 1: you know, there's no guarantee he would have finished college anyway.
Speaker 1: He implied at one point that you probably wouldn't have.
Speaker 1: But his time in the army actually proved just as formative.
Speaker 1: It gave him the chance to earn his first art
Speaker 1: based paycheck. And this is while working as a cartoonist
Speaker 1: for the Stars and Strips military newspaper. Actually, you know
Speaker 1: what I remember reading about this. What wasn't he like
Speaker 1: court martialed or something for his work on that paper? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Almost so. Apparently one of the cartoons he did for
Speaker 1: the paper implied that officers were clothing their families with
Speaker 1: a bunch of like stolen uniforms, and of course the
Speaker 1: higher ups didn't find it very funny. And in the
Speaker 1: end Shell actually just narrowly avoided the court martial. He
Speaker 1: didn't by agreeing that the future strips would only lampoon
Speaker 1: civilians and animals and not as fellow soldiers. And that
Speaker 1: makes sense because you know, if you think about if
Speaker 1: anybody needs to be taken down a peg, it's animals.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you feel about this, but I
Speaker 1: do feel the same way, right, So all right, So
Speaker 1: so now we're getting to the point where Silverstein's career
Speaker 1: really begins to take shape. So he was discharged in ninetive.
Speaker 1: He goes back to Chicago and he starts working as
Speaker 1: a freelance cartoonist and and it actually goes pretty well
Speaker 1: for a while. So he lands a few gigs at
Speaker 1: places like Sports Illustrated and Look magazine. But from this
Speaker 1: he doesn't really get a whole lot of acclaim for
Speaker 1: these jobs, and you know, none of its steady work.
Speaker 1: But then in nineteen fifty seven, Silverstein catches his big
Speaker 1: break and he becomes the resident cartoonist for Playboy. Now
Speaker 1: the magazine had premiered just a couple of years before,
Speaker 1: so you know, Silverstein was really able to get in
Speaker 1: on the ground floor. But it actually wasn't some sort
Speaker 1: of short lived stint on his way to, you know,
Speaker 1: like later fame as a children's author. In fact, Silverstein's
Speaker 1: cartoons appeared in every single issue of Playboy from nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty seven all the way through the mid seventies. So
Speaker 1: we're talking almost a couple of decades. That's crazy. So
Speaker 1: I knew he worked at Playboy, and I just assumed,
Speaker 1: you know, like he's from Chicago. Playboy got his start
Speaker 1: in Chicago, so so that makes sense. But I had
Speaker 1: no idea that his adults only phase in his career
Speaker 1: actually overlapped with his children's face. I mean, the Giving
Speaker 1: Treaty was published in the sixties, so it's wild to
Speaker 1: think he was still a Playboy employee during this time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And actually there's even more overlapped than that, because in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty one, the adult magazine published its first ever
Speaker 1: children's work, and I say that in Quotations, which was
Speaker 1: called Uncle Shelby's a b Z Book, and soon after
Speaker 1: it appeared in Playboy. Silverstein actually published this separately as
Speaker 1: his first book. So something tells me this wasn't really
Speaker 1: a kid's book right now. It definitely wasn't. I mean,
Speaker 1: the tagline claimed it was quote a primer for young minds,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't get too far into it before realizing
Speaker 1: it was anything but that. So the idea is that,
Speaker 1: you know, it was one of these children's Learned the
Speaker 1: Alphabet books where every page gives you a letter and
Speaker 1: then an ad collustration and like this little mnemonic device
Speaker 1: to help kids learn the letters and how they're used.
Speaker 1: But that really wasn't the goal in Uncle Shelby's case,
Speaker 1: and instead the book to use associations that targeted the
Speaker 1: insecurities and gullibility of children and kind of tried to
Speaker 1: spur them into all kinds of mischief. So just just
Speaker 1: to give a couple examples of this, you know, one
Speaker 1: entry encouraged kids to hurl eggs at the ceiling in
Speaker 1: order to feed the magic genie Ernie who lives there,
Speaker 1: I guess. And another one advised kids to pretend to
Speaker 1: drink lie if they were ever craving candy, because you know,
Speaker 1: after the doctor pumps their stomach, he'll give you a
Speaker 1: nice red lollipop. But anyway, but one of my favorites
Speaker 1: is probably the entry for the letter B, and it
Speaker 1: includes the lines see the baby play play baby, play
Speaker 1: pretty pretty baby. Mommy loves the baby more than she
Speaker 1: loves you. I mean, it's obviously horrible, and you know
Speaker 1: this is clearly satire, and and the book wasn't meant
Speaker 1: for kids in the slightest, but you just have to
Speaker 1: know that some clueless parents bought this book for their
Speaker 1: kids at some point, right, Oh, absolutely, And in fact,
Speaker 1: those misunderstandings happen often enough that from onward. The print
Speaker 1: edition of the book actually includes a stamp right on
Speaker 1: the front cover and what it says is a primer
Speaker 1: for adults only. I love that, Like, instead of taking
Speaker 1: it out in circulation, they just put a stamp on it.
Speaker 1: But what's interesting to me is that, you know what
Speaker 1: a tongue in cheek book like this says about Shell's
Speaker 1: view of children's literature. I mean, it's no secret that
Speaker 1: he hated the way most children's authors condescended to their audience.
Speaker 1: Like he sometimes spoke about the way that the scarier
Speaker 1: elements and classic fairy tales are toned down to make
Speaker 1: the stories I guess like fluffier and more kid friendly.
Speaker 1: And he actually saw this as a form of censorship,
Speaker 1: which is a viewpoint that seems to have informed this
Speaker 1: a b C book. Well, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: I mean, what better way to push against the status
Speaker 1: quote of children's books than to just write your own
Speaker 1: and do what you want with it. But you know,
Speaker 1: according to Silverstein, it was actually a friend and fellow
Speaker 1: illustrator named Tomy Unger who helped him do just that.
Speaker 1: And by helped, I really mean forced, because, as Silverstein
Speaker 1: later said that his friend quote practically dragged me kicking
Speaker 1: and screaming and to editor Ursula Nordstrom's office, and Nordstrom
Speaker 1: convinced me that Tomy was right. I could do children's books.
Speaker 1: And so for his first book, Silverstein made kind of
Speaker 1: a bold move and stuck to the Uncle Shelby persona
Speaker 1: he had created for Playboy. It's just so strange what
Speaker 1: he did, but he called it Uncle Shelby's story of Lofcadio,
Speaker 1: the Lion who Shot Back, And it was an appropriately
Speaker 1: twisted tale about this marshmallow loving lion who becomes a
Speaker 1: famous marksman and as kind of an identity crisis as
Speaker 1: a result of all this, saying, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: the kind of the standard children's stuff about life crisis
Speaker 1: is and things like that. Sure, so look, Kadya is
Speaker 1: one of Shell's lesser known works. But it doesn't predate
Speaker 1: The Giving Tree by all that much, right, Like, I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure it came out just like a year later
Speaker 1: or something. Well, you're you're half right about that. So
Speaker 1: silver Team did write The Giving Tree a year after
Speaker 1: his first book, along with a third title that's called
Speaker 1: A Giraffe and a Half. But you know what, while
Speaker 1: the story of This Generous Apple Tree would eventually become
Speaker 1: his most popular book, at the time it was written,
Speaker 1: actually no publisher would touch it. It was a full
Speaker 1: year until somebody finally came around, and this was HarperCollins.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're familiar with the book, you can
Speaker 1: kind of see why this was. You know, it's not
Speaker 1: a very happy story, and in fact, it's downright sad
Speaker 1: in some places. And if you're looking for a moral
Speaker 1: to the story, it's pretty ambiguous at best. I would say, no,
Speaker 1: that's true. And and when you think about it, that's
Speaker 1: totally aligned with Shells m o. Right, like as this
Speaker 1: new kind of children's author, like he ever wanted to
Speaker 1: talk down to child readers or sugarcoat the world for them,
Speaker 1: and instead he was kind of trying to bridge the
Speaker 1: gap between adult and children's writing. Well that's a good point,
Speaker 1: and you know, from the publisher's perspective, though, the story
Speaker 1: was sort of stranded somewhere in the middle of that bridge.
Speaker 1: You know, for example, it was kind of interesting to
Speaker 1: just to see how different editors reacted to it. So
Speaker 1: there was one from Simon and Schuster who rejected the book,
Speaker 1: and he said, it's not a kid's book. It's too sad,
Speaker 1: and it isn't for adults either, it's too simple. And
Speaker 1: you know this other editor that just kind of went
Speaker 1: straight to the chase here in his response, and he
Speaker 1: said that Tree is sick neurotic. Well, I mean, plenty
Speaker 1: of people would probably agree with that take, but we'll
Speaker 1: save the controversy for later. For now, I do think
Speaker 1: it's worth mentioning that Shell definitely got the last laugh.
Speaker 1: You know. Uh, if you fast forward to today, the
Speaker 1: Giving Tree has actually become one of the all time
Speaker 1: children's classics. And not only is it sold nearly ten
Speaker 1: million copies, it's also been translated into no fewer than
Speaker 1: thirty different languages. Thirty different languages. I mean, not too
Speaker 1: shabby for this sick neurotic Apple Tree, Really not at all.
Speaker 1: And I do want to spend some time on the
Speaker 1: psychology behind Shell's writing and how that relates to the
Speaker 1: controversy we touched on. But I also think we'd be
Speaker 1: doing our listeners a real disservice if we didn't talk
Speaker 1: at least a little bit about Silverstein's bizarre stint as
Speaker 1: a songwriter. Alright, one with you on that, So let's
Speaker 1: do that. But before we get to it, let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break. You're listening to Part Time Genius and
Speaker 1: we're talking about the strange life and times of Shell's Silverstein,
Speaker 1: And if you ask me, one of the strangest times
Speaker 1: in his life by far, was this period between nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty nine in the mid nineteen seventies when he actually
Speaker 1: enjoyed a pretty successful music career. I mean, particularly as
Speaker 1: a songwriter. And I don't I don't think most people
Speaker 1: know this. Yeah, I'd have to agree. I mean, it
Speaker 1: makes sense that his knack for poetry would translate a songwriting,
Speaker 1: but it's still amazing just how well he pulled off
Speaker 1: that transition. I mean, as a singer, he didn't have
Speaker 1: much success. His voice was, I guess too raspy and
Speaker 1: jarring for most people's ears, even though he actually does
Speaker 1: have a dozen albums. But when he committed to songwriting,
Speaker 1: things really took off for him, and by the end
Speaker 1: of his life he'd written more than eight hundred songs.
Speaker 1: You know, many of these were recorded and performed by
Speaker 1: some pretty famous artists. Like Willie Jennings, Willie Nelson, Jerry Lewis,
Speaker 1: even Johnny Cash. That's a pretty incredible lineup. And actually
Speaker 1: he even won a Grammy for the song he wrote
Speaker 1: for Johnny Cash, which was a boy named who. You've
Speaker 1: heard this song right now? Yeah, of course, but I
Speaker 1: didn't know Shell Silverstein wrote it until recently. Like, it
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense in hindsight, right, Like, it's such a
Speaker 1: deeply silly song and it still has a sense of
Speaker 1: danger to it, so it really fits right into Shell's repertoire. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's true for anybody who might not have heard it before.
Speaker 1: The song is about a boy who was named Sue
Speaker 1: by his absentee father, and he gets picked on all
Speaker 1: his life for having a girl's name, so much so
Speaker 1: that one day Sue tracks down his dad and threatens
Speaker 1: to kill him. And at that point, that's when the
Speaker 1: dad reveals that he only named his son Sue because
Speaker 1: he wanted to make him tough, I guess, by forcing
Speaker 1: him to stand up for himself, you know, whenever somebody
Speaker 1: made fun of him. Anyway, Sue gets on board with
Speaker 1: this explanation and all is forgiven between he and his dad,
Speaker 1: you know. But the thing that most people don't know
Speaker 1: is that Silverstein actually wrote a sequel to the song
Speaker 1: as well. It was called Father of a Boy Named Sue.
Speaker 1: But you will not find this song on a Johnny
Speaker 1: Cash album. I mean, the darkness of this song it
Speaker 1: actually kind of eclipses the silliness and the other one.
Speaker 1: So Silverstein wound up singing it himself, which which probably
Speaker 1: explains why so few people actually know about So I'm
Speaker 1: actually a little afraid to ask me. You can't just
Speaker 1: leave us hanging like that. So what makes it so
Speaker 1: much darker? Well, first of all, the sequel is told
Speaker 1: from the dad's point of view, and it's basically him
Speaker 1: setting the record straight on what happened in the first song. So,
Speaker 1: for example, he reveals that he actually named his son Sue,
Speaker 1: not to toughen him up, but his revenge for all
Speaker 1: those times the boys screamed and cried and all these
Speaker 1: fits is a baby, which you know, of course, seems
Speaker 1: perfectly fair, right yeah, it feels like a totally appropriate
Speaker 1: response to like a baby acting like a baby, right right, Well,
Speaker 1: it gets decidedly inappropriate from there, So I'm not going
Speaker 1: to go into details. You can track down the song
Speaker 1: for yourself if you dare to do so. But let's
Speaker 1: just say the character's relationship goes from unhealthy to something
Speaker 1: much much worse. Oh no, I mean you can kind
Speaker 1: of see why Johnny Cash might have taken a pass
Speaker 1: on that, right, Oh yeah, for sure. And I mean
Speaker 1: it really is sort of a weird thing to think
Speaker 1: about something that dark coming from the mind of a
Speaker 1: celebrated children's author. But honestly, I mean that kind of
Speaker 1: black humor pops up a lot on the poems he
Speaker 1: wrote for kids. I was just looking at some examples
Speaker 1: of this, and you know, one of the best is
Speaker 1: probably the poem called Dreadful. And this comes from where
Speaker 1: the sidewalk ins. And it's pretty short, so I'll just
Speaker 1: read it real quick. Here it goes, someone ain't the
Speaker 1: baby baby? What a frightful thing to eat? Someone ate
Speaker 1: the baby though she wasn't very sweet, It was a
Speaker 1: heartless thing to do. The policeman haven't got a clue.
Speaker 1: I simply can't imagine who would go and burp eat
Speaker 1: the baby. I mean, I do understand why some parents
Speaker 1: might not approve that one. You know, most of us
Speaker 1: tend to frown on baby eating, after all, but on
Speaker 1: the other hand, like the poem is clever, it's funny,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty harmless on and all. And you know, I,
Speaker 1: I know people have accused Silverstein's poetry of being a
Speaker 1: bad influence, but like, does anyone really think their kids
Speaker 1: gonna go cannibal after hearing them? I mean, I know
Speaker 1: what you mean, but it did get me wondering, like
Speaker 1: what it is about Silverstein's poetry that kids find so
Speaker 1: inherently appealing, you know, despite how dark it can get sometimes.
Speaker 1: And what I found is that it partly comes down
Speaker 1: to how kids respond to poetry in general. All kinds
Speaker 1: of psychological studies have shown that connection between music and
Speaker 1: an infant's development of their language, and according to this
Speaker 1: article from Frontiers and Psychology, quote the further removed a
Speaker 1: feature of languages from music the later it is learned.
Speaker 1: So the idea that kids respond so well the poetry
Speaker 1: because it's the most musical of the language based arts,
Speaker 1: it just just kind of makes sense. That's really fascinating,
Speaker 1: because you know, if it's the musicality they're responding to,
Speaker 1: then a lot of the appeal is probably in the
Speaker 1: sounds that are voices make, rather than the words themselves.
Speaker 1: And I guess that makes sense, given how like children's
Speaker 1: poetry usually plays up these acoustical aspects like rhythm or rhyme.
Speaker 1: It's certainly more than most adult poetry does, I guess. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I think most children's poets have to know that
Speaker 1: their work will be read aloud, so it makes sense
Speaker 1: that they try to craft these highly musical verses, since
Speaker 1: you know, those are the most fun, both both to
Speaker 1: hear and to to listen to. Yeah, and obviously shel
Speaker 1: Silverstein did just that. But you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's just the musicality of his writing that's endeared him
Speaker 1: to so many generations of young readers, like silliness and cleverness.
Speaker 1: Obviously that has a lot to do with it. But
Speaker 1: if you ask me, the thing that really wins kids
Speaker 1: over are those hints of menace and sadness that underlines
Speaker 1: so much of his work. Like Where the Sidewalk Ins
Speaker 1: is such a melancholy poem, and even as a concept,
Speaker 1: it sounds sort of foreboding. Yeah, and is that what
Speaker 1: you think kids like about it? I mean, I know
Speaker 1: kids get a kick out of scaring themselves, just like
Speaker 1: adults too, you know, And of course, as long as
Speaker 1: it's the right amount of scare and they don't feel
Speaker 1: like they're in danger or anything. But but why would
Speaker 1: something sad or upsetting be that appealing to them? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's what you're saying about the right amount, right, Like,
Speaker 1: I think kids will kind of appreciate and react to
Speaker 1: the honesty of something like that, Like maybe even if
Speaker 1: it's just on a subconscious level, they recognize that even
Speaker 1: though the author is writing for them, he isn't really
Speaker 1: treating them like kids. And actually, to go along with that,
Speaker 1: there's this great quote I want to read from The
Speaker 1: Daily Beast, and it's this article I found it. It's
Speaker 1: about why the less than sunny worlds of some children's
Speaker 1: books resonate so deeply with kids. So it says, uh,
Speaker 1: small and effectively powerless against the whims of adults contested bedtimes. Notwithstanding,
Speaker 1: children are buffeted by the currents of a large world,
Speaker 1: they often do not understand A book without fear is
Speaker 1: an unbelievable book, sounding a dull note that soon fades.
Speaker 1: I mean, that does make a lot of sense, And
Speaker 1: you think about other authors like Maury Sindac or Rold Doll,
Speaker 1: even Dr Seuss. I mean, they were all kind of
Speaker 1: keyed into that idea, you know, that not having to
Speaker 1: pretend the world is this completely safe and happy all
Speaker 1: the time place when when they were writing for kids.
Speaker 1: And actually even that Tony Unger that we talked about earlier,
Speaker 1: the one who helped convince Silverstein to try his hand
Speaker 1: at kids writing, he was famous in France for his
Speaker 1: own unsettling children's fiction. You know, I'm actually glad you
Speaker 1: brought him up again because Hunger was also a big
Speaker 1: inspiration behind Maury sindex work, and he doesn't get nearly
Speaker 1: as much credit as he should. Also, speaking of Sindac,
Speaker 1: did did you know that he and Silverstein shared the
Speaker 1: same long time time editor. That yeah, that that woman
Speaker 1: Ursula Nordstrom you mentioned She worked with both of them
Speaker 1: for decades, which makes sense because you know, apparently her
Speaker 1: self stated mission was to publish quote, good books for
Speaker 1: bad children. Oh I love that. Well, you know, given that,
Speaker 1: now seems like a good time to talk about the
Speaker 1: controversy Silverstein's writing is kicked up over the years, as
Speaker 1: as well as his legacy in general. That sounds great,
Speaker 1: But but first I do want to read another quick
Speaker 1: poem from sidewalk, because it really goes a long way
Speaker 1: towards explaining how Silverstein approach writing for children. It's called
Speaker 1: the Land of Happy, and it goes quote, have you
Speaker 1: been to the land of Happy? Where everyone's happy all day?
Speaker 1: Where they joke and they sing the happiest things, and
Speaker 1: everyone's jolly and gay. There's no one unhappy and happy.
Speaker 1: There's laughter and smiles galore. I have been to the
Speaker 1: land of Happy? What a bore? Well, I can't argue
Speaker 1: with that. All right, well, we do want to talk
Speaker 1: about that controversy. But before we get to that, let's
Speaker 1: take one more quick break. Okay, mango, So let's get
Speaker 1: to the controversial and talk about why a growing number
Speaker 1: of parents are banning Shells Silverstein from their children's bookshelves.
Speaker 1: I mean, honestly, is it still just the idea that
Speaker 1: his books promote bad behavior or is there more to
Speaker 1: it than this? Well, I I do think that's part
Speaker 1: of it. I think some parents still have this old
Speaker 1: school approach to children's lit where they they expected to
Speaker 1: be completely edifying or you know, not really have those
Speaker 1: sharp edges. And of course they're going to have this
Speaker 1: negative reaction to an author who has no bones about
Speaker 1: presenting these grown up ideas or all these problems in
Speaker 1: ways that are I guess approachable to kids. And then
Speaker 1: there are the folks who take offense to specific poems
Speaker 1: from a light in the attic or where the sidewalk ends,
Speaker 1: like you know that baby eating one you read earlier.
Speaker 1: But for the most part, people's biggest beef with silver
Speaker 1: scene is usually the message or even the potential lack
Speaker 1: of one in the giving tree. All right, Well, on
Speaker 1: the off chance that there's somebody listening that isn't familiar
Speaker 1: with this story, I feel like we should give a
Speaker 1: quick rundown of what happened. So it's basically the story
Speaker 1: of a little boy who grows up with this sentient
Speaker 1: tree for a companion, and at different stages in the
Speaker 1: boy's life, the tree gives him whatever he needs to
Speaker 1: have this safer, easier life. You know that. That's leaves
Speaker 1: or branches or apples, pretty much all the things a
Speaker 1: tree could realistically provide to someone. And the whole time,
Speaker 1: the tree is personified as sort of a weary, kind
Speaker 1: of like a put upon woman. And I say woman
Speaker 1: because it's referred to with female pronouns, and she's constantly
Speaker 1: nurturing him, with little concern for her own happiness or
Speaker 1: well being. She keeps giving, the boy keeps taking, and
Speaker 1: you know, his lot improves as a result of all
Speaker 1: these interactions, but the trees really doesn't. So in the
Speaker 1: end there's nothing left of the giving tree but this stump.
Speaker 1: And you know, even then, it's offered up to the boy,
Speaker 1: who's now an old man at this point, as a
Speaker 1: place to sit and rest. Yeah. I mean, it's obviously
Speaker 1: a feel good story all around. I mean that description
Speaker 1: alone probably says a lot about why some people are
Speaker 1: so put off by this book. And at a glance,
Speaker 1: you might think it's a simple story of unconditional love,
Speaker 1: which could easily make the tree in allegory for lots
Speaker 1: of things. It could be like friendship for marriage, parenthood, god,
Speaker 1: you know whatever. But then you remember that like love
Speaker 1: is meant to go both ways, you know, ideally, it's
Speaker 1: never supposed to be one party, always taking into other,
Speaker 1: always giving. I mean, even for parents, where so much
Speaker 1: of your time and energy are devoted to your kids,
Speaker 1: it's not like we get nothing in return for all
Speaker 1: that effort. Yeah. I was actually reading this cracked article
Speaker 1: that claimed the story's message was one of two things.
Speaker 1: So the first one they said that it might be
Speaker 1: is your parents exist only to serve you and then die,
Speaker 1: So that's the first And then or or if the
Speaker 1: tree doesn't symbolize the parent, then the message amounts to
Speaker 1: eventually something will come along that bleeds you dry. And
Speaker 1: that's just how it is. And of course neither of
Speaker 1: those are very good messages for children or for adults
Speaker 1: for that matter. No, definitely not. And and give it
Speaker 1: all that, it's easy to see why people might worry
Speaker 1: that the book more or less glorifies an abusive relationship.
Speaker 1: But I think the mistake is to assume that Silverstein
Speaker 1: overlooked that reading, or that he might have intended as
Speaker 1: a way to mislead kids into either accepting or I guess,
Speaker 1: inflicting that kind of one sided relationship. So I mean,
Speaker 1: and thinking about do you think Silverstein intended the story
Speaker 1: to be upsetting on some level, like kind of a
Speaker 1: cautionary tale or something. Yeah, I mean, I think it's
Speaker 1: highly possible. But whatever the case, I don't think he
Speaker 1: meant it as this straightforward story about selflessness or that
Speaker 1: we're meant to approve of the boy's actions, or feel
Speaker 1: happy that the tree is reduced to a stump by
Speaker 1: the end of the book. I mean, people have always
Speaker 1: grasped that there's something off about this story. I mean,
Speaker 1: just think about that publisher whose first reaction was that
Speaker 1: the tree was not behaving in a healthy way or heck,
Speaker 1: I and look at Bart Simpson. You know how there's
Speaker 1: that running gag on the show where he has to
Speaker 1: write something repeatedly on the chalkboard is like punishment of course. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean in one episode he writes, the giving tree
Speaker 1: is not a chump. So even someone as disinterested as
Speaker 1: you know, Bart Simpson is in reading knew something weird
Speaker 1: was going on there. Yeah. Well, you know, it's funny
Speaker 1: because we've mostly been talking about parents reactions to the book,
Speaker 1: and in a lot of cases there are people who
Speaker 1: have returned to the book after reading it as kids themselves,
Speaker 1: and suddenly they're finding it maybe wasn't this clear cut
Speaker 1: story of sacrifice that they remember from childhood. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: I read this article on the Huffington Post about a
Speaker 1: woman who reread the story as a parent, and it
Speaker 1: just launched her into this existential crisis, and she was
Speaker 1: asking you know, am I the tree? Am I the boy?
Speaker 1: I don't know, And she's just panicked about this. But
Speaker 1: you know, here's the thing I found remarkable. You know
Speaker 1: that that while the book left this mother with a
Speaker 1: million heavy questions about herself and the way of the
Speaker 1: world and responsibility to one another and all these different things,
Speaker 1: her children seemed to grasp the stories lessons just instinctually.
Speaker 1: So as she writes about it, she says, they knew
Speaker 1: it was wrong to keep asking without offering in return.
Speaker 1: They thought the boy was selfish, they thought he was careless.
Speaker 1: They were heartbroken over lost things, the trees, sad remains.
Speaker 1: Maybe they cried for the impossible, far off promise that
Speaker 1: endings were inevitable, that in the end, all were reduced
Speaker 1: to or judged by are the people we love and
Speaker 1: the people who loved us. Now I don't get it,
Speaker 1: But even though they can't put it into words, my
Speaker 1: children do. Hm. I mean, that's really beautiful. And it
Speaker 1: does say so much about the innocence of kids that
Speaker 1: a story that seems so morally ambiguous to adults like
Speaker 1: would just make perfect sense to them. Oh. Absolutely. And
Speaker 1: I think it's also important that these kids not only
Speaker 1: recognized that the story has this sad ending, but you know,
Speaker 1: they accepted that and still enjoyed the story regardless. Like
Speaker 1: that's just just a nice piece of validation for Silverstein.
Speaker 1: And he actually went on record with The New York
Speaker 1: Times about how much he disliked happy endings in these
Speaker 1: children's stories. He told the reporter that happy endings, quote,
Speaker 1: create an alienation. The child asked, why don't have this
Speaker 1: happiness thing you're telling me about and comes to think
Speaker 1: when his joy stops that he has failed, that it
Speaker 1: won't come back. Yeah, I mean, I guess it goes
Speaker 1: back to that revolutionary idea of his about being honest
Speaker 1: with children. I mean, of course, our gut reaction is
Speaker 1: to try and spare our kids the pain of sad
Speaker 1: unhappy endings whenever possible, But in practice that just leaves
Speaker 1: them with this incomplete view of the world, which is
Speaker 1: way worse than a few tears in the long run. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that that sounds right to me. But you know,
Speaker 1: let's give Shell himself the last word on the matter.
Speaker 1: So his family released the posthumous collection of some of
Speaker 1: his unpublished poems back in two thousand eleven, and here's
Speaker 1: one poem in particular that really says it all. It's
Speaker 1: called happy Ending, and it goes, there are no happy endings.
Speaker 1: Endings are the saddest part. So give me a happy
Speaker 1: middle and a very happy start. I love that. But
Speaker 1: what do you say we put Chelse Silverstine's theory to
Speaker 1: the test and try to close the show with the
Speaker 1: happiest fact off we can muster? All right, I'm getting
Speaker 1: for that. I mean, it might not be a happy ending,
Speaker 1: but but it has worked for us so far. So
Speaker 1: one of his most famous poetry collections, and one of
Speaker 1: my favorites of his work, A Lad in the Attic,
Speaker 1: was actually one of the hundred most challenged materials in
Speaker 1: the nineties according to the American Library Association. And it's
Speaker 1: funny because some critics felt that in the book he
Speaker 1: quote glorified Satan suicide, cannibalism, and also encouraged children to
Speaker 1: be disobedient. Man, he really accomplished a lot in one.
Speaker 1: You know. I think it's interesting that one of his
Speaker 1: cartoons has supposed have been used in the psychological tests,
Speaker 1: you know, to test how optimistic someone is. That's cartoon.
Speaker 1: You may have seen it before, but it's the cover
Speaker 1: of a collection of his comments that he created over
Speaker 1: the years, and these were mostly for Playboy. Now, in
Speaker 1: the comic, you see two prisoners shackle to the wall,
Speaker 1: and they're not doing well, and it doesn't look like
Speaker 1: there's any hope of them getting out. And there's this
Speaker 1: incredibly high ceiling where you see the only window to
Speaker 1: the outside world, but even that is heavily barred. But
Speaker 1: the only words you see are from one prisoner looking
Speaker 1: at the other end, saying, now here's my plan. So
Speaker 1: I mean. The book was actually called that now Here's
Speaker 1: my Plan, a book of futilities. And when Silverstein was
Speaker 1: asked about how so many people have used the cartoon
Speaker 1: to interpret different things, he said, you do something, you
Speaker 1: make it simple, and everybody else starts loading it up
Speaker 1: with deep meanings, which is okay by me if they
Speaker 1: want to do that. Everybody loves Roor Scheck tests well.
Speaker 1: Shell did not love to be pinned down. He never
Speaker 1: owned a are and and for many years one of
Speaker 1: the main homes he lived in was a house boat,
Speaker 1: and speaking in an interview with Publishers Weekly, he said, quote,
Speaker 1: I'm free to leave go wherever I please, do whatever
Speaker 1: I want. I believe everyone should live like that. Don't
Speaker 1: be dependent on anyone else, man, woman, child or dog.
Speaker 1: I want to go everywhere, look at and listen to everything.
Speaker 1: You can go crazy with some of the wonderful stuff
Speaker 1: there is in life. All right. Well, Shell never read
Speaker 1: reviews about his books or any of his other works,
Speaker 1: And here's what he had to say about that quote.
Speaker 1: I think if you're a creative person, you should just
Speaker 1: go about your business, do your work, and not care
Speaker 1: how it's received. I never read reviews because if you
Speaker 1: believe the good ones, you have to believe the bad
Speaker 1: ones too. Not that I don't care about success. I do,
Speaker 1: but only because it lets me do what I want.
Speaker 1: So I think it's fun that over the years we've
Speaker 1: used a Shell Silverstein poem to describe our philosophy on
Speaker 1: making fun things like whether that was metal floss or
Speaker 1: board games or books or whatever. And it's a poem
Speaker 1: called put something in it goes, Draw a crazy picture,
Speaker 1: write a nutty poem, sing a mumble gumble song, whistle
Speaker 1: through your comb, do a loony, goony dance, cross the
Speaker 1: kitchen floor. Put something silly in the world that ain't
Speaker 1: been there before. You beat me to it Mango. I
Speaker 1: was actually going to share that poem, so I've got
Speaker 1: to give you today's fact Off trophy because that's one
Speaker 1: of my favorites of his. Oh, thank you so much. Well,
Speaker 1: And I do want to say today's show and and
Speaker 1: My Farm particular was recorded at Mouth Media Network Studio
Speaker 1: in New York City, which is powered by Sennheiser. You
Speaker 1: can learn more about Mouth Media at Mouth Media Network
Speaker 1: dot com. So, listeners, I'm sure we've forgotten some great
Speaker 1: facts about shel Silverstein and we would love to hear
Speaker 1: those from. You can always email us part Time Genius
Speaker 1: at how stuff Works dot com or call us on
Speaker 1: our seven fact hot line that's one eight six pt Genius,
Speaker 1: or you can hit us up on Facebook or Twitter.
Speaker 1: But thanks so much for listening. Yeah, thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1: Part Time Genius is a production of How Stuff Works
Speaker 1: and wouldn't be possible without several brilliant people who do
Speaker 1: the important things we couldn't even begin to understand. Tristan
Speaker 1: McNeil does the editing thing. Noel Brown made the theme
Speaker 1: song and does the MIXI mixy sound thing. Jerry Rowland
Speaker 1: does the exact producer thing. Gabe Bluesier is our lead researcher,
Speaker 1: with support from the Research Army including Austin Thompson, Nolan
Speaker 1: Brown and Lucas Adams and Eve Jeff Cook gets the
Speaker 1: show to your ears. Good job, Eves. If you like
Speaker 1: what you heard, we hope you'll subscribe, And if you
Speaker 1: really really like what you've heard, maybe you could leave
Speaker 1: a good review for us. Do we do we forget Jason?
Speaker 1: Jason who