
The Statistical Dominance of Dr. Seuss - ryan_j_naughton
http://priceonomics.com/the-statistical-dominance-of-dr-seuss/
======
wmeredith
I know it's not very scientific, and therefore I can understand the article
leaving it out, but a big reason for this dominance could be attributed to
consistency of _quality_.

I have a 5 year old daughter and an 8 month old son. We read at least 20
minutes a day with them and sometimes more. That adds up to a _lot_ of books
over 5 years, especially when you consider that some of these books only take
5-10 minutes to read.

The truth is most children's books are "bad" from an adult perspective (not
that the kids care). The art is amateurish, bland, or uninspired. The stories
are cliche and boring. I know it sounds silly to say such things about
children's literature...

Until you pick up some of the best work by Dr. Seuss. It's like comparing
Pixar to Saturday morning cartoons. Seuss' illustration is original and
engaging. The Wordplay is fantastic. The stories' morals are layered and
complex (Every entrepreneur and consumer on this board should read The Star
Belly Sneetches immediately, if it's been more than a handful of years) which
is crazy considering the simplicity of it all.

It's not all gold, Dr. Seuss' body of work is massive and naturally there are
hits and misses. But the hits are ingenious and work on multiple levels for
multiple audiences. And the misses aren't _bad_. It's like your straight-A
student bringing home a B.

He's not the only game in town, of course, for timeless and truly ageless
(ages 1-death) literature. Shel Silverstein gives him a real run for his money
(and has a wicked subversive streak that Seuss is lacking, if that's your
thing).

Anyway, as a parent the durability of Seuss' body of work is easy to
understand with the sociology and marketing analysis hijinks. The statistical
dominance is quite impressive, and is surely a result of these multipliers
acting on a product of unmatched quality.

~~~
lakeeffect
>dominance could be attributed to quality. The truth is that most children's
books are "bad"

I couldn't agree more. We get about ten to fifteen children's books a week
from the library and I'm utterly amazed that most have been published. The
ones that are part of a more common series are usually much better. The llama
llama mad at mama sort of books. Dr Suess definitely falls into this higher
quality bracket. Many times I have wondered if they spend more time writing
the about author section then they do the book. I see this as a market that
could use some serious improvement.

------
stkni
Without wishing to detract too much from the greatness of these books it feels
like they should be out of copyright.

But no, we can look forward to another 40 years of Random House rent-taking
and calendar - 'tie-in's before that happens. Sigh.

------
phaedryx
Oh, the jobs people work at! Out west near Hawtch-Hawtch there's a Hawtch-
Hawtcher bee watcher, his job is to watch. Is to keep both his eyes on the
lazy town bee, a bee that is watched will work harder you see. So he watched
and he watched, but in spite of his watch that bee didn't work any harder not
mawtch. So then somebody said "Our old bee-watching man just isn't bee
watching as hard as he can, he ought to be watched by another Hawtch-Hawtcher!
The thing that we need is a bee-watcher-watcher!". Well, the bee-watcher-
watcher watched the bee-watcher. He didn't watch well so another Hawtch-
Hawtcher had to come in as a watch-watcher-watcher! And now all the Hawtchers
who live in Hawtch-Hawtch are watching on watch watcher watchering watch,
watch watching the watcher who's watching that bee. You're not a Hawtch-
Watcher you're lucky you see! — Dr. Suess

I've seen this referenced more than once as a programmer.

------
gd1
How and why does J.K. Rowling count as 'children's books'?

