In the first Curious George book, The Man in the Yellow Hat abducts
George from the jungle, and after several experiences that would have
PETA in an uproar, George ends up living in the zoo at the end of the
book.  But in all the other books I've seen, he's living with The Man
in the Yellow Hat.

Whassup wit dat?

Hi Hailstorm,

Well, you must have missed the second book in the series, "Curious
George Takes a Job" (1947).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395186498/

I actually have a copy of "Takes a Job" handy, and in that book,
George starts off in the zoo.

Here's how it goes down:

Curious George is in his cage at the zoo.  A zoo keeper is standing
next to the cage and lighting a pipe.  George seizes the opportunity
and swipes a key from the zoo keeper's pocket.  George release himself
and takes off.  The entire zoo staff then engages in a frantic search
for George (this page actually may be viewed using the "look inside"
on Amazon).  Alas, George is too clever for them and hides out with an
elephant until things calm down.  At daybreak, George exits the zoo
through the main entrance.  Hijinks ensue...

Later in the book, George jumps off a fire escape and breaks his leg. 
Of course, the story of George's broken leg makes the front page of
all the local newspapers.  The man with the yellow hat sees the story
plastered all over the newsstand and heads to the hospital.  The man
springs George from the hospital and lines him up with a movie gig...
And the rest is history.

-----------
strategy:
I own the book

I hope this helps.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by hailstorm-ga on 08 Jun 2004 05:28 PDT

But at the end of "Curious George", he's sitting in a tree on his own
private island, smiling happily with all his new animal friends.  Was
this worker's paradise misrepresented to George and the unsuspecting
young readers?

Do you know if H. A. Rey had any particular communist or
anti-communist leanings?  It seems like he's harkening to the
communist nations advertising themselves as the "Worker's
Paradise"...but he waits until a whole other, lesser known book to
show the brtual reality that is communal zoo life.  And in the end,
George goes back to the to the criminal who abducted him in the first
place...some kind of brainwashing going on here?

What exactly is this Rey guy trying to convey to our children???

---

Request for Answer Clarification by hailstorm-ga on 08 Jun 2004 05:31 PDT

Also, in "Curious George Feeds the Animals", a parrot escapes from the
new rain forest exhibit.  But when they catch the parrot, it is
forcibly placed back in the exhibit.  Why wasn't this parrot granted
political asylum as George was?

---

Clarification of Answer by juggler-ga on 08 Jun 2004 10:38 PDT

Hey Hailstorm,

Here's a bio of HA & Margret Rey...
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/features/cgsite/abouthaandmargretrey.shtml

No mention of any communist or anti-communist connections...

...but you raise some thought-provoking questions.

What are we to make of "Curious George Gets a Medal," wherein George
becomes a tool of the military-industrial complex's space program? 
;-)

The original question was answered adequately, but the followup was a
little flippant and dismissive of what I consider a legitimate issue
(that bowler-ga was kind enough to touch upon below...)

Other researchers may do well not to ridicule a customer's question in
a public forum in the future.

"Curious George or Communist" Essay:

"The Curiosity of Curious George Some people think that the curious
George book series was written for the enjoyment of young children
based around a curious little monkey and his adventures. But Curious
George is a book based around a very sensitive and highly mature
theme. Although the writing and direct subject matter may seem very
fluffy and juvenile, curious George has a much deeper meaning hidden
in between the lines. If a person were to look closely enough they
would see that these books are a direct representation of the
relationship between the capitalists and the communists. The curious
George series is based around a curious monkey named George. Much like
communism George?s intentions are good, but the world around him isn?t
ready for the way he does things. George is very curious and he gets
into a lot of mischief and then the man in the yellow hat has to step
in and straighten him out. If the people around George had kept there
things out of sight or at least made there things safer to use George
would not get himself into these situations that he couldn?t get
himself out of. The man in the yellow hat (capitalism) would not have
to straighten him out. This is much like what goes on in communist
countries..."

http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper.php?request=7862

My goodness, I had no idea that there was so much political theory
under the surface of these apparently simple children's books.

Now I am going to have to scrutinize "Winnie the Proletariat" and "The
Wind in the Wobblies" for secret Commie content...

Hey Pink,

There's a very funny book called "The Pooh Perplex" that has some
satirical "analyses" of the Pooh stories.  One of the essays,  "A
Bourgeois Writer's Proletarian Fable" is hilarious.  Some of it is
described here:

'The Pooh books are, of course, fine examples of "the bourgeois
capitalist elements in English Literature". As Tempralis points out,
"It is hardly fortuitous that all the chief actors are property owners
with no apparent necessity to work; that they are supplied as if by
miracle with endless supplies of honey, condensed milk, balloons,
popguns, and extract of malt;...". Clearly, Pooh is an arch sycophant
(Sir Pooh de Bear), Rabbit a "capitalist manager", and Owl a "pedantic
plutocrat, and they lord it over the workers (see the
'Piglet-as-miner' illustrations), and homeless, underprivileged Eyore
("the most bounced upon member of society").'
http://www.zeta.org.au/~annskea/POOH.htm

I always suspected that Piglet was a pinko. :-D

Hailstorm,

Regarding the matter of Researchers not ridiculing the customer's
question, my own remarks here were made on the (apparently mistaken)
assumption that your question had a certain offbeat, light-hearted
quality to it. After all, in one of your clarifications you have asked
why a parrot was not granted political asylum. If the question was in
deadly earnest, you did a good job of disguising its seriousness with
a veneer of whimsy.

Until now, I cannot recall ever having seen a serious question, about
which jokes ought not to be made, in which the customer signed off
with "Whassup wit dat?"

In conclusion, I cannot but ask...

Whassamatta you?

~Pink

In my role as a paying customer, is it not right to expect my queries
to be handled seriously, regardless of the perceived tone of the words
I use to express myself?

I was satisfied with the answer, a little less satisfied with what
followed, and I commented and rated as such.  What's wrong with that?

Hi, hailstorm,

I'm sure you're not wrong to expect your queries to be treated
seriously and respectfully.  But it sounded as if you rated juggler's
answer on the basis of your displeasure with comments made by others,
and if that's the case, I guess I would wonder about that.

I think a serious answer is no less serious even if there's some
levity in the delivery.  Just in my personal opinion (as a paying
customer who is not also a researcher), the light banter that often
follows in the comments section is part of what gives color and flavor
to the GA community.  To me it does not sound disrespectful of the
question or the questioner.  I guess I see it as conversational, and I
think a question that stimulates it is an especially successful one,
meaning that it caught the interest of a number of people.  I usually
learn a lot from the comments people post to mine.

In passing I might note that although H.A. and Margret Rey created the
CG character and wrote several books, the series has been continued by
other authors.  As a youngster my son had quite a collection of small
CG books, most of which were not written by the Reys.  The later books
were invariably well below standard and, to my eye, had the look of
work-for-hire contracted by the publishers.  Any generalizations about
the original authors should naturally be based only on the stories
they actually wrote.

Apteryx

this whole discusion puzzles me since it seems that hailstorm is also
a researcher...hmm...