Why Are Kids So Attracted to Shel Silverstein's Poetry?

of the other kids can use them. Amen. I love it. So I've spent countless hours over the years reading Silverstein with both of my kids, and I'll never forget probably I don't know, maybe like seven or eight years ago, reading this poem with my daughter and just seeing her get this little smirk on her face when I read it to her, and it was as though she was thinking, Okay, I know that's wrong, but I also get it and

it's pretty darn funny. Yeah. I think most kids can identify with that feeling in some way, Like there's something about Shell Silverstein's writing that allows us to be a little dark or maybe a little naughty, But also really

silly at the same time. That's exactly it. So you know what we we thought it was time to dedicate an episode to one of our favorite children's authors to talk about his fascinating and successful career well before he was ever pushed into writing for kids, to hear what he thought kids wanted to hear, and also how he felt about happy endings. So let's dive ina. Hey there, podcast listeners, Welcome to part time genius sim Will Pearson, And as always, I'm joined by my good friend Manges Ticketer.

Of course, Mango is joining me today from the always friendly Mouth Media Studios in New York City. And Mango, you're missing this, but on the other side of the soundproof glass building a sailboat with the wood from his childhood apple tree. And I'm actually I'm kind of getting choked up as I say this. That's our friend and producer Tristan McNeil. And you know, I'm not sure what far off place he plans on going with that, but it must be a pretty important trip because I know

how much Tristan loved his old family apple. Excuse me, I'm just I'm just getting choked up again. So I'm wondering about this because I asked him a little earlier, and it sounds like he just plans to tool around the coast on the weekends, you know, like assuming he ever gets this boat finished. Oh well, that that that kind of took a dark turn from what I thought it might be. But you know what, that that actually might be appropriate for today's episode because Shell Silverstein was

certainly not your average Sachran sweet children's author. Now, most people know him for his tongue twisting rhymes he penned for childhood classics like Where the Sidewalk Ins and A Light in the Attic, but they were also long and varied parts of his career where most people they don't really know what he was up to, including some fairly unsavory stints as a playwright and a raunchy songwriter and

a cartoonist for Playboy of all places. So with these different sides of the artists in mine, I thought we should check out some of the lesser known stories from Silverstein's life and you know, try to get a sense of how he became one of the most beloved and even most controversial writers of the twentieth century. Yeah, so, once he became famous as a children's author, details of his earlier life and his other work kind of faded

from public consciousness. And another big reason why those stories aren't so well known is that Shell Silverstein was also a pretty private guy. Like he rarely gave interviews. He never wrote a memoir or sat down with a biographer or anything like that. And as a result, we really don't know much about Shell's childhood, which is kind of ironic given what he's known for. I mean, we know the basics, right, like, we know he was born in nineteen thirty to middle class Jewish family in Chicago, but

things actually get kind of hazy beyond that. Well, there's at least one other thing we know for sure about the young Shell Silverstein, and that is that he was positively obsessed with the Chicago White Sox. In fact, in a rare nineteen interview with Publishers Weekly, Silverstein said, when I was a kid twelve to fourteen around there, I would much rather have been a good baseball player or a hit with the girls. But I couldn't play ball,

I couldn't dance. Luckily the girls didn't want me. Not much I could do about that, so I started to draw and write well. I mean, you've got to appreciate his honesty, right, Like, not very many authors would admit that a career writing was their plans c. I mean,

obviously after playing baseball and being a professional casanova. I guess. Well, while Silverstein was a little too unathletic to turn pro at either of those things, he did have one early gig in professional sports, or at least in the same ballpark. And that's because he actually spent five years selling beer and hot dogs at the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox stadiums. And not only did that gig help pay us way through school, it actually also gave him some

valuable life lessons. So, just as one example of this, when a reporter asked him what he learned about people from his time time as a hot dog vendor, Silverstein replied, I learned they like mustard and that they like a hot bond. Did you know that if you steam the bond first, they'll really like it? I mean, that's the sort of wisdom you can't vibe. But speaking of Shell's schooling,

he actually had a pretty tough go of things. So first, he attended the University of Illinois, but was quickly kicked out due to his bad grades. And then he tried the Art Institute of Chicago, where he wound up dropping out after about a year. And lastly he went to Roosevelt University, which is also in Chicago. I guess he studied English for a full three years there. And this last attempt at college life at Roosevelt was probably the most crucial for Shell because it was actually where he

first started writing and cartooning for the school paper. And of course, his flair for flaunting authority and you know, all those established norms was even there in his earliest work. So we found the first cartoon he ever published, and it shows this naked student smoking a cigarette in front of this angry professor, and the caption just reads, what do you mean no smoking? I thought this was a

liberal school. I do kind of like that. There's that hint of his absurd ast slant, you know, right there, from the very beginning. But I'm curious though. It sounds like Silverstein finally found a decent fit or a home there at Roosevelt. So did he eventually get his degree there? No, he never did. Actually, Uh, it wasn't his fault this time, like before, Shell had the chance to finish he was

drafted into the Korean War. This was in a I think in nineteen three, and of course Shell being Shell, you know, there's no guarantee he would have finished college anyway. He implied at one point that you probably wouldn't have. But his time in the army actually proved just as formative. It gave him the chance to earn his first art based paycheck. And this is while working as a cartoonist for the Stars and Strips military newspaper. Actually, you know

what I remember reading about this. What wasn't he like court martialed or something for his work on that paper? Yeah? Almost so. Apparently one of the cartoons he did for the paper implied that officers were clothing their families with a bunch of like stolen uniforms, and of course the higher ups didn't find it very funny. And in the end Shell actually just narrowly avoided the court martial. He didn't by agreeing that the future strips would only lampoon

civilians and animals and not as fellow soldiers. And that makes sense because you know, if you think about if anybody needs to be taken down a peg, it's animals. I don't know how you feel about this, but I do feel the same way, right, So all right, So so now we're getting to the point where Silverstein's career really begins to take shape. So he was discharged in ninetive. He goes back to Chicago and he starts working as a freelance cartoonist and and it actually goes pretty well

for a while. So he lands a few gigs at places like Sports Illustrated and Look magazine. But from this he doesn't really get a whole lot of acclaim for these jobs, and you know, none of its steady work. But then in nineteen fifty seven, Silverstein catches his big break and he becomes the resident cartoonist for Playboy. Now the magazine had premiered just a couple of years before, so you know, Silverstein was really able to get in

on the ground floor. But it actually wasn't some sort of short lived stint on his way to, you know, like later fame as a children's author. In fact, Silverstein's cartoons appeared in every single issue of Playboy from nineteen fifty seven all the way through the mid seventies. So we're talking almost a couple of decades. That's crazy. So I knew he worked at Playboy, and I just assumed, you know, like he's from Chicago. Playboy got his start

in Chicago, so so that makes sense. But I had no idea that his adults only phase in his career actually overlapped with his children's face. I mean, the Giving Treaty was published in the sixties, so it's wild to think he was still a Playboy employee during this time. Yeah.

And actually there's even more overlapped than that, because in nineteen sixty one, the adult magazine published its first ever children's work, and I say that in Quotations, which was called Uncle Shelby's a b Z Book, and soon after it appeared in Playboy. Silverstein actually published this separately as his first book. So something tells me this wasn't really

a kid's book right now. It definitely wasn't. I mean, the tagline claimed it was quote a primer for young minds, but you wouldn't get too far into it before realizing it was anything but that. So the idea is that, you know, it was one of these children's Learned the Alphabet books where every page gives you a letter and then an ad collustration and like this little mnemonic device to help kids learn the letters and how they're used.

But that really wasn't the goal in Uncle Shelby's case, and instead the book to use associations that targeted the insecurities and gullibility of children and kind of tried to spur them into all kinds of mischief. So just just to give a couple examples of this, you know, one entry encouraged kids to hurl eggs at the ceiling in order to feed the magic genie Ernie who lives there,

I guess. And another one advised kids to pretend to drink lie if they were ever craving candy, because you know, after the doctor pumps their stomach, he'll give you a nice red lollipop. But anyway, but one of my favorites is probably the entry for the letter B, and it includes the lines see the baby play play baby, play pretty pretty baby. Mommy loves the baby more than she

loves you. I mean, it's obviously horrible, and you know this is clearly satire, and and the book wasn't meant for kids in the slightest, but you just have to know that some clueless parents bought this book for their kids at some point, right, Oh, absolutely, And in fact, those misunderstandings happen often enough that from onward. The print edition of the book actually includes a stamp right on the front cover and what it says is a primer

for adults only. I love that, Like, instead of taking it out in circulation, they just put a stamp on it. But what's interesting to me is that, you know what a tongue in cheek book like this says about Shell's view of children's literature. I mean, it's no secret that he hated the way most children's authors condescended to their audience.

Like he sometimes spoke about the way that the scarier elements and classic fairy tales are toned down to make the stories I guess like fluffier and more kid friendly. And he actually saw this as a form of censorship, which is a viewpoint that seems to have informed this a b C book. Well, if you think about it, I mean, what better way to push against the status quote of children's books than to just write your own

and do what you want with it. But you know, according to Silverstein, it was actually a friend and fellow illustrator named Tomy Unger who helped him do just that. And by helped, I really mean forced, because, as Silverstein later said that his friend quote practically dragged me kicking and screaming and to editor Ursula Nordstrom's office, and Nordstrom convinced me that Tomy was right. I could do children's books.

And so for his first book, Silverstein made kind of a bold move and stuck to the Uncle Shelby persona he had created for Playboy. It's just so strange what he did, but he called it Uncle Shelby's story of Lofcadio, the Lion who Shot Back, And it was an appropriately twisted tale about this marshmallow loving lion who becomes a famous marksman and as kind of an identity crisis as a result of all this, saying, you know, you know, the kind of the standard children's stuff about life crisis

is and things like that. Sure, so look, Kadya is one of Shell's lesser known works. But it doesn't predate The Giving Tree by all that much, right, Like, I'm pretty sure it came out just like a year later or something. Well, you're you're half right about that. So silver Team did write The Giving Tree a year after his first book, along with a third title that's called

A Giraffe and a Half. But you know what, while the story of This Generous Apple Tree would eventually become his most popular book, at the time it was written, actually no publisher would touch it. It was a full year until somebody finally came around, and this was HarperCollins. I mean, if you're familiar with the book, you can kind of see why this was. You know, it's not a very happy story, and in fact, it's downright sad in some places. And if you're looking for a moral

to the story, it's pretty ambiguous at best. I would say, no, that's true. And and when you think about it, that's totally aligned with Shells m o. Right, like as this new kind of children's author, like he ever wanted to talk down to child readers or sugarcoat the world for them, and instead he was kind of trying to bridge the

gap between adult and children's writing. Well that's a good point, and you know, from the publisher's perspective, though, the story was sort of stranded somewhere in the middle of that bridge. You know, for example, it was kind of interesting to just to see how different editors reacted to it. So there was one from Simon and Schuster who rejected the book, and he said, it's not a kid's book. It's too sad,

and it isn't for adults either, it's too simple. And you know this other editor that just kind of went straight to the chase here in his response, and he said that Tree is sick neurotic. Well, I mean, plenty of people would probably agree with that take, but we'll save the controversy for later. For now, I do think it's worth mentioning that Shell definitely got the last laugh. You know. Uh, if you fast forward to today, the Giving Tree has actually become one of the all time

children's classics. And not only is it sold nearly ten million copies, it's also been translated into no fewer than thirty different languages. Thirty different languages. I mean, not too shabby for this sick neurotic Apple Tree, Really not at all. And I do want to spend some time on the psychology behind Shell's writing and how that relates to the

controversy we touched on. But I also think we'd be doing our listeners a real disservice if we didn't talk at least a little bit about Silverstein's bizarre stint as a songwriter. Alright, one with you on that, So let's do that. But before we get to it, let's take

a quick break. You're listening to Part Time Genius and we're talking about the strange life and times of Shell's Silverstein, And if you ask me, one of the strangest times in his life by far, was this period between nineteen fifty nine in the mid nineteen seventies when he actually enjoyed a pretty successful music career. I mean, particularly as a songwriter. And I don't I don't think most people

know this. Yeah, I'd have to agree. I mean, it makes sense that his knack for poetry would translate a songwriting, but it's still amazing just how well he pulled off that transition. I mean, as a singer, he didn't have much success. His voice was, I guess too raspy and jarring for most people's ears, even though he actually does have a dozen albums. But when he committed to songwriting, things really took off for him, and by the end of his life he'd written more than eight hundred songs.

You know, many of these were recorded and performed by some pretty famous artists. Like Willie Jennings, Willie Nelson, Jerry Lewis, even Johnny Cash. That's a pretty incredible lineup. And actually he even won a Grammy for the song he wrote for Johnny Cash, which was a boy named who. You've heard this song right now? Yeah, of course, but I

didn't know Shell Silverstein wrote it until recently. Like, it makes perfect sense in hindsight, right, Like, it's such a deeply silly song and it still has a sense of danger to it, so it really fits right into Shell's repertoire. Yeah, it's true for anybody who might not have heard it before. The song is about a boy who was named Sue by his absentee father, and he gets picked on all his life for having a girl's name, so much so that one day Sue tracks down his dad and threatens

to kill him. And at that point, that's when the dad reveals that he only named his son Sue because he wanted to make him tough, I guess, by forcing him to stand up for himself, you know, whenever somebody made fun of him. Anyway, Sue gets on board with this explanation and all is forgiven between he and his dad, you know. But the thing that most people don't know is that Silverstein actually wrote a sequel to the song as well. It was called Father of a Boy Named Sue.

But you will not find this song on a Johnny Cash album. I mean, the darkness of this song it actually kind of eclipses the silliness and the other one. So Silverstein wound up singing it himself, which which probably explains why so few people actually know about So I'm actually a little afraid to ask me. You can't just leave us hanging like that. So what makes it so much darker? Well, first of all, the sequel is told from the dad's point of view, and it's basically him

setting the record straight on what happened in the first song. So, for example, he reveals that he actually named his son Sue, not to toughen him up, but his revenge for all those times the boys screamed and cried and all these fits is a baby, which you know, of course, seems perfectly fair, right yeah, it feels like a totally appropriate response to like a baby acting like a baby, right right, Well, it gets decidedly inappropriate from there, So I'm not going

to go into details. You can track down the song for yourself if you dare to do so. But let's just say the character's relationship goes from unhealthy to something much much worse. Oh no, I mean you can kind of see why Johnny Cash might have taken a pass on that, right, Oh yeah, for sure. And I mean it really is sort of a weird thing to think about something that dark coming from the mind of a

celebrated children's author. But honestly, I mean that kind of black humor pops up a lot on the poems he wrote for kids. I was just looking at some examples of this, and you know, one of the best is probably the poem called Dreadful. And this comes from where the sidewalk ins. And it's pretty short, so I'll just read it real quick. Here it goes, someone ain't the baby baby? What a frightful thing to eat? Someone ate the baby though she wasn't very sweet, It was a

heartless thing to do. The policeman haven't got a clue. I simply can't imagine who would go and burp eat the baby. I mean, I do understand why some parents might not approve that one. You know, most of us tend to frown on baby eating, after all, but on the other hand, like the poem is clever, it's funny, it seems pretty harmless on and all. And you know, I, I know people have accused Silverstein's poetry of being a bad influence, but like, does anyone really think their kids

gonna go cannibal after hearing them? I mean, I know what you mean, but it did get me wondering, like what it is about Silverstein's poetry that kids find so inherently appealing, you know, despite how dark it can get sometimes. And what I found is that it partly comes down

to how kids respond to poetry in general. All kinds of psychological studies have shown that connection between music and an infant's development of their language, and according to this article from Frontiers and Psychology, quote the further removed a feature of languages from music the later it is learned. So the idea that kids respond so well the poetry because it's the most musical of the language based arts,

it just just kind of makes sense. That's really fascinating, because you know, if it's the musicality they're responding to, then a lot of the appeal is probably in the sounds that are voices make, rather than the words themselves. And I guess that makes sense, given how like children's poetry usually plays up these acoustical aspects like rhythm or rhyme. It's certainly more than most adult poetry does, I guess. Yeah.

And I think most children's poets have to know that their work will be read aloud, so it makes sense that they try to craft these highly musical verses, since you know, those are the most fun, both both to hear and to to listen to. Yeah, and obviously shel Silverstein did just that. But you know, I don't think it's just the musicality of his writing that's endeared him to so many generations of young readers, like silliness and cleverness.

Obviously that has a lot to do with it. But if you ask me, the thing that really wins kids over are those hints of menace and sadness that underlines so much of his work. Like Where the Sidewalk Ins is such a melancholy poem, and even as a concept, it sounds sort of foreboding. Yeah, and is that what you think kids like about it? I mean, I know kids get a kick out of scaring themselves, just like adults too, you know, And of course, as long as it's the right amount of scare and they don't feel

like they're in danger or anything. But but why would something sad or upsetting be that appealing to them? I mean, it's what you're saying about the right amount, right, Like, I think kids will kind of appreciate and react to the honesty of something like that, Like maybe even if it's just on a subconscious level, they recognize that even though the author is writing for them, he isn't really

treating them like kids. And actually, to go along with that, there's this great quote I want to read from The Daily Beast, and it's this article I found it. It's about why the less than sunny worlds of some children's books resonate so deeply with kids. So it says, uh,

small and effectively powerless against the whims of adults contested bedtimes. Notwithstanding, children are buffeted by the currents of a large world, they often do not understand A book without fear is an unbelievable book, sounding a dull note that soon fades. I mean, that does make a lot of sense, And you think about other authors like Maury Sindac or Rold Doll,

even Dr Seuss. I mean, they were all kind of keyed into that idea, you know, that not having to pretend the world is this completely safe and happy all the time place when when they were writing for kids. And actually even that Tony Unger that we talked about earlier, the one who helped convince Silverstein to try his hand at kids writing, he was famous in France for his

own unsettling children's fiction. You know, I'm actually glad you brought him up again because Hunger was also a big inspiration behind Maury sindex work, and he doesn't get nearly as much credit as he should. Also, speaking of Sindac, did did you know that he and Silverstein shared the

same long time time editor. That yeah, that that woman Ursula Nordstrom you mentioned She worked with both of them for decades, which makes sense because you know, apparently her self stated mission was to publish quote, good books for bad children. Oh I love that. Well, you know, given that, now seems like a good time to talk about the controversy Silverstein's writing is kicked up over the years, as

as well as his legacy in general. That sounds great, But but first I do want to read another quick poem from sidewalk, because it really goes a long way towards explaining how Silverstein approach writing for children. It's called the Land of Happy, and it goes quote, have you been to the land of Happy? Where everyone's happy all day? Where they joke and they sing the happiest things, and everyone's jolly and gay. There's no one unhappy and happy.

There's laughter and smiles galore. I have been to the land of Happy? What a bore? Well, I can't argue with that. All right, well, we do want to talk about that controversy. But before we get to that, let's take one more quick break. Okay, mango, So let's get to the controversial and talk about why a growing number of parents are banning Shells Silverstein from their children's bookshelves. I mean, honestly, is it still just the idea that his books promote bad behavior or is there more to

it than this? Well, I I do think that's part of it. I think some parents still have this old school approach to children's lit where they they expected to be completely edifying or you know, not really have those sharp edges. And of course they're going to have this negative reaction to an author who has no bones about presenting these grown up ideas or all these problems in

ways that are I guess approachable to kids. And then there are the folks who take offense to specific poems from a light in the attic or where the sidewalk ends, like you know that baby eating one you read earlier. But for the most part, people's biggest beef with silver scene is usually the message or even the potential lack of one in the giving tree. All right, Well, on the off chance that there's somebody listening that isn't familiar with this story, I feel like we should give a

quick rundown of what happened. So it's basically the story of a little boy who grows up with this sentient tree for a companion, and at different stages in the boy's life, the tree gives him whatever he needs to have this safer, easier life. You know that. That's leaves or branches or apples, pretty much all the things a tree could realistically provide to someone. And the whole time, the tree is personified as sort of a weary, kind

of like a put upon woman. And I say woman because it's referred to with female pronouns, and she's constantly nurturing him, with little concern for her own happiness or well being. She keeps giving, the boy keeps taking, and you know, his lot improves as a result of all these interactions, but the trees really doesn't. So in the end there's nothing left of the giving tree but this stump. And you know, even then, it's offered up to the boy, who's now an old man at this point, as a

place to sit and rest. Yeah. I mean, it's obviously a feel good story all around. I mean that description alone probably says a lot about why some people are so put off by this book. And at a glance, you might think it's a simple story of unconditional love, which could easily make the tree in allegory for lots of things. It could be like friendship for marriage, parenthood, god,

you know whatever. But then you remember that like love is meant to go both ways, you know, ideally, it's never supposed to be one party, always taking into other, always giving. I mean, even for parents, where so much of your time and energy are devoted to your kids, it's not like we get nothing in return for all that effort. Yeah. I was actually reading this cracked article that claimed the story's message was one of two things.

So the first one they said that it might be is your parents exist only to serve you and then die, So that's the first And then or or if the tree doesn't symbolize the parent, then the message amounts to eventually something will come along that bleeds you dry. And that's just how it is. And of course neither of those are very good messages for children or for adults

for that matter. No, definitely not. And and give it all that, it's easy to see why people might worry that the book more or less glorifies an abusive relationship. But I think the mistake is to assume that Silverstein overlooked that reading, or that he might have intended as a way to mislead kids into either accepting or I guess,

inflicting that kind of one sided relationship. So I mean, and thinking about do you think Silverstein intended the story to be upsetting on some level, like kind of a cautionary tale or something. Yeah, I mean, I think it's highly possible. But whatever the case, I don't think he meant it as this straightforward story about selflessness or that we're meant to approve of the boy's actions, or feel happy that the tree is reduced to a stump by the end of the book. I mean, people have always

grasped that there's something off about this story. I mean, just think about that publisher whose first reaction was that the tree was not behaving in a healthy way or heck, I and look at Bart Simpson. You know how there's that running gag on the show where he has to write something repeatedly on the chalkboard is like punishment of course. Yeah, yeah, I mean in one episode he writes, the giving tree

is not a chump. So even someone as disinterested as you know, Bart Simpson is in reading knew something weird was going on there. Yeah. Well, you know, it's funny because we've mostly been talking about parents reactions to the book, and in a lot of cases there are people who have returned to the book after reading it as kids themselves, and suddenly they're finding it maybe wasn't this clear cut

story of sacrifice that they remember from childhood. So, for instance, I read this article on the Huffington Post about a woman who reread the story as a parent, and it just launched her into this existential crisis, and she was asking you know, am I the tree? Am I the boy? I don't know, And she's just panicked about this. But

you know, here's the thing I found remarkable. You know that that while the book left this mother with a million heavy questions about herself and the way of the world and responsibility to one another and all these different things, her children seemed to grasp the stories lessons just instinctually. So as she writes about it, she says, they knew it was wrong to keep asking without offering in return. They thought the boy was selfish, they thought he was careless.

They were heartbroken over lost things, the trees, sad remains. Maybe they cried for the impossible, far off promise that endings were inevitable, that in the end, all were reduced to or judged by are the people we love and the people who loved us. Now I don't get it, But even though they can't put it into words, my children do. Hm. I mean, that's really beautiful. And it does say so much about the innocence of kids that a story that seems so morally ambiguous to adults like

would just make perfect sense to them. Oh. Absolutely. And I think it's also important that these kids not only recognized that the story has this sad ending, but you know, they accepted that and still enjoyed the story regardless. Like that's just just a nice piece of validation for Silverstein. And he actually went on record with The New York Times about how much he disliked happy endings in these children's stories. He told the reporter that happy endings, quote,

create an alienation. The child asked, why don't have this happiness thing you're telling me about and comes to think when his joy stops that he has failed, that it won't come back. Yeah, I mean, I guess it goes back to that revolutionary idea of his about being honest with children. I mean, of course, our gut reaction is to try and spare our kids the pain of sad unhappy endings whenever possible, But in practice that just leaves them with this incomplete view of the world, which is

way worse than a few tears in the long run. Yeah, I mean that that sounds right to me. But you know, let's give Shell himself the last word on the matter. So his family released the posthumous collection of some of his unpublished poems back in two thousand eleven, and here's one poem in particular that really says it all. It's called happy Ending, and it goes, there are no happy endings. Endings are the saddest part. So give me a happy

middle and a very happy start. I love that. But what do you say we put Chelse Silverstine's theory to the test and try to close the show with the happiest fact off we can muster? All right, I'm getting for that. I mean, it might not be a happy ending, but but it has worked for us so far. So one of his most famous poetry collections, and one of my favorites of his work, A Lad in the Attic, was actually one of the hundred most challenged materials in

the nineties according to the American Library Association. And it's funny because some critics felt that in the book he quote glorified Satan suicide, cannibalism, and also encouraged children to be disobedient. Man, he really accomplished a lot in one. You know. I think it's interesting that one of his cartoons has supposed have been used in the psychological tests, you know, to test how optimistic someone is. That's cartoon.

You may have seen it before, but it's the cover of a collection of his comments that he created over the years, and these were mostly for Playboy. Now, in the comic, you see two prisoners shackle to the wall, and they're not doing well, and it doesn't look like there's any hope of them getting out. And there's this incredibly high ceiling where you see the only window to the outside world, but even that is heavily barred. But the only words you see are from one prisoner looking

at the other end, saying, now here's my plan. So I mean. The book was actually called that now Here's my Plan, a book of futilities. And when Silverstein was asked about how so many people have used the cartoon to interpret different things, he said, you do something, you make it simple, and everybody else starts loading it up with deep meanings, which is okay by me if they want to do that. Everybody loves Roor Scheck tests well.

Shell did not love to be pinned down. He never owned a are and and for many years one of the main homes he lived in was a house boat, and speaking in an interview with Publishers Weekly, he said, quote, I'm free to leave go wherever I please, do whatever I want. I believe everyone should live like that. Don't be dependent on anyone else, man, woman, child or dog. I want to go everywhere, look at and listen to everything. You can go crazy with some of the wonderful stuff

there is in life. All right. Well, Shell never read reviews about his books or any of his other works, And here's what he had to say about that quote. I think if you're a creative person, you should just go about your business, do your work, and not care how it's received. I never read reviews because if you believe the good ones, you have to believe the bad ones too. Not that I don't care about success. I do, but only because it lets me do what I want.

So I think it's fun that over the years we've used a Shell Silverstein poem to describe our philosophy on making fun things like whether that was metal floss or board games or books or whatever. And it's a poem called put something in it goes, Draw a crazy picture, write a nutty poem, sing a mumble gumble song, whistle through your comb, do a loony, goony dance, cross the kitchen floor. Put something silly in the world that ain't

been there before. You beat me to it Mango. I was actually going to share that poem, so I've got to give you today's fact Off trophy because that's one of my favorites of his. Oh, thank you so much. Well, And I do want to say today's show and and My Farm particular was recorded at Mouth Media Network Studio in New York City, which is powered by Sennheiser. You can learn more about Mouth Media at Mouth Media Network

dot com. So, listeners, I'm sure we've forgotten some great facts about shel Silverstein and we would love to hear those from. You can always email us part Time Genius at how stuff Works dot com or call us on our seven fact hot line that's one eight six pt Genius, or you can hit us up on Facebook or Twitter. But thanks so much for listening. Yeah, thanks again for listening. Part Time Genius is a production of How Stuff Works and wouldn't be possible without several brilliant people who do

the important things we couldn't even begin to understand. Tristan McNeil does the editing thing. Noel Brown made the theme song and does the MIXI mixy sound thing. Jerry Rowland does the exact producer thing. Gabe Bluesier is our lead researcher, with support from the Research Army including Austin Thompson, Nolan Brown and Lucas Adams and Eve Jeff Cook gets the

show to your ears. Good job, Eves. If you like what you heard, we hope you'll subscribe, And if you really really like what you've heard, maybe you could leave a good review for us. Do we do we forget Jason? Jason who