The Lorax

Dr. Seuss

Summary:

In the Lorax Once-Lers are moving to the home of the Loraxes. There he sees truffle trees and decides to make clothes with the leaves. Old man Once-Ler calls his family and they call friends until all the trees are gone and all the sky's are gray from the smoke. The Lorax tries to stop them but they simply move him away from that spot. In the end there are no more trees or animals left in that area.

Implication 1:

My first implication is that I think that Dr. Seuss was talking about environmentalism and how humans were destroying nature. I think the Lorax was added because very few people were trying to stop environmentalism like the Lorax was the only one trying to stop the the Once-Lers from cutting down the trees. The Lorax wanted them to stop but the Once-Ler kept inviting more and more people until finally where all the trees were there was now manufacturing companies.

Textual Evidence:

"Then we heard the tree fall.The very last Truffula Tree of them all! No more trees. No more Thneeds."

Implication 2:

My second implication is that Dr. Seuss is talking about how our factories are destroying nature and animals homes with pollution. In the story all the skies turn gray and all the animals have to move away because of the smog. Like now our Ozone layer is being destroyed by the smog that factories set off when they produce something. In the story the Lorax talks about how the Once-Lers were destroying all of the nature and how he had to move all the animals away because the smog was suffocating the animals.

Textual Evidence:

"Once-ler! You're making such smogulous smoke! My poor Swomee-Swans... why, they can't sing a note! No one can sing who has smog in his throat."

Comment Stream

View Older Posts
2 years ago
0

I agree with both of the implications. I like how you referred to the problem with the ozone layer.

2 years ago
0

I can really relate to your implication about environmentalism in science class when we learned about acid rain and trying to leave a smaller carbon footprint on the world.

2 years ago
0

I agree with your 1st implication. I like how you said there are not a lot of people trying to stop environmentalism. It's true! I agree with your 2nd implication also. Pollution is very bad!

2 years ago
0

The implication about the pollution really puts in a perspective about whats happening in society. Dr. Suess wanted to make a change about pollution and he may have wanted it to stop altogether. In the way he wrote it, it helps other people know about it too and have the same opinion on pollution as him.

2 years ago
0

I liked your second implication about the factories producing smoke and killing our ozone layer because it is true and something people need to be aware of. I think that factories should find a way to produce without so much smoke, or cars that don't spew exhaust gas from their pipes.
I also liked your first implication about environmentalism because humans do destroy nature. They destroy nature for new mansions, or country clubs and it's wrong. Today they deforest forests and are setting up "solar farms". They're just rows and rows of silver sticks in the ground, and when they start to rust, who's going to pay for their removal?

2 years ago
0

I agree with your implications. I think that Dr. Suess wrote this book to show us that if we keep harming the Earth we may run out of recourses. I think that Dr. Suess was telling us too take care of the Earth.

2 years ago
0

I agree with both implications and how they apply with pollution.

2 years ago
0

I agree with you 2nd implication its just like saying there is too much pollution from the way we treat the earth and the air. I also agree with the quote you put its like a message he is trying to tell us. He said no one can sing with smog in his throat, just like no one can talk with smog in there throat so we need to watch the pollution we put in the air

2 years ago
0

I agree with both of your implications especially the one about how factories are destroying nature and animal's habitats. It's true what you say that having factories pollutes the air and ruing and destroys nature and the animal's home. I like your first implications about how there is not many people who stand up for environmentalism.

2 years ago
0

I like how you put textual evidence, I will have to remember to do that. I also liked how you put an inference I had never thought, which is the quantity of humans fighting against pollution and the quantity of humans are supporting it and that the quantity of people wanting to help the natural environment has decreased because everyone wants there benefit and not the natural environment.