Rating: WARTY!
While I've seen the Dolittle movies (both the Rex Harrison version, and the Eddie Murphy version) I've never read any of the books. You could argue that I still haven't since the one I review here is a Dalmatian Children's Classic (so-called), and as such is a condensed version (adapted by Kathryn R Knight) illustrated (by Nick Price) with many line drawings in which Dolittle is very much drawn in the mold of WC Fields!
As with many older books, there have been complaints of racism inherent in the book's pages, which I find rather disingenuous when applied retroactively. Yes, there are old books which are racist by today's standards, and the Dolittle books are among them. There are even old books (Mein Kampf comes to mind) which are racist by their own contemporary standards. I can't really speak to that since the version I read was an adaptation which has been washed clean of the original racism. I also find it interesting that Eddie Murphy agreed to act in this role given the book's history! Maybe they were aiming for some sort of redemption by making Dolittle black?
I have read various commentaries on this topic. It isn't a defense to say that this book isn't racist by its own contemporary standards. The original of this novel was racist by any standards. Is it a defense to say it isn't maliciously racist? By that i mean did it actively intend harm through the racism it contained? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it wasn't harmful. In this version, the racism has been bleached (yes, that is a reference to the original!), but I think as long as I'm mentioning this, it's only fare to also mention that Lofting wrote other books in this series condemning of slavery, and that even in this book, he depicts an African king who is pissed-off with white men because of their depredations of his nation's natural resources. To me, this goes a little way towards mitigating against charges of overt or active, or outright malicious racism. That does not make the book lily white, so to speak.
My biggest complaint about this particular version of the novel isn't about racism or the fact that the doctor speaks to the animals or they to him - it's children's fantasy after all! - but that the author doesn't have a clue about animals. Hugh Lofting was a soldier (he originated the idea for these stories in the trenches in France in World War One), not a veterinarian or a biologist, but even so, it would not have taken much effort, even in 1920, to look up a little bit about Africa to discover that it isn't home to Orang-utans. Nor would it have taken much more effort to discover that gorillas, orang-utans, and chimpanzees are apes, and not monkeys, and eagles are not commonly found out on the open ocean! It was that kind of thing which annoyed me more than anything else, so for me, the story was sadly lacking in a decent foundation.
Given the premise - a doctor discovers he has more affinity with animals than with humans, and can understand them and therefore treat them expertly - it seems to me that a golden opportunity was wasted here to teach children something about animals, biology and evolution. The novel may well be be moderately entertaining for very young children who question little, but for my money (and note that the book is available free online) it really wasn't a worthy read at all (I skipped a lot of the second half), not when there are more modern and better written novels with these themes - animals and adventure. Besides, this novel is out of copyright now, and neither Hugh Lofting (who died in 1947) nor his estate are going to get anything for it if you buy it! Whether oyu think he ever deserved anything for it is up to you! Maybe it's time for someone to rewrite this in an intelligent, educational, and non-racist way?
