Walden University
Abstract
The Three Little Pigs is a well-known short story with many interpretations, from capitalism to the struggle between good and evil, to the way in which a broken childhood can cause a person to grow up with anti-social behaviours. No one interpretation is conclusively correct. Moreover, it is likely that any of them could be applied to the ambiguous story, and that each reader should be free to make their own decision.
The Three Little Pigs is a short story that has been retold countless times since it was originally written. There are many interpretations of the text, some more convincing than others. However, as with most art forms, perhaps the story is deliberately ambiguous so that each reader can choose to interpret the story in whichever way they like.
The Story of The Three Little Pigs
A mother pig has three sons and, as she cannot afford to feed them all, she sends them out into the world to make their own fortunes. As the three pigs are walking, they meet a man with a load of straw. The first pig asks the man if he can have the straw to build a house; the man agrees and the pig builds his house of straw.
Meanwhile a big bad wolf comes by and says to the pig in the straw house and demands to be let inside. The pig refuses and so the wolf uses all of his breath to blow the house of straw down to the ground. He then eats the little pig.
The two remaining pigs had carried on with their journey and, after meeting a man with a load of twigs, the second pig builds his house from them. As with the first pig, the big bad wolf calls on the second pig and demands to be let inside. Again, the pig refuses and so the wolf blows down the house of twigs and eats the second little pig.
The third little pig had met a man with bricks and had asked for the bricks to make his house. The wolf comes calling once again. When the pig denies him entry, the wolf tries to blow the house down. However, as it is made of steadfast bricks, the wolf cannot blow it down. Instead, he climbs up onto the roof and jumps down the chimney, in order to reach the pig. However, the clever little pig had prepared a large bowl of water boiling on the fire and, when the wolf comes down the chimney, he falls into the boiling water. The pig then eats the wolf.
Interpretations of the Story
There have been many interpretations put forward of The Three Little Pigs over the years. Gomez (1999), for example, has described the story as a social comment on capitalism. According to him, the capitalist wolf preys on the weak pigs until the third little pig outsmarts him: “While his two brothers are naive, slothful proletariats, the third brother's actions suggest the best instincts of the workers' vanguard: wise, hard-laboring, serious, and ready for action” (Gomez, 1999).
In contrast with Gomez’s capitalist theory, Amdur (1998) contends that the story reflects the result a disadvantaged childhood can have on a person for their entire adult lives. He suggests that like Hitler or Hussein, the big bad wolf just needed therapy to work through the pain of his childhood and, if this had been done, he may not have turned into the psychopath that he did (Amdur, 1998). Amdur’s theory is that the wolf was thrown out of the pack at a young age and, from this point onwards, he lost trust in others and in the world. He then comments on his killing spree: “Each kill leaves him less satisfied, but unable to articulate his inner needs, he continues to kill and maim, seeking comfort in the terror he causes, for no one challenges his weakness; the weakness not of his physical strength, but his inner self” (Amdur, 1998).
Unlike Gomez and Amdur, who believe that the story is representative of issues in society, Fazio and Ek (2000) argue that it is demonstrating the inherent struggle between good and evil and, more specifically, God and Satan. They suggest: “The righteous third pig, with brains and God at his side, outfoxes the evil one, and in a death match, ends up cooking and consuming the wolf, ridding the world once and for all of Satan” (Fazio and Ek, 2000).
Critical Analysis
The capitalist connection put forward by Gomez is certainly a plausible interpretation of the story. The hard working, intelligent pig was able to defeat the capitalist force of the wolf whereas his naive brothers were not. However, if it were a true slur on capitalism, even the third pig would have been affected in some way. As the story stands, the pig outwitted the fox and got a big meal out of the conflict, whereas capitalism actually affects everyone to some extent, regardless of their intelligence level.
Amdur’s theory about the wolf’s broken childhood is perhaps the most interesting. As he implies, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a disadvantaged background can cause mental illness and, indeed, can lead people to a life of crime. However, if the story were truly about this concept, I think readers would feel more sympathy towards the wolf than they generally do.
The interpretation of God vs. Satan, put forward by Fazio and Ek, is plausible, mainly because the theory could be applied to almost any story ever written. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the pigs were religious.
Conclusion
The Three Little Pigs is a timeless fairy tale with many different interpretations. It is impossible to conclude which is the most plausible overall but, like poetry, perhaps the story is best left to the reaction of each individual reader.
Amdur (1998).
Fazio and Ek (2000).
Gomez (1999).
Hokum, Goniff, and Crook (1997)
