Scan barcode
sherming's review against another edition
3.0
Political vehicle using the Pigeon and the Bus. The bus driver (Uncle Sam) tells us not to let the Republican (vulture) drive the bus. Like the Pigeon, the vulture gives all sorts of illogical reasons and has a meltdown when he can't drive the bus. Most of the work is anti-Republican, highlighting the Southern Strategy and other anti-populist works the party engages in, but it's definitely not pro-Democrat either as evidenced by the boneless chicken that shows up toward the end of the book.
It's a fairly clever work with a bigger message than can really be put into a Pigeon framework. To get around this the author has a double page spread of much smaller text at the end that explains the problems with our current political circumstances.
It's a fairly clever work with a bigger message than can really be put into a Pigeon framework. To get around this the author has a double page spread of much smaller text at the end that explains the problems with our current political circumstances.
lauralynnwalsh's review against another edition
4.0
I have never been a fan of the book this is based off of - I don't hate it, but it didn't appeal to me as much as it did many other readers of the book. This book is a direct take-off on that book and thus, some of the humor, though funny, didn't hit my "hilarious" meter. I am a "flaming liberal", so the political slant of the book was fine with me - and rings true. I doubt if it will convince many people, but it does bring some much needed comic relief.
beththebookdragon's review against another edition
3.0
Fun, but not scintillating, political humor. The illustrations add to the amusement factor. Not for Republicans unless they're really good at laughing at themselves.
starnosedmole's review against another edition
A fun parody of Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus, adding some levity to this election season.
imjustcupcake's review against another edition
1.0
So I read it. Thinking there would be some humor in it, seeing as it is a parody and I am not a republican. Really though... I thought it was rather distasteful and humorless. I got the message it was putting across, but I guess I just expected it to be done in a different fashion than it was.
jonh's review
1.0
An absolutely abysmal read.
I'm not usually a fan of political satire. I like a few things: The Daily Show, the stand-up comedy of Lewis Black and David Cross, just to name a few. But most satires that identify as being overtly political lack, in my opinion, a certain finesse. The humor is oftentimes predicated on jokes and observations that have been made a million times before and, in recent times, the critical focus has become more simplistic and split along party lines.
Reading older political cartoons is a pleasant experience for me, because amidst the pointed jabs at particular politicians there was an on-going crusade against corruption of any kind, from any person and from any party. That, to me, is one of the two key components for political satire: the ability to go after any subject, regardless of affiliation, if they are deserving of such scrutiny.
The second key component, and the more important of the two in my opinion, is that a politically satirical work should be funny and effective on its own merit, regardless of the subject. I don't agree with his politics, but I believe Stan Freberg was one of the most successful satirists in this regard. His radio programs had a conservative viewpoint and, admittedly, don't always age well because of some unsavory racial caricatures. But for whatever problematic elements Freberg's work contains, I feel it should be recognized as being distinct and memorable. His "magnum opus", Stan Freberg's The United States of America (Parts 1 and 2), is a toe-tapping romp through the history of our country. It makes sly jokes at the expense of JFK and other contemporary political figures, but on it's own, it's fun and (to some) funny.
I feel it necessary to mention all of this because I acknowledge that my view on political satire is not the only way. Sometimes, the most simplistic and overly-used joke is most effective at skewering a political idea. And it's cathartic, too. Political nuance aside, sometimes there's nothing more satisfying than calling the president dumb.
So yes, for some, Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus will be a Good Read. It's effective in its evisceration of the Republican party (or at least what the Republican party has become), taking it to task for its racism, its evangelism and its general lack of concern for the "Common Good". And its authors are open-minded enough to take a few jabs at the Democrats, too, portraying them as a plucked chicken, weak and ineffective at stopping the Republican's destructive tendencies.
Its message is clear and earnest, I'll give it that. I just didn't find it entertaining at all.
Part of this is my bias towards the Pigeon series. I love the Pigeon series by Mo Willems, as some of you might already know, and so when presented with a political parody of his work, I hoped for the best. I hoped for something that was pointed, maybe a little partisan, but ultimately a loving homage to the original book.
Instead, this book is mean. Mean and cynical. And it destroys whatever charm it had in recreating the style of Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus.
The Pigeon (in the original) is a sympathetic character. I think it is, at least. It wants to drive the bus: we can't let it drive the bus for obvious reasons, but we're not condemning the pigeon for wanting to drive. It may be a little annoying in its endless pleas and bargains, but at the end of the book, we still consider the Pigeon a friend. Enough of one, at least, to watch out for him in other adventures. That, I think, is one of the most endearing parts of the original series. We tell the Pigeon "No!" but that doesn't stop us from being friends.
By contrast, the Republican in Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! (depicted as a vulture, because OBVIOUSLY) is a foul creature with the worst of intentions for driving the political bus. Its transparent in its racist/sexist agenda and ends up destroying the bus without so much as a care. The Republican is not a character, because political satires do not often contain well-drawn characters. It is a figure, a representation for an ideology. And this, I believe, limits the reader's number of possible responses to it.
I'm having a tough time reviewing this because I'm trying to critique it as a story and not as a political story, because your personal politics will, inevitably, largely affect your response to Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! Chances are good that a Democrat would be more inclined to pick up this book than a Republican, as it's the Democrat's opposition that's being skewered. And the brief jabs at the Democratic chicken are paltry (or maybe poultry) at best, and not sharp enough to cause any major offense.
This raises for me the question then, of who or what this book is ultimately for? It skewers the GOP, but it seems obvious to me that the views expressed by the Republican are not reflective of the party as a whole: if anything it's a reflection of the batshit insanity of the GOP leadership. But then what does this gross oversimplification of the actual political landscape serve? Will this book change anybody's opinion on the issues? Or is this for people who already believe in the message the book is trying to impart, and it's more of a reassertion of those values? Where do these books end up? Do they have re-readable value? Do they just lie on Liberal coffee tables for the rest of eternity?
That is what I find most frustrating about Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! and political satire in general. Most of it doesn't challenge political views so much as it reenforces them. Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! follows in the same tradition as other political "children's books", filtering complex political discourse through the simple language and colors of picture books. And if there was a real sense of engagement with that form I think I'd be more hip to it. I'd appreciate a satire that uses the nuances of children's lit to comment on the political landscape. But most of these things only scratch the surface, taking easy potshots at the opposition. They're larks and nothing more.
At the end, when the Republican in Don't Let The Republican Drive the Bus! hangs his head and says "the more people who vote, the less likely I'll win", I lost it. That transparency, of dissolving even the basic facsimile of character the Republican vulture had, felt infuriating to me. It tells me the Pigeon parody doesn't matter. These authors don't care. The message is more important. So why even make a parody at all?
Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus was ABYSMAL for me to read. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not usually a fan of political satire. I like a few things: The Daily Show, the stand-up comedy of Lewis Black and David Cross, just to name a few. But most satires that identify as being overtly political lack, in my opinion, a certain finesse. The humor is oftentimes predicated on jokes and observations that have been made a million times before and, in recent times, the critical focus has become more simplistic and split along party lines.
Reading older political cartoons is a pleasant experience for me, because amidst the pointed jabs at particular politicians there was an on-going crusade against corruption of any kind, from any person and from any party. That, to me, is one of the two key components for political satire: the ability to go after any subject, regardless of affiliation, if they are deserving of such scrutiny.
The second key component, and the more important of the two in my opinion, is that a politically satirical work should be funny and effective on its own merit, regardless of the subject. I don't agree with his politics, but I believe Stan Freberg was one of the most successful satirists in this regard. His radio programs had a conservative viewpoint and, admittedly, don't always age well because of some unsavory racial caricatures. But for whatever problematic elements Freberg's work contains, I feel it should be recognized as being distinct and memorable. His "magnum opus", Stan Freberg's The United States of America (Parts 1 and 2), is a toe-tapping romp through the history of our country. It makes sly jokes at the expense of JFK and other contemporary political figures, but on it's own, it's fun and (to some) funny.
I feel it necessary to mention all of this because I acknowledge that my view on political satire is not the only way. Sometimes, the most simplistic and overly-used joke is most effective at skewering a political idea. And it's cathartic, too. Political nuance aside, sometimes there's nothing more satisfying than calling the president dumb.
So yes, for some, Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus will be a Good Read. It's effective in its evisceration of the Republican party (or at least what the Republican party has become), taking it to task for its racism, its evangelism and its general lack of concern for the "Common Good". And its authors are open-minded enough to take a few jabs at the Democrats, too, portraying them as a plucked chicken, weak and ineffective at stopping the Republican's destructive tendencies.
Its message is clear and earnest, I'll give it that. I just didn't find it entertaining at all.
Part of this is my bias towards the Pigeon series. I love the Pigeon series by Mo Willems, as some of you might already know, and so when presented with a political parody of his work, I hoped for the best. I hoped for something that was pointed, maybe a little partisan, but ultimately a loving homage to the original book.
Instead, this book is mean. Mean and cynical. And it destroys whatever charm it had in recreating the style of Don't Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus.
The Pigeon (in the original) is a sympathetic character. I think it is, at least. It wants to drive the bus: we can't let it drive the bus for obvious reasons, but we're not condemning the pigeon for wanting to drive. It may be a little annoying in its endless pleas and bargains, but at the end of the book, we still consider the Pigeon a friend. Enough of one, at least, to watch out for him in other adventures. That, I think, is one of the most endearing parts of the original series. We tell the Pigeon "No!" but that doesn't stop us from being friends.
By contrast, the Republican in Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! (depicted as a vulture, because OBVIOUSLY) is a foul creature with the worst of intentions for driving the political bus. Its transparent in its racist/sexist agenda and ends up destroying the bus without so much as a care. The Republican is not a character, because political satires do not often contain well-drawn characters. It is a figure, a representation for an ideology. And this, I believe, limits the reader's number of possible responses to it.
I'm having a tough time reviewing this because I'm trying to critique it as a story and not as a political story, because your personal politics will, inevitably, largely affect your response to Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! Chances are good that a Democrat would be more inclined to pick up this book than a Republican, as it's the Democrat's opposition that's being skewered. And the brief jabs at the Democratic chicken are paltry (or maybe poultry) at best, and not sharp enough to cause any major offense.
This raises for me the question then, of who or what this book is ultimately for? It skewers the GOP, but it seems obvious to me that the views expressed by the Republican are not reflective of the party as a whole: if anything it's a reflection of the batshit insanity of the GOP leadership. But then what does this gross oversimplification of the actual political landscape serve? Will this book change anybody's opinion on the issues? Or is this for people who already believe in the message the book is trying to impart, and it's more of a reassertion of those values? Where do these books end up? Do they have re-readable value? Do they just lie on Liberal coffee tables for the rest of eternity?
That is what I find most frustrating about Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! and political satire in general. Most of it doesn't challenge political views so much as it reenforces them. Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus! follows in the same tradition as other political "children's books", filtering complex political discourse through the simple language and colors of picture books. And if there was a real sense of engagement with that form I think I'd be more hip to it. I'd appreciate a satire that uses the nuances of children's lit to comment on the political landscape. But most of these things only scratch the surface, taking easy potshots at the opposition. They're larks and nothing more.
At the end, when the Republican in Don't Let The Republican Drive the Bus! hangs his head and says "the more people who vote, the less likely I'll win", I lost it. That transparency, of dissolving even the basic facsimile of character the Republican vulture had, felt infuriating to me. It tells me the Pigeon parody doesn't matter. These authors don't care. The message is more important. So why even make a parody at all?
Don't Let the Republican Drive the Bus was ABYSMAL for me to read. Your mileage may vary.
More...