"Charlotte's Web" is a classic but its foundation is animal life threatened. Many coo about famous titles for sentiment sake. Here is what I dislike and admire specifically. There are originality, nuggets of enrichment and enlightenment; memorable from 1952 to 2013. It is valuable, though based on my greatest topic of discomfort. Page 1 harshly presented a horrifying way of thinking. Animals looked at as disposable, appeared throughout.
I was most upset by the blindness of Fern's Dad and later, the notion that Fern was more interested in a Ferris wheel than Wilbur's fate. No matter fame and their minister calling the cobweb writing a sign from God, he assumed his relative would execute Wilbur; as if there were nothing paramount or new to ponder. His attitude, livestock farmer or not, was most deplorable in disregarding his daughter. Wilbur was no livestock to Fern, who knew farm life. Beyond a pet, she raised the piglet like an infant. Psychology and love aren't bound by roles and Fern shouldn't have been portrayed as losing interest as an adult.
I regard animals equally. Other than cobweb writing of course, any animal's ability to reason is no fairytale. Illustrated simultaneously are viewpoints of people unaware of their sentience, danger animals really face. It is Charlotte and the doctor's intelligence that I admired. "Charlotte's Web" is undeniably well done and supports the side of animals. The doctor's few remarks were astutely powerful, really make a person think. What a treasure that Elwyn Brooks White's three stories personify creatures against common perception. Once the dour segments are past and Charlotte explains being in the twilight of her life, all we care about is her. The rest is sheer, poignant beauty. Her children, the remaining pages resonate with us... for all ages, through all these decades.