no plagiarism or copy from any where you must bring clean work and on time you have 48 hours to do it
see the file with information
you must use new word thats not in the orignal stories that’s mean change the word but same meaning
© Walden University Writing Center Page 1 of 4
An Exercise in Paraphrasing With the Three Little Pigs: Four Interpretations
by
The Walden University Writing Center Staff
This exercise is designed to help you improve your paraphrasing skills. You will also practice
writing a compare-and-contrast interpretive paper, which will help you with the process used in
KAMs and other course papers.
Four interpretations of the classic tale of the Three Little Pigs appear here, including one in the
form of a miniature research study about wolves and pigs.
To help you improve your writing skills, approach these pages in two stages: First, read the
assigned questions below as well as the four short interpretive texts. Second, take some time to
write a brief paper in which you answer the questions posed at the beginning. As you reflect on
this exercise, ask yourself these questions: Were you able to easily summarize using your own
words? Were you able to write without having the original source open in front of you? Did you
include proper in-text citations?
Assigned Questions
1. In no more than four paragraphs, summarize the story of the three pigs. (For reference and any direct quotations, use the version by Brooke, available online at
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18155/18155-h/18155-h.htm.)
2. Compare and contrast these four interpretations of the story, using direct quotations and paraphrases as appropriate. Try not to be judgmental; use the author’s evidence for
support.
3. Offer a brief critical analysis of the interpretations. What were the strengths and weaknesses, if any, of each?
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18155/18155-h/18155-h.htm
© Walden University Writing Center Page 2 of 4
Gomez (1999)
Literature is rife with pigs as symbols, from the Three Little Pigs to Porky, from the pigs
in Orwell’s Animal Farm to Hollywood’s recent creation, Babe. These characters have ranged
from the crafty to the naive, from the big-hearted to the stupid who noisily eat garbage and roll
about happily in mud.
Wolves have fared poorly; with the exception of the 1983 movie Never Cry Wolf, the
animal has gotten a bad rap through the ages in literature and in the press. The image of the she-
wolf, the sheep thief, the pig eater, the cousin of the coyote, the snarling timber wolf gracing the
jersey of an NBA team—all convey slyness, recklessness, self-fulfillment, and greed.
The Three Little Pigs—the classic story of a worker’s revolt against the tyranny of a
bullying, capitalist wolf—ends with the eating of the tyrant by the third pig. 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. The wolf, we can be
assured, preys on the weak. His actions are self-motivated; he sees the community as his to
exploit, and for a time, we can assume he has had his way. Others cower at the sound of his
breath. We know in time he is full of hot air; the cleverness of the third pig shows that wisdom
conquers physical power.
Interestingly, the third pig in the end devours the wolf. The reform minded—and naive—
would want us to believe that the bad wolf could be cured of his evil ways. But we know better.
Those who use evil means to conquer evil become that which they hate. In this case, we assume
that the pig will become the next despot, an overeating avaricious showman, showing, in the
classic Maoist sense, that revolution is continuous.
Fazio and Ek (2000)
Literature, like life itself, is rife with examples of satanic tyrants wreaking havoc on God-
fearing peoples. The forces of evil in children’s literature are many and infamous: the Billy
Goats Gruff, Jack’s giant, Red Riding Hood’s disguised wolf, not to mention such movies as Star
Wars, The Blob, and Cinderella. All share, in one form or another, a God-fearing sojourner’s
confrontation with Evil himself, and whether through wit, strength of muscle, or strength of will,
a victory over the cruel forces of Satan.
Perhaps no tale better exemplifies this than The Three Little Pigs. A brute sociopathic
force, the wolf is Evil Incarnate, uncivilized, a greedy, lying glutton who consumes the naive,
kindhearted pig brothers without mercy. How else to explain his maliciousness? We do not know
how hungry he is when he confronts the first pig; we know only that he is both “big” and “bad,”
reputations he has not earned from weekly church attendance. As for the pigs, they are naive and
goodhearted; leaving the protective embrace of their mother, two do not have a clue how to build
a house. They are, in some literal sense, God’s innocents, wishing no harm upon anyone, seeking
only the barest of protection from the elements.
The rest we know only too well: Evil knocks on the pigs’ doors. Defenseless against the
power of Satan, the first two pigs are consumed by it when the walls come tumbling down. 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.
© Walden University Writing Center Page 3 of 4
Amdur (1998)
History is rife with examples of sad, lonely tyrants unable to come to grips with self,
community, and society. Consider how the world would have been spared pain if Genghis Kahn,
if Hitler, if Saddam Hussein had only found a competent psychologist willing to help them work
through the pain of their childhoods. Biographers have uncovered miserable lives of countless
despots through the ages. Usually male, these sad individuals cried out for their inner selves to be
uncovered. What motivates the tyrant?
In the Three Little Pigs, we cannot be sure of the wolf’s past. Let us, for sake of
argument, assume at best he was an outcast among the litter, forced away by his brothers and
mother to a miserable, needy existence. Gone from the pack, he sought food in any way he
could; unloved, in search of his female archetype (Jung, 1960), he grew up with neither respect
for others or himself, nor trust. At worst, he learned from his parents the way of the wolf—
bounty hunters, snarling, drooling and selfish, like landed crows, caring not a lick for what he
eats: today a sheep, tomorrow a pig. Amidst a pack, still a loner, feeding the hunger of his psyche
with the blood of his prey. 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.
In time, his bullying feeds upon itself, almost literally. His success with Pig 1 assures
himself that he is powerful. Do we know that he is still hungry upon consuming the first pig? His
physical appetite is sated. But what of his psychic needs? Bursting with self-hatred and
loneliness, he is hungrier for more—more power, that is. He finds the second pig, uses the same
ruse to consume him, and his gluttony continues.
By now he cannot stop himself. Psychopathic, he stops at nothing to consume the third
pig. Probably aware that he is being outsmarted, he continues on his quest. Like a suicidal
kidnapper, he knows of his ultimate fate, and he does nothing to let it stop. It is as if he is
shouting to the third pig, “Please—defeat me and put me out of my misery.” Sadly, the third pig
is eager to comply with the death wish.
A. Hokum, B. Goniff, and C. Crook (1997)
This study compared the cunningness of pigs and wolves to determine the extent to which
each animal is capable of outfoxing the other. The study compared scores on three instruments,
the Jones Hot Air Test (JHAT), the Smith Wool-Over-Eyes Scale (SWOES), and the Cross-
Mammal Cunningness Probe (CMCP). Results indicated that pigs are, by nature and possibly by
influence of environment, craftier than wolves, lending credence to those who argue that the
story of the three pigs is not implausible.
Background
That pigs, wolves, and foxes are among the craftiest of mammals is legendary, at least in
the popular literature (e.g., Fox and the Hound, Three Little Pigs, Red Riding Hood, and Animal
Farm). Their reputations range from harmful (Robertson, 1993) to harmless (Warner, Warner, &
© Walden University Writing Center Page 4 of 4
Warner, 1941). In direct confrontation, as Amdur (1995) has noted, the literature often suggests
that though stronger, wolves invariably end up victimized by their own greed. Pigs, though
unruly, greedy beasts themselves (as Orwell so well depicted them), are still seen as victims and
underdogs, upholding the U.S. literary tradition that pits mice as victim of cats, though ultimate
victors. As Gowdy (1972) argued, Americans hold a soft-spot in their hearts for incessant losers
in the animal world, such as cubs and gophers—and embrace sports teams of the same ilk.
This study compared the cunningness of wolves and pigs in order to add to the growing
body of literature on dominance in the animal world.
Method
Sixty pigs and 60 wolves of varying ethnicities participated in this study. Wolves
received sheep carcasses and pigs sweet corn as incentives for participating. All participants
completed three survey instruments: JHAT, a test of physical endurance; SWOES, which
measures guile and deception; and CMCP, a measure of cunningness, defined here as the ability
to deceive, and of greed. (See Appendix A with regard to validity and reliability).
Results
As hypothesized, wolves scored higher on the JHAT, lending credence to past research
(Disney, 1941) that showed, in terms of physical strength alone and no known contravening
variables, wolves have the ability to dominate pigs. Scores on the SWOES and CMCP, however,
showed pigs consistently rated higher in cunningness (p > .5) and guile. There was no significant
difference between the two species in measures of greed and hunger. The results showed males
to be slightly lazier and self-serving, while females were, surprisingly in contrast to findings in
Dibble (1958), less catty.
Discussion
Because popular literature rarely pits mammals at each other in tests of physical strength
alone, this study undertook an examination of whether pigs or wolves are more cunning. Results
indicated that pigs are more cunning and deceptive than wolves, who indeed demonstrated
greater physical strength.
Given these findings, and all else being equal, the results suggest that a particularly clever
pig could outfox a wolf. Future research should examine whether a wolf has sufficient hot air to
blow down a brick house; Jones’s (1988) work suggested that certain humans, himself included,
could, but that was not the focus of this study and should be explored further.
Created 2011.
Revised October 28, 2013.