Devotees of the cherished family film Stuart Little have been left reeling by a surprising revelation about the nature of the title character, which fundamentally alters the premise of the beloved story.
The Shocking Reddit Revelation
The confusion erupted on the popular 'Today I Learned' forum on Reddit, where a user highlighted a key difference between the 1999 movie and the original 1945 novel by E.B. White. Sharing an illustration from the book, the user pointed out that Stuart is not, in fact, an adopted talking mouse, but is instead a very small human boy who merely resembles a rodent 'in every way'.
This disclosure triggered a wave of disbelief and humour from other fans. One commenter logically questioned, 'Well, yeah. Why would an orphanage have a mouse up for adoption?' while another drew a parallel to the myth that Hello Kitty is a British girl. The thread was quickly inundated with discussions about the often stark contrasts between cinematic adaptations and their source material.
The Literary Origins of a Tiny Boy
This detail is not a modern retcon but is clearly established in the novel's opening chapter. In the book, Stuart is the biological son of Mr. and Mrs. Little, not an adoptee. The author himself once explained the character's genesis in a letter, recounting a dream about 'a tiny boy who acted rather like a rat' during a railway journey, which became the inspiration for the story.
The Hollywood adaptation, starring the voices of Michael J. Fox as Stuart and Nathan Lane as the cat Snowbell, with Hugh Laurie and Geena Davis as the parents, took significant creative liberty. It transformed Stuart into a charming mouse adopted by the human Little family, a premise that drove the plot of the successful 1999 film and its 2002 sequel.
A Wider Trend of Fan Surprises
This incident reflects a broader phenomenon where fans of popular culture are stunned to uncover forgotten or altered details from original works. The article also references another example that regularly shocks viewers: the minuscule real-life age gap in the festive film Love Actually.
Fans are frequently reminded that actress Keira Knightley (Juliet) was only 17 during filming, a mere five years older than her young co-star Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Sam), who was 12. This makes her character significantly younger than her on-screen love interests, a fact that continues to circulate on social media with each annual rewatch.
Ultimately, the Stuart Little revelation serves as a fascinating reminder of how adaptations reshape stories for new audiences, sometimes obscuring the original author's unique vision for decades.
