The story explores the limits of hospitality and sharing. Neil Reynolds had discussed it as a parable of immigration issues and the social welfare state.[1] Aeon J. Skoble discusses Thidwick at length as an exemplification of the idea of property rights, and particularly of Locke's formulation of property rights.[2] Skoble argues that Thidwick is badly mistaken in viewing the other animals as "guests", and that the story demonstrates this.[2] In a later essay in the same volume, Henry Cribbs makes a similar point, considering whether "Thidwick" is a case of squatter's rights.[3]
Shortly after the book was published, David Dempsey, writing inThe New York Times, said:
"Thidwick is a masterpiece of economy, and a shrewd satire on the "easy mark" who lets the conventions of society get the better of him. The genius of the story, however, lies in its finale.A man of less consistance than Seuss would have let Thidwick be rescued by the creatures he is defending (this is the customary Disney riposte in similar situations) but Seuss' logic is rooted in principle, rather than sentiment, and the sponging animals get what they deserve. Incidentally, this is also what the child expects."[4]