Moral Lessons Understandable?

I think we can all agree that Beatrix Potter's childrens books all seem to teach some moral lesson.  Whether it's the Tale of Peter the Rabbit or The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck there seems to be a moral lesson taught to the young children reading, or being read these tales.  As I sit here reading these short tales Potter creates, I can't help but wonder, are these moral lessons reaching the children that they are intended to?  Are young children able to understand these important moral lessons that Potter maps out for them?
To find the answer, I dug deeper into the two tales I mentioned before.  They both seem to teach a common lesson that parents try to teach their children.  Peter the Rabbit teaches children to not wander off on their own.  In fact, in the end, because Peter goes off on his own, he is taught a lesson by not being able to enjoy in the food his other siblings are able to enjoy in.  Instead, he is fed tea to sooth his sickness from being out.  This tale shows children how important it is to obey their parents.  The consequence in this story is a bit extreme, compared to what I believe it would be to a human.  Although I doubt a human child, by not listening to his or her parents would face death, that is the consequence that Potter used.  Possibly to instill in children the extent to which doing this could harm themselves. 
Another moral lesson is told in the tale of Jemina.  Here the classic story of  "Little red Riding Hood" is told in the story of a poor unwanted duck.  Obviously the moral lesson taught here is children should not trust just anyone, especially strangers.  Through this tale children are shown the consequences of trusting strangers.  For Jemina, this once again, nearly ends in death.  Why does Potter use death as the consequence for these young reader's books?   I believe, as I stated before, possibly to instill in them how dangerous their quick choices could really affect them.
Now back to my make question.  Are these moral lessons that Potter depicts, reaching the children reading them?  I believe they are reaching the children, but this isn't just because of the text.  They are being reached because of the mixture of illustration and text.  Through both of these items, children are not only able to hear the story, but see it as well.  That combination brings learning to a whole new level, especially for children.  Because Potter used both text and illustration in her childrens books, she was able to relay the moral lessons she conveyed to her audience, children.

The Impact of the Heath

After reading The Return of the Native, by Thomas Hardy I was left with the impact of feeling miserable for the characters, especially Clym.  I felt as though all Clym wanted was to be happy, and for him this came with doing what he pleased which was as what some may say, "sinking down in class".  He enjoyed the work of manual labor and resided in doing that, while all his greedy wife Eustacia wanted was to move to Paris.  Because of his love for being humble, their love dwindled under his wife's self-centeredness.  Throughout reading the book I seemed to get a sense of many love triangles and relationship confusions.  This just seemed to enhance the fact of the failure of this relationship.  Where did all this confusion start?  What caused all these messed up relationships and jealousy issues?
After analyzing a couple of the pieces of "Modern Criticism" at the end of Hardy's book I found my answer.  In D. H. Lawrence's, "Study of Thomas Hardy", it all became clear to me.  The originator of all this confusion, jealousy, and what some may even call hatred or depression came from the Heath!  I should have known right from the beginning since such an emphasis was put on the Heath.  For everything in this book is "born" by the Heath.  As Lawrence said, "For out of the Heath, it was the reality that worked the tragedy.  Out of the body of this crude earth are born Eustacia, Wildeve, Mistress Yeobright, Clym, and all the others."  It suddenly all made sense! For so long I was solely focusing on the characters,the way they acted, and their personalities, that it never dawned on me that it wasn't the characters that portrayed this tragic theme, but the Heath itself.  The Heath is personified in such a way, that I believe it to be a character.  Lawrence refers to the characters as one year's accidental crop by the Heath.  It's true when he says, "What does it matter that some (characters) are dead, drowned, or unhappy for the Heath will bear many more crops."  The Heath will never stop creating no matter what the past outcome was. 
This leads me to think, what will be the future of this Heath? Will the future be completely opposite or will it once again produce a tragedy?  After finding out that the Heath completely creates the tone in this book, I am led to believe that many other books follow this idea.  Many times I do not consider the setting when trying to understand characters and the tone.  This philosophy that Lawrence reinstates, that the setting can create the plot, reinforces in me the power that setting has.  I look forward to my future readings and the possibility that the setting will have the same power that the Heath had in, Return of the Native.