Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Caron Gremont: Obesity's Officially a Disease, So How Come My Child…
Karri-Leigh P. Mastrangelo: Am I Going to Hell For My Position on…
Winnie-the-Pooh's Back, But Who Invited The Otter?
Filed under: In The News, Books for Kids, New In Pop Culture, Home Base
The Winnie-the-Pooh sequel, "Return to the Hundred Acre Wood," has been met with criticism. Credit: Amazon.com
What's with the otter?
After 81 years, we finally learn what happens to Winnie-the-Pooh, Piglet and the rest of the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Wood. And curiously, there's an otter involved.
Some Pooh purists are not at all amused by first officially sanctioned sequel to A.A. Milne's classic children's tales, "Return to the Hundred Acre Wood." Characters have been added to the pantheon before, most notably a gopher with a speech impediment. But that was for the Disney cartoons.
Milne's original work has always been considered sacrosanct. Now The New York Times reports not everyone is happy with the sequel published this month.
"It's just too much to hope that someone who isn't the original writer will capture the voice, character, setting, pacing (and all the other elements of bookmaking) in the right measure," children's book author Elizabeth Bluemle told The Times.
Bluemle is also the co-owner of the Flying Pig Bookstore in Shelburne, Vt., and president of the Association of Booksellers for Children. She told The Times that sequels to beloved children's books are usually "thin soup" and distract children from the superior originals.
There is already a distinct difference between the Pooh children see in the books and the one that appears on TV screens and T-shirts. The Walt Disney Company owns the merchandising rights to Milne's characters. Pooh Properties Trust oversees the original books.
Trust officials gave David Benedictus, an English writer, permission to pen 10 new stories for a new book called "Return to the Hundred Acre Woods." Not much has changed, Benedictus told The Times.
Christopher Robin has not aged a day since 1928. The only big change is Lottie the Otter, who shows up wearing a string of pearls and sporting a saucy attitude. Any other changes are just minor tweaks, Benedictus told The Times.
"I made Eeyore a little more proactive so he wasn't always the victim, although you can't turn him into Gary Cooper or something," he told the paper.
What do you think? Should sequels be written to classic children's books?
Related: Reviews of Movies, Books and More











ReaderComments (Page 1 of 5)
10-07-2009 @ 12:12AM
Maureen said...Unfortunately we're accustomed to seeing/reading average to bad sequels, which makes us negative before we even read the new story. Children are the most honest critics in the world so it really comes down to whether Pooh's new adventures are well written and entertaining to them.
Maureen Hume. www.thepizzagang.com
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 7:49AM
Yuriy said...Unfortunately people like Bluemle cannot write his own stories, but this goblins want to jump to the pantheon of the famous writers. They are the thiefs.
10-07-2009 @ 1:33PM
hi said...I don't see this as theft at all. It's an officially sanctioned sequel by the people that own the rights to the characters.
Though I admit one shouldn't just add a sequel to every classic that never had a sequel, that doesn't mean a sequel can't be every bit as good as the original, or that it requires the same author.
Though the creator of the characters does have the privilege of having a certain bond to them, that doesn't mean he necessarily understands them the best, or that the audience sees and interprets them how the author understood them.
I highly doubt they just shot out a sequel randomly; there was probably a process involving quality-checks and making sure that all of the people in charge felt that the sequel properly conveyed the feel of the author's original work.
If kids like it, they'll like it; it doesn't matter to them if it's the same author or the character's are portrayed in exactly the same light.
10-07-2009 @ 2:01AM
Karen S said...In most cases that would be a good point, Maureen. Unfortunately, the author of the new stories said he tried to make Eeyore "more proactive" and "less of a victim." For one thing, "proactive" is a pseudo-intellectual business school word that means just about nothing. For another, Eeyore isn't a victim, he's a pessimist; if the author can't see that, he doesn't understand the original characters and thus can't write them. QED.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 8:13AM
scallywag said...I agree, Karen!!!
10-07-2009 @ 9:00AM
Jen said...Take it easy, Karen. Maybe that was just her wording/interpretation, not his. I would be curious to pick one up sometime, perhaps. I was a dear lover or the original Pooh, even to the extent that the Disney portrayals didn't win me over that much as a child. My mom must have read me originals very early and the others, that came along later, just didn't ring true. Wait and see how the English chap managed it. Chances are..... but you never know. A.A. Milne's originals are fine as they are, but you know they always want to make another dollar in this world. If the books are nice, they may stand on their own. ??
10-07-2009 @ 9:32AM
Jess said...Thanks Karen, your observations are very thoughtful and insightful.
10-07-2009 @ 9:51AM
cori said...You are so right Karen. Lends credence to the articles take that it would be very difficult for someone to capture the pace and voice of milnes books.
10-08-2009 @ 9:19AM
robert tank said...At last! A voice of reason sandwiched between the endless (and frequently vulgar) comments expressing illiterate drivel or boorish bloviation. Sequels to books by other than the original author are akin to remakes of classic motion pictures, crassly commercial attempts to achieve some degree of fame and fortune by parasitizing the truly creative original works.
10-07-2009 @ 1:30PM
Serena said...Eeyore is my favorite character and I didn't take any offense to his being deemed as more 'proactive' in the new stories. I think the terms 'proactive' and 'victim' in this case need to be taken in context. But aside from that, I think it a little crazy to make such a big deal out of adding a character Its kids' stories for crying out loud. Pooh is my favorite stories; I love them to this day, and personally, I have no issues with the new otter. If he's cool with everybody else in the 100 Acre wood, he's cool with me. Or is it a she? Who cares. I mean, seriously.
10-07-2009 @ 7:18AM
gchjr said...No, I even more than ever am apposed to re-writes. First, and most obvious, liberals take every opportunity to remake things to their skewed view of the world. I'm surprised they didn't write in a gay character! Or they take out something that nowadays in our super sensitive, politically correct, ultra feminized society might be viewed by some to not align with those views (because we all know we have become a nation that caters to all groups and minorities, instead of the rule of law). But secondly, there is always something lost in the new translation anyway, whether it be the original magic, the nuances, or the need to try and improve it, which invariably never happens. I say keep the oldie but goodies alone!
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 9:09AM
lizbythesea said...I couldn't have said this better myself. I agree with you on all counts. Thanks.
10-07-2009 @ 9:19AM
J said...Huh?
10-07-2009 @ 9:52AM
fitz said...Dear gchjr--You should run for president!! Why are there always some people who try to "improve" upon, or add to an existing classic storyline? If those people were really so creative, they would invest the time to invent there own classics, instead of trying to change someone else's.
10-07-2009 @ 6:05PM
Tom Pepper said..."First, and most obvious, liberals take every opportunity to remake things to their skewed view of the world. I'm surprised they didn't write in a gay character!"
What?! You mean Piglet and Pooh aren't a gay couple? How sad.
10-07-2009 @ 11:43AM
AV said...Huh? Conspiracy theory much?
10-07-2009 @ 12:58PM
smartazzchick said...UGH UGH I just hit him with my club. Seeing as this idiot is stuck in the Clan of the Caveman years it seemed appropriate. No wait..........even Ayla had more sense that this doofus
10-07-2009 @ 1:03PM
skb90 said...People are way too sensitive; people who need "catering to." There's being sensitive to the feelings of others, and then there is just going too far when people put themselves into groups and take everything personally.
10-07-2009 @ 1:28PM
Blurgle said...A couple comments: To gchjr: Why is there always at least one..ahem..person whom has to drag politics and political bashing into every thread. This has NOTHING to do with politics. If this was an article about someone's favorite flavor of ice cream, I'm sure someone like gchjr would have to drag politics into the discussion. It's pitiful to see such simplistic one track minded thinking.
To patine: You ALMOST had a valid point. If you hadn't made an inane statement like "you neocons..." you would have had a valid point. Instead, all you do is become ironic. You complain about someone's knee jerk political bashing, by doing some knee jerk political bashing and call gchjr a "neocon". BELIEVE me, both "liberals" and "neocons" do inane political bashing, BOTH of them drag politics into threads that have nothing to do with this one, as both YOU and gchjr prove. Off topic political bashers are all the same breed of Internet troll, regardless of the basher's political beliefs.
To be on topic, although a notable amount of the book's "score" for lack of a better term should be based on how faithful it is to the original Winnie the Pooh, to be fair I do think much should be judged on if the book works on it's own. Otherwise, if one simply picked up the book without knowing anything about Winnie the Pooh (or at most with only seeing the Disney adaptations and not the original book), does the book work? Maybe to put it another way, if it isn't very faithful to the original, it might not ever be worthy of a great book. But if it still has a good story, it can still be worthy of a good one.
And finally, I don't claim to be a "liberal" or a "neocon" or anything else with this post. Any assumptions are very baseless, and potentially prove my points depending on the reason the assumption was made.
10-07-2009 @ 2:21PM
J said...to gchjr
you certainly have a right to your point of view , but for the most part you do sound like a political "grump".
And I do believe this sequel was writtien by and Englishman? Wasn't it? Of course I could be incorrect. Try and lighten up gchjr.
I am over 50 y/o myself and I do believe there is still HOPE for the counrty as well as the WORLD. (Despite the fact that I too enjoy the character of Eeyore) Stay PEACEFUL and well.