Say "No!" to Sham-Pooh! We Want the Real Pooh!

By DAPHNE LEE

Tots to Teens

MOST children now, if you say Winnie-the-Pooh to them, will think of that saffron-yellow tub of lard in a two-sizes-two-small red T-shirt, star of Disney's several series, all of which are based on A. A. Milne's books about the "bear of very little brain".

The latest Disney series is called My Friends Tigger and Pooh, and as usual, there is an annoyingly catchy theme song and characters who Milne would not recognise from his books.

Watching any of Disney's Pooh series makes me want to wring the bear's neck and also bash his friends, especially Tigger and Rabbit, to a pulp. Pooh, Piglet and Tigger are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer (understandable since they are toys who have stuffing for brains), but their stupidity reaches new, unchartered depths in the telly series. And the usually shrewd Rabbit (my favourite character in the original books) appears to be suffering from some form of dementia - worse still, Disney portrays him as a rather effeminate and neurotic elderly male.

But back to Edward Bear (that's Pooh's real name, although we also learn that he once lived in the forest under the name of Sanders) - the books he appears in are Winnie-the-Pooh (1926) and The House at Pooh Corner (1928). The former introduces us to the bear and his friends Piglet, Eeyore, Owl, Kanga and Roo, and Rabbit and Owl (the only two of the gang who are real animals and so, in theory, more brainy than the rest). Pooh has a growly voice and he does Stoutness Exercises. It's established that he is rather greedy, a bit of a coward, quite brainless, but perfectly amiable.

In the The House at Pooh Corner, we meet the bouncing Tigger, a kooky, charming, confident tiger toy: "He always seems bigger because of his bounces," says Pooh.

It's not easy to convert children who have grown up with Disney's Pooh to Milne's Pooh. The original Pooh is subtler beast. Illustrated by E.H. Shepard who was inspired by his son's teddy bear, Growler, he is a stout gentlebear who nevertheless seems to be the perfect shape for what he is. In coloured illustrations he is a muted shade of orange, smudged with black ink. His expression is sympathetic and curious - even when experiencing moments of doubt his snout is ultimately an optimistic shape.

It requires more time, energy and a longer attention span to listen to a chapter from one of the Pooh books than to watch an episode of My Friends Tigger and Pooh. It's not really about which version of Pooh is more appealing (although I know which I prefer!), it's about the sort of active-listening that is needed for a wordy chapter from Winnie-the-Pooh (relatively wordy compared with, say, a whole Peter and Jane book or one of those locally-produced picture books that condense the most complex classics to a maximum of 300 words).   

There are actually shorter Pooh stories available, some even in board book format, which are really extracts from the two orginal books. They're good primers for the "real thing". Or, you could just use the full-length books and abridge them yourself. That's what I'm doing at the moment, with I-Shan, my three-year-old. I give her the books and she will turn to a picture and start asking me about it (sometimes it's the same picture five days running). We'll talk about the picture and I'll offer to read her the story. This means telling her the story in my own words, including occasional short passages from the chapter. I also read all the dialogue, using different voices.

I'm finding that I-Shan listens to more and more of the story each time we revisit it.

There is also a collection of poems, by Milne, called Now We Are Six. Pooh is named in two of the poems (Us Two and The Friend) and features in many of the illustrations. In When We Were Very Young, the collection that came before Six, there is a poem about a Swan called Pooh and he is whom Edward Bear borrowed his nickname from. Pooh (the bear) had not ben created when these poems were published, but Shepard was the illustrator so you will see Pooh whenever there is a poem about bears because, of course, Shepard was thiking about Growler!

So that's Pooh! Do read the books and see for yourself why I think Disney's version is really a sham-Pooh.

Comments

[Daphne]

Jacq - My post reflected MY opinion. If I didn't state it there would have been no post. I am an artist, but that's neither here nor there. We're all entitled to our personal likes and dislikes and, personally, I dislike Disney's version of Pooh.

Thanks for your comments! :-D

[Jacq]

Oh tsk. So your personal opinion tacitly looks down upon any person who might enjoy watching a Disney version of these stories. Totally forgetting that it may give cause and ongoing interest, enough of which to, in future years, acquire books illustrating the older style versions of Pooh and friends and the stories told in the in depth format of bygone days.
It is hard enough to instill a love of books and literature into a child. But making comments about the artwork of a Disney's rendition is quite puerile. Are you an artist? Is you scope limited to only the older styles can represent the older stories?
I might not be a huge Disney fan but can say that the original drawings and those in Disney's cartoons are equally as adorable and endearing to a child's eye. They captivate, are enchanting and in the story telling, give the essence of goodness as was intended when it was written.
It hardly requires tearing to pieces in the name of art and literature from such a silly soap box.

[Yani]

Hmm, I must say I disagree with your views although I do respect that it comes from a true A.A Milne fan and his classic Winnie-the-Pooh.

Coming from someone who's not -I did try but don't seem to have the patience to endure the slowish nature of the tales- I think the series offers a fresh and upbeat twist to the original. Disney is, after all, trying to lure more kids into enjoying its shows so one can expect that it will emulate the existing Disney story formula i.e. fast, funny and colourful.

I'm not sure about the rest of the 2 to 6 year old viewers targeted by Playhouse Disney, but I don't find Pooh, Tigger or any of the other characters to be stupid. The dialogues are funny and at times, even witty. Sure, they aren't an exact illustration of Milne's works, but hey, it is Disney's interpretation. Besides, the show is for little kids - to help them think analytically, look for clues etc. In solving mysteries, the characters need to appear to be a bit lost (or slow, whichever) before finally coming around to the solutions.

But I guess you're right that it's not easy to convert children who have grown up with Disney's Pooh to Milne's Pooh. The former will definitely not see anything wrong with the current show or characters.