Lottie the Otter joins, among others, Rabbit the Rabbit.

October 1, 2009 3:52 AM

Lottie the Otteris Winnie the Pooh's newest pal in the new book (released Oct. 5) Return to Hundred Acre Wood. Lottie is said to enjoy cricket and is a stickler for etiquette.

Eeyore is already on record as saying, in reference to a sequel (albeit one authorized by the Milne estate): "He'll get it wrong."

posted by grapefruitmoon (84 comments total)

It seems a little late in the game to be introducing a novel element in the Pooh franchise. I wonder what the profit projections on Lottie look like.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:55 AM on October 1 [3 favorites]

.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:06 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Michael Brown, speaking for the trustees of the Pooh Properties, which manages the affairs of the A A Milne and E H Shepard Estates, said: "We have been hoping for a good many years that we might one day be able to offer the world a sequel..."

Added Brown: "Now would you be so kind as to help us remove our heads from this large and tasty honey-pot? We seem to be quite stuck."
posted by rokusan at 4:11 AM on October 1 [30 favorites]

"David's new stories, including the new character, arise naturally out of that world..."

I would think the new character would need to "arise naturally" out of the world of 1920s stuffed animals.
posted by Faze at 4:19 AM on October 1

Heathens. Blasphemers. Where's my pitchfork?
posted by dilettante at 4:21 AM on October 1

Well at least it's not a baseball playing woodchuck or something
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:23 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

Hunny! Is "feisty" a code word? Is she crypto-lesbian?
posted by pracowity at 4:24 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Now would you be so kind as to help us remove our heads from this large and tasty honey-pot?

Michael Brown needs to take it to MeTa.
posted by gman at 4:24 AM on October 1

Another article I read about this mentioned that they thought it would be "better than the Disney adaptations". The key to success is setting low expectations.
posted by DU at 4:40 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

Oh, how I do love the Disney Corporation.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:50 AM on October 1

From what I can tell from the occasional sidelong glance is that the Disney version currently revolves around a mystery-solving, scooter riding little girl who with wacky sidekicks Pooh, Tigger and Piglet. Low expectations indeed -- I mean, scooters?!
posted by chavenet at 4:51 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Pooh's new friend in Croatia is... interesting.
posted by permafrost at 4:58 AM on October 1

Pollomacho: The new book isn't put out by Disney and is, in fact, authorized by the Milne estate. Not to say that Disney won't co-opt it, but it's not directly from them.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:17 AM on October 1

Comic Book Guy: Return to Hundred Acre Wood was, without a doubt, the worst Pooh book ever. Rest assured that I was on the Internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.
posted by total warfare frown at 5:22 AM on October 1

Bad, but could have been worse
posted by IndigoJones at 5:42 AM on October 1

Pollomacho: The new book isn't put out by Disney and is, in fact, authorized by the Milne estate. Not to say that Disney won't co-opt it, but it's not directly from them.

Um, actually...
posted by Pollomacho at 5:43 AM on October 1

The charm of the original Pooh books comes from the historical context they were written in. It's no longer the 1920's and A. A. Milne is long gone- Why must these intellectual properties be wrung and squeezed and beaten to death? By all rights Pooh should be in the public domain right now, along with Mickey Mouse.

And in general, I'm sick of stories that an author purposefully brought to an end being jumpstarted through various gimmicks to bring the characters back together, meaning things drag on and on. This normally happens when the author's either (a) dead or (b) totally skint. Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?
posted by dunkadunc at 5:51 AM on October 1 [5 favorites]

Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?

Apparently so
posted by TedW at 5:58 AM on October 1

new friend, who appears in Return to the Hundred Acre Wood, is said to be a "feisty" character who will cause a stir.

Yeah, that position was already taken by Tigger.

The world of Winnie the Pooh was one of the most charming ever created. When I stumbled across the book in elementary school in the 60's, I fell in love. The first Disney movie had not yet been made nor were there any plush animals, key rings, pajamas, pencil cases, cookie jars, umbrellas, underpants, nightlights, photo frames, reading lamps, slippers, bed sheets,or shower curtains. There were just words on a page and the adorable, simple drawings by Shepard.

The original Disney movie kept the spirit of the books, adding only animation, British voices, and music for the original poems written by Milne. If they had stopped there, Pooh and Friends would have been preserved in all their charming innocence. Unfortunately, Sears and Disney grabbed hold with their heavy capitalist hands, squeezed as hard as possible, and merchandised the hell out of it, leaving a lifeless corpse. Now Winnie has all the charm of a Big Mac. Adding a female character isn't going to help.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:02 AM on October 1 [10 favorites]

This otter seems pretty inoffensive compared to everything else Pooh has endured since his rights were bought. The symbolism is interesting, though. There are thousands of folks who have embellished or improvised stories with this character and his friends while playing with their kids, educating young children, writing slash fiction, etc. But this is seen to have no effect on the LEGITIMATE POOH CONTINUITY. This little otter and that fucking scooter kid on the Disney Channel are seen by Pooh purists as an affront, however, because the giant entertainment firm owns the rights.

The whole thing seems very Catholic to me in many ways. Disney execs removing the Pooh Apocrypha. The Immaculation of Lottie the Otter. Soon the 100 Acre Thesis and the resulting warfare and mass exodus of reformed Poohists, believing in the patron's right to interpret and reinterpret Pooh apart from those funny-hat-wearing busybodies in Rome Celebration, Florida. The Pooh-Puritans and fundamentalists demanding that only the original pre-Disney text is of merit, and that it amounts to a true and faithful account of Christopher Robin's childhood.

Later, Pooh Mormons, who naturally prohibit honey.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:04 AM on October 1 [16 favorites]

Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?

Are zombies still a going concern?
posted by dilettante at 6:06 AM on October 1

If Disney and Taoists couldn't kill Pooh, I wouldn't bet on the feisty otter.
posted by box at 6:09 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?

Titanic 2: Revenge of the Iceberg.
posted by Electric Dragon at 6:12 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

Those fucks turned down my suggestion, Terry Tapeworm.

They didn't like Vicky Virus either. *shrug*
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 6:20 AM on October 1

Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?

Harry Potter and the Never Ending Stream of Sequels.
posted by daniel_charms at 6:27 AM on October 1

Hey, Shakespeare fanfic! I don't want to read it, but I actually kind of like the idea that that's out there.
posted by Naberius at 6:31 AM on October 1

Those fucks turned down my suggestion, Terry Tapeworm.

Billy Blood Fluke.

Flukes are great role models for children. The are monogamous and "spoon" in your bloodstream for decades*. Isn't that sweet?

*Sorry, I just listened to the Parasites episode of Radiolab.
posted by diogenes at 6:33 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Really, what will these guys do to make a buck? Romeo and Juliet 2?

Hitcher Hiker Vol 6

And I totally expect postmortem Pratchetts (premortem in fact)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:35 AM on October 1

Those fucks turned down my suggestion, Terry Tapeworm.

Don't feel bad. They shot down my idea, Hortense Not At All Appropriate For Children, pretty quickly. Poor Hortense, relegated back to the slime pit from which she came, doomed to a brutal lifetime as the unknown bleedingyist, soreyist prostitute the Hundred Acre Wood never knew.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:35 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

From the article:

Michael Brown, chairman of the Trustees of the Pooh Properties, added: "David's new stories, including the new character, arise naturally out of that world and so, like the original stories, are timeless.

From A.A. Milne:

"No doubt Jack the Ripper excused himself on the grounds that it was human nature."

Anyway, I disagree with Gravy here:
Unfortunately, Sears and Disney grabbed hold with their heavy capitalist hands, squeezed as hard as possible, and merchandised the hell out of it, leaving a lifeless corpse.

I had no problem sharing the original Pooh stories by reading them to my young daughter. She adores them just as kids adored them before the Disney stuff came out. She never took an interest in all the Disney pooh stuff, partially based on us simply explaining that they were really two separate things.

This is currently reflected in bookstores pretty well. Here, under "M" is "real" Pooh stuff. Over there, in the over-commercialized/franchise section is the other stuff. I'm curious to see how some bookstores deal with this new book. Just put it under "B" according to the new author's name? Or just cram it in next to Miln? It seems to me this book officially endorsed by the estate has much more potential to muddy the waters of the "real" Pooh universe than the clearly alternate reality of crime-fighting-scooter Pooh.

One more quote:

"'I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.
"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way.'"
posted by mikepop at 6:39 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

I don't mind Pooh having a new friend. Everybody makes new friends. But is it good for an otter not to live near water and live in the Hundred Acre Wood? Or do they plan on constructing a pool for him? I don't think a pond will have enough water.

It's like they don't even care.
posted by anniecat at 6:55 AM on October 1 [3 favorites]

Next -- Break Wind in the Willows: Rat, Toad and Mole meet a new friend - Wolverine.

And Just So Fucking What Stories: How Dingo Developed a Taste for Babies.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 7:08 AM on October 1 [5 favorites]

It looks like these will at least be more sincere stories than the atrocious Disney tripe.
posted by LSK at 7:10 AM on October 1

Here, under "M" is "real" Pooh stuff.

Actually, it should be under the name of Sanders.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 7:10 AM on October 1 [6 favorites]

I'm sure Poochie Lottie will contribute a much more proactive paradigm.
posted by Zonker at 7:15 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

I wonder what the latest round of copyright extension has had on the IP. Supposedly the rights reverted back to the families of the original author, on the theory that they couldn't have foreseen copyrights getting extended forever, and therefore could only have meant to sell their rights through the normal expiration. It makes sense: how could copyright extension benefit authors (and their heirs) if they sold all their rights and wouldn't be seeing an extra dime from the extension?
posted by delmoi at 7:19 AM on October 1

I always hated Winnie the Pooh, because it is transparently a catalog of mental illness. Poor Christopher Robin must have an extremely disturbing home life.

Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood
posted by rusty at 7:20 AM on October 1 [7 favorites]

I remember watching live-action Winnie the Pooh as a child. I always enjoyed that, but I'm sure if I returned to it now I'd find it rather cringe-worthy. I must confess I've never read any WtP books, though they sound interesting. Maybe I'll justify buying some when I get some kids :)
posted by scrutiny at 7:25 AM on October 1

Lady: We at the network want a dog an otter with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?

Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.

[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?

Myers: Oh, yes.

dammit, zonker
posted by jquinby at 7:28 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

Harry Potter and the Never Ending Stream of Sequels.

To be fair, the HP series was conceived from the beginning as a 7-book series documenting Harry's time from entering Hogwarts until the end of his school-age years.
posted by hippybear at 7:34 AM on October 1

Next -- Break Wind in the Willows: Rat, Toad and Mole meet a new friend - Wolverine.

I hate to break it to you, but The Willows in Winter has been around for a while now.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 7:36 AM on October 1

No.
posted by tommasz at 7:38 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

This has probably been on here before, but here is a [youtube playlist] link to the Russian Vinni Puh, who is much angrier-sounding and *much* more charmingly animated.
posted by Acari at 7:39 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

I'm eagerly awaiting the Winnie the Pooh reboot with a darker, more adult tone that addresses global warming and deforestation through the excesses of man, Eeyore's clinical depression and heroin abuse, and Christopher Robin's use of the 100 acre wood to escape the alcoholism co-dependency of his mother and father. Someone get Alan Moore on the line.
posted by codacorolla at 7:44 AM on October 1 [4 favorites]

Came to this thread for Poochie references, was not disappointed.
posted by anthom at 7:49 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Note: Lottie died on the way back to her home planet.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 7:52 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

This seems like it will be very much in line with the original Pooh books written by Milne himself, so I will give it a fair chance. I hated the sacrilegious movie version of Lord of the Rings, and the movie version of Where the Wild Things Are also looks to be an abomination as well.
posted by Daddy-O at 8:01 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

Quinbus Flestrin, I had no damn idea! There are even three other sequels: Toad Triumphant, The Willows and Beyond, and The Willows at Christmas.

And you may be interested to know, QF, given your handle, that there was a series of modern-day sequels to Gulliver's adventures published in the pages of Fantastic during the early 1960s, penned by "Adam Bradford, MD." Link there goes to the issue containing "Lilliput Revisited." In order:
1963. Lilliput Revisited
1964. Gulliver's Magic Islands
1964. Land of the Yahoos
1964. Return To Brobdingnag
"Bradford" was the pseudonym of Joseph Wassersug. These appear to have been his only forays into fantasy, and do not seem to have been collected.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 8:09 AM on October 1

This will go over almost as well as the addition of Pierre the monorail to the Thomas the Tank Engine series.
posted by drezdn at 8:27 AM on October 1

Speaking of Pooh and copyright, news from yesterday.
posted by XMLicious at 8:28 AM on October 1

In Which Christopher Robin and Pooh Come to an Enchanted Place, and We Leave Them There (Until We Decide We Need Very Badly to Cash In Again)

I don't really get too riled up about this kind of thing - as long as the originals are available intact, you know, you can choose what to read. I have to say, though, that while they seem to be trying to maintain the spirit and look of the original books, the fact is that the series ends definitively (and very movingly) in The House at Pooh Corner. While it doubtless serves the bottom line of (ahem) "Pooh Properties" to ignore this reality, I'm confident the test of time will relegate however many sequels this generates to the same bin as all the other derivative content.
posted by nanojath at 8:42 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

I very distinctly remember hearing on NPR a few years ago that Disney LOST the pooh-ownership case because they bought it from someone who did not own it, and they were going to half to pay a bajillion dollars to the rightful heirs.

Any news of that? Anyone? Anyone?
posted by TomMelee at 8:49 AM on October 1

I just want to add that the first Pooh book is pure, absolute gold, and I don't mean that in the line-our-pockets sense. I've spent dozens of nights the past few years reading it to our kids, and it never fails to amuse and enrapture. It's also very fun to read aloud, though I often find myself wishing Eeyore would see a professional and get some meds. I find the second book somewhat meh, though obviously still head and shoulders above most other kids' fare. The Disney stuff is treacly and facile, as one would expect.
posted by mosk at 9:21 AM on October 1

This seems like a pretty good summary of the rights issues over Pooh, TomMelee.

There have been two different cases ongoing. One is that the owners of trade rights to Pooh, Stephen Slesinger, Inc., has been attempting to sue Disney since 1991 over allegations that Disney hasn't paid them all the royalties they're owed under their contract. It appears to me that neither Disney nor Slesiinger has ever owned the actual copyrights of the books which are still retained by the trust formed by A.A. Milne's estate, Pooh Properties Trust (which is the organization that authorized the sequel and presumably will retain rights on it, though I would guess the author has some sort of copyright claim on the actual text as well).

In 2002 Disney backed an attempt by A.A. Milne's granddaughter Clare to terminate Slesinger's rights through a provision of the Sony Bono Copyright Act (Disney's clear objective was to remove Slesinger from the future picture of Pooh licensing concerns due to its contentious relationship). This case went against Milne and Disney because the termination provision they sought to apply was valid only for deals made before 1978 and Slesinger had renegotiated their rights in 1983.

Slesinger's intial lawsuit was tossed because it came out they obtained evidence illegally (their investigator went through Disney's trash, basically). Although Disney's bid to terminate Slesinger's rights failed, per XMLicious' link above the courts have now dismissed Slesinger's remaining claims against Disney (though it sounds like Slesinger could still try some different tactic to go after the back royalties it says Disney owes it).

Having pored over all this the otter-bearing sequel now seems like pretty much the least gross thing that's happened to Winnie The Pooh in the last half century or so.
posted by nanojath at 9:46 AM on October 1

And I say to all of it, "At this point Tonstant Weader fwowed up."
posted by happyroach at 9:50 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

But ... I like otters! And she has snazzy pearls!
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 9:52 AM on October 1

The only logical rationale is that the Hundred Acre Wood is being repositioned for a Pokemon-like franchise explosion, where disturbingly competitive everyboy Christopher Robin befriends forest animals in order to enter them into cage matches against the pets of children from neighboring villages, pausing occasionally to recite saccharine poems about the fleeting naivety and beauty of childhood, and how it can be forever preserved through the purchase of officially licensed merchandise.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:59 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

there was a series of modern-day sequels to Gulliver's adventures published in the pages of Fantastic during the early 1960s

I think they'd have done much better with modern children and Gulliver if they'd simply stop bowdlerizing the original. For example, I don't recall the part where Gulliver whips out his knob, stuffs it through the palace window and single-handedly acts as the Lilliputian Fire Brigade, saving both Queen and palace from either my Ladybird Children's Edition or the Classics Illustrated version.

I'm sure I'd have found his adventures far more compelling as a child if they'd left that good stuff in.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:59 AM on October 1

Another article I read about this mentioned that they thought it would be "better than the Disney adaptations". The key to success is setting low expectations.

Oh, have you seen the CGI Tiger and Pooh cartoon with the Super Sleuth Squad?
posted by Artw at 9:59 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

My daughter loves the Disney stuff. It's OK if we all like different things. There's no need to dump on everything that you don't like.
posted by oddman at 10:08 AM on October 1

So I guess the estate thinks A. A. Milne did it all wrong, since they keep authorizing people to keep trying, right?
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:11 AM on October 1 [1 favorite]

My daughter loves the Disney stuff. It's OK if we all like different things. There's no need to dump on everything that you don't like.

::dumps on this comment::
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:23 AM on October 1

WRITE
YOUR
OWN
GODDAMNED
ORGINAL
STORIES
posted by edgeways at 10:28 AM on October 1 [2 favorites]

Personally, I was just talking with my mom the other day about how awesome the original Pooh is - with one notable exception.

Kanga is the only girl.

Still, totally awesome. No beef with Pooh and co. I think that the original stories are really relatable for kids across gender lines and the characters are so three dimensional as to transcend gender, really.

But still, I am glad that when I have kids, there will be *a* Pooh book that has more than one girl in it. Maybe it won't be as awesome as the originals, but I'm really glad that they're adding a girl into the mix.

So that if I ever have a daughter, I can buy gender-appropriate Lottie the Otter swag. I'll admit it. I'm not above the swag.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:29 AM on October 1

Tigger please.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 11:36 AM on October 1 [6 favorites]

You'll notice that Pooh doesn't even get top billing in the Tiger and Pooh thing.
posted by Artw at 11:36 AM on October 1

My daughter loves the Disney stuff. It's OK if we all like different things. There's no need to dump on everything that you don't like.

It's not like we're talking about apples and oranges.

We're talking about a classic, time-honoured children's story that I and countless other grew up with, mutilated to become a commercial property. The Pooh stories are extremely well-crafted - each character represents some aspect of childhood and Christopher Robin the integrated whole - adding a new character to the book is just an awful idea.

People would not be happy if they added an extra female disciple to the New Testament, would they? So leave our childhood books alone.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:50 PM on October 1

See also.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:53 PM on October 1

People would not be happy if they added an extra female disciple to the New Testament, would they?

I would! That'd be awesome!

But I'm not a Christian, so I don't think I fit in with the "people" you're describing.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:05 PM on October 1

Personally, I was just talking with my mom the other day about how awesome the original Pooh is - with one notable exception.

Kanga is the only girl.

Considering they were storied based on Milne's son's stuffed animals, and considering how rare it likely was at the time (and probably still is) for little boys to have projected playmates of the opposite gender, this is a non-starter to be upset about. It wasn't a created-by-committee set of characters, so it reflects the play habits of Christopher Robin.
posted by hippybear at 3:15 PM on October 1

Dude, not upset about it. Just sayin', it's the *only* downside.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:19 PM on October 1

Girl disciple considered controversial
posted by Artw at 3:39 PM on October 1

About ten years ago when I worked for an online book retailer, I came across a book we sold called "Winnie-the-Pooh on Success: In Which You, Pooh, and Friends Learn about the Most Important Subject of All"

It's written by two guys who own a "Business Management Consulting Firm," but it's ostensibly written in the style of A.A. Milne; even going so far as to pull lengthy passages, as well as all of its illustrations, from the original, beautiful Pooh books. But what they did was rewrite them to introduce a character called "The Stranger," who shows up in the Hundred Acre Wood to teach Pooh and Friends about "The Most Important Subject of All," which the book posits is "Success." Here is a choice passage I transcribed at the time:

We should remember that it is important to be realistic when listing your skills," said The Stranger. "Be certain that you only list those that you honestly feel capable of carrying out and performing."

Tigger looked very unbouncy.

"I'm afraid that I still don't understand how to use the Skills Inventory," said Pooh.

The cover has a picture of Winnie the Pooh golfing.

This is a real thing.
posted by churl at 3:48 PM on October 1 [4 favorites]

This "Stranger", he steals their souls?
posted by Artw at 4:18 PM on October 1

Considering they were storied based on Milne's son's stuffed animals, and considering how rare it likely was at the time (and probably still is) for little boys to have projected playmates of the opposite gender, this is a non-starter to be upset about.

I'm not even sure that, aside from the use of male pronouns, the characters are particularly gendered (either in the text or the illustrations). I think you could just do a straight search and replace on the pronouns and make the whole lot of them female.

Lottie the otter, on the other hand, is depicted with a string of pearls around her neck. I hope that she isn't designed to be conspicuously female in some attempt to balance out the cast of characters, because that really isn't needed.
posted by ssg at 5:47 PM on October 1

The Stranger? I liked him in The Big Lebowski, not so much in that Billy Joel song.
posted by box at 6:03 PM on October 1

I have a (gay, male) Buddhist friend who fooled around with an alternative feminist gospel that featured a protagonist named "Jessica Christ."
posted by nanojath at 6:44 PM on October 1

I'm eagerly awaiting the Winnie the Pooh reboot with a darker, more adult tone

POOH 2: FIRST HONEY
posted by dhartung at 9:42 PM on October 1

Sometimes you get the pooh-barr... sometimes the pooh-barr gets you.
posted by rokusan at 9:43 PM on October 1

The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles.
posted by ericb at 11:20 PM on October 1

WRITE
YOUR
OWN
GODDAMNED
ORGINAL
STORIES

Not the point at all. You can't commoditize authenticity. What's infuriating to so many people about this type of thing is that Disney owns the "real Pooh" stamp and keeps putting out drivel. That's far more offensive than Christopher Tolkien lovingly tending to his father's unpublished works (even if you don't fully agree with some of the things he's done).

The better solution is to cut the copyright length into halfs or thirds and let people use characters as they like after an appropriate time. Then let those interpretations rise and fall on their own merits. The purists will still be around to protect their beloved characters and worlds, and no one will be able to tell them that Pooh's Heffalumps is somehow 'cannon.'
posted by es_de_bah at 6:51 AM on October 2

Yes they are, if by that you mean "should be fired out of one".
posted by dunkadunc at 8:26 AM on October 2 [1 favorite]

The cover has a picture of Winnie the Pooh golfing.

That's positively achewoodian.
posted by drezdn at 9:07 AM on October 2

I'm eagerly awaiting the Winnie the Pooh reboot with a darker, more adult tone

George Alec Effinger. "The Two Sadnesses."
posted by Zed at 4:28 PM on October 2 [1 favorite]