Pooh Bear Fan Art Stuffs Chewbacca With Fluff

[boholikeu]

Interesting fact: A.A. Milne cursed winnie the pooh till the day he died because he knew it would forever overshadow everything else he had done.

Seriously. He discovered faster-than-light travel, but is he known for that? No. He invented the time machine, but is he known for that? He even dabbled in a little animal love, but is he known for that? No.

But, you write one beloved children's book...

He wrote a lot of plays and books that he was really proud of but winnie the pooh was a story he wrote for his son and it was, in all honesty, a thing he just kind of tossed off. How would you feel if everything you ever did you considered worthy was overshadowed by the fact that you once did something one afternoon that you never considered worth noting?

The thing he wrote for his son was something he just kind of tossed off?

That's kinda crappy.

 

[manythings]

Interesting fact: A.A. Milne cursed winnie the pooh till the day he died because he knew it would forever overshadow everything else he had done.

Seriously. He discovered faster-than-light travel, but is he known for that? No. He invented the time machine, but is he known for that? He even dabbled in a little animal love, but is he known for that? No.

But, you write one beloved children's book...

He wrote a lot of plays and books that he was really proud of but winnie the pooh was a story he wrote for his son and it was, in all honesty, a thing he just kind of tossed off. How would you feel if everything you ever did you considered worthy was overshadowed by the fact that you once did something one afternoon that you never considered worth noting?

The thing he wrote for his son was something he just kind of tossed off?

That's kinda crappy.

Nothing a kid loves more than complicated stories with adult themes and such before bed. Kids books are just tossed off no matter what their writers say. Madonna managed for fucks sake.

 

[boholikeu]

Interesting fact: A.A. Milne cursed winnie the pooh till the day he died because he knew it would forever overshadow everything else he had done.

Seriously. He discovered faster-than-light travel, but is he known for that? No. He invented the time machine, but is he known for that? He even dabbled in a little animal love, but is he known for that? No.

But, you write one beloved children's book...

He wrote a lot of plays and books that he was really proud of but winnie the pooh was a story he wrote for his son and it was, in all honesty, a thing he just kind of tossed off. How would you feel if everything you ever did you considered worthy was overshadowed by the fact that you once did something one afternoon that you never considered worth noting?

The thing he wrote for his son was something he just kind of tossed off?

That's kinda crappy.

Nothing a kid loves more than complicated stories with adult themes and such before bed. Kids books are just tossed off no matter what their writers say. Madonna managed for fucks sake.

There's plenty of children's literature that wasn't just "tossed off". Something doesn't need adult themes in order to be deep, you know.

 

[manythings]

Nothing a kid loves more than complicated stories with adult themes and such before bed. Kids books are just tossed off no matter what their writers say. Madonna managed for fucks sake.

There's plenty of children's literature that wasn't just "tossed off". Something doesn't need adult themes in order to be deep, you know.

Discworld Novels for young readers are deep and full of a lot more than the kids stuff, but that's Terry Pratchett. I have yet to encounter a kids book that wasn't just kids stuff.

 

[boholikeu]

Discworld Novels for young readers are deep and full of a lot more than the kids stuff, but that's Terry Pratchett. I have yet to encounter a kids book that wasn't just kids stuff.

Just off the top of my head:

The Narnia series, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, The Golden Compass (and the other books in that series, the name escapes me now), Harry Potter, much of Mark Twain's work.

 

[Uber Evil]

inb4 Ultimateownage

Pooh makes everything better.

That was beyond awesome.

I would have to agree with this statement. Funniest thing I've seen all day.

 

[manythings]

Discworld Novels for young readers are deep and full of a lot more than the kids stuff, but that's Terry Pratchett. I have yet to encounter a kids book that wasn't just kids stuff.

Just off the top of my head:

The Narnia series, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, The Golden Compass (and the other books in that series, the name escapes me now), Harry Potter, much of Mark Twain's work.

First off I'm calling bullshit on Narnia, C. S. Lewis can kiss my ass.

Alice in wonderland was a story that was just tossed off by the writer to keep his favourite young girl (We can ignore the paedophile or not question) from annoying him on a river boat trip. To my knowledge a lot of the deeper meanings that people talk about, can be argued anyway, to not really be there.

The wizard of Oz looks like a kids book but with there is a fair amount of allegory and metaphor that I think seriously disqualifies it. It showed a pretty hard and unblinking look at the desperation of dustbowl america and a lot of people tried to get it banned as anti-american propaganda since the official story was the dustbowl didn't happen.

I can't comment on the Golden compass.

Harry Potter is another case of awful story telling, nothing like books devoted to telling children that immense power comes wholly without price. I hate any author who just uses magic as a catch all plot device.

Learn a bit about Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemen's) history and you'll see how very good he was at disguising his intent if you weren't paying attention. Roald Dahl was a very similar writer, if you like Twain you'll like him.

You're doing what people do to video games and animated shows, you're acting as if what it looks like is really what defines it. That kind of view is highly detrimental to the advancement of any form of media. I've played game after game that no child should ever play and seen plenty of animated shows and movies I would never even consider anyone youger than 16 (or so) seeing. I'd certainly never let a copy of GTA in the house if I didn't honestly believe my own kid could handle the content and understand the context.

EDIT: Just add to the Dr. Seuss(Suess?) read some of his stuff and you'll see some pretty big ideas in his books which kind of show they weren't really for the kids so much as the parents... The butter battle (or something like that) is a good example.

 

[boholikeu]

Discworld Novels for young readers are deep and full of a lot more than the kids stuff, but that's Terry Pratchett. I have yet to encounter a kids book that wasn't just kids stuff.

Just off the top of my head:

The Narnia series, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, The Golden Compass (and the other books in that series, the name escapes me now), Harry Potter, much of Mark Twain's work.

First off I'm calling bullshit on Narnia, C. S. Lewis can kiss my ass.

Alice in wonderland was a story that was just tossed off by the writer to keep his favourite young girl (We can ignore the paedophile or not question) from annoying him on a river boat trip. To my knowledge a lot of the deeper meanings that people talk about, can be argued anyway, to not really be there.

The wizard of Oz looks like a kids book but with there is a fair amount of allegory and metaphor that I think seriously disqualifies it. It showed a pretty hard and unblinking look at the desperation of dustbowl america and a lot of people tried to get it banned as anti-american propaganda since the official story was the dustbowl didn't happen.

I can't comment on the Golden compass.

Harry Potter is another case of awful story telling, nothing like books devoted to telling children that immense power comes wholly without price. I hate any author who just uses magic as a catch all plot device.

Learn a bit about Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemen's) history and you'll see how very good he was at disguising his intent if you weren't paying attention. Roald Dahl was a very similar writer, if you like Twain you'll like him.

You're doing what people do to video games and animated shows, you're acting as if what it looks like is really what defines it. That kind of view is highly detrimental to the advancement of any form of media. I've played game after game that no child should ever play and seen plenty of animated shows and movies I would never even consider anyone youger than 16 (or so) seeing. I'd certainly never let a copy of GTA in the house if I didn't honestly believe my own kid could handle the content and understand the context.

EDIT: Just add to the Dr. Seuss(Suess?) read some of his stuff and you'll see some pretty big ideas in his books which kind of show they weren't really for the kids so much as the parents... The butter battle (or something like that) is a good example.

So... basically your case against children's literature boils down to "kid's lit can't be deep because anything that's deep is automatically for adults"? You do realize that's a circular argument, don't you?

Also, I don't really understand your GTA comparison. Kids shouldn't play GTA because it's filled with over the top violence, not because it has deep themes that can be appreciated by adults (like most of the literature we've mentioned above). If it looks like a kid's book, is enjoyable for kids, and contains no objectionable material, I'm going to label it children's literature whether or not it can also be enjoyed by adults.

 

[manythings]

Discworld Novels for young readers are deep and full of a lot more than the kids stuff, but that's Terry Pratchett. I have yet to encounter a kids book that wasn't just kids stuff.

Just off the top of my head:

The Narnia series, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, The Golden Compass (and the other books in that series, the name escapes me now), Harry Potter, much of Mark Twain's work.

First off I'm calling bullshit on Narnia, C. S. Lewis can kiss my ass.

Alice in wonderland was a story that was just tossed off by the writer to keep his favourite young girl (We can ignore the paedophile or not question) from annoying him on a river boat trip. To my knowledge a lot of the deeper meanings that people talk about, can be argued anyway, to not really be there.

The wizard of Oz looks like a kids book but with there is a fair amount of allegory and metaphor that I think seriously disqualifies it. It showed a pretty hard and unblinking look at the desperation of dustbowl america and a lot of people tried to get it banned as anti-american propaganda since the official story was the dustbowl didn't happen.

I can't comment on the Golden compass.

Harry Potter is another case of awful story telling, nothing like books devoted to telling children that immense power comes wholly without price. I hate any author who just uses magic as a catch all plot device.

Learn a bit about Mark Twain's (Samuel Clemen's) history and you'll see how very good he was at disguising his intent if you weren't paying attention. Roald Dahl was a very similar writer, if you like Twain you'll like him.

You're doing what people do to video games and animated shows, you're acting as if what it looks like is really what defines it. That kind of view is highly detrimental to the advancement of any form of media. I've played game after game that no child should ever play and seen plenty of animated shows and movies I would never even consider anyone youger than 16 (or so) seeing. I'd certainly never let a copy of GTA in the house if I didn't honestly believe my own kid could handle the content and understand the context.

EDIT: Just add to the Dr. Seuss(Suess?) read some of his stuff and you'll see some pretty big ideas in his books which kind of show they weren't really for the kids so much as the parents... The butter battle (or something like that) is a good example.

So... basically your case against children's literature boils down to "kid's lit can't be deep because anything that's deep is automatically for adults"? You do realize that's a circular argument, don't you?

Also, I don't really understand your GTA comparison. Kids shouldn't play GTA because it's filled with over the top violence, not because it has deep themes that can be appreciated by adults (like most of the literature we've mentioned above). If it looks like a kid's book, is enjoyable for kids, and contains no objectionable material, I'm going to label it children's literature whether or not it can also be enjoyed by adults.

No my point was treating GTA as a game (Re: a child's toy) because it is a game rather than a piece of work for adult is the core of the whole idea that games harm children. There's a reason literature has layers and deeper meaning, pure kid's literature has no greater depth because they'll never revisit it until they have children of their own. Some parents, rightly or wrongly, want to keep the darker aspects of the world out of their children's lives.

Children aren't just small adults, we can't treat them by the same set of guidelines, there is such a thing as overloading them. Look at the shitstorm over the baby einstein videos. A child's exposure to bigger, heavier, and often, more troubling ideas has to be carefully measured. To present the idea that something with deep meaning is a component of something for children is like gourmet food for dogs, there is no difference.

 

[boholikeu]

No my point was treating GTA as a game (Re: a child's toy) because it is a game rather than a piece of work for adult is the core of the whole idea that games harm children. There's a reason literature has layers and deeper meaning, pure kid's literature has no greater depth because they'll never revisit it until they have children of their own. Some parents, rightly or wrongly, want to keep the darker aspects of the world out of their children's lives.

Children aren't just small adults, we can't treat them by the same set of guidelines, there is such a thing as overloading them. Look at the shitstorm over the baby einstein videos. A child's exposure to bigger, heavier, and often, more troubling ideas has to be carefully measured. To present the idea that something with deep meaning is a component of something for children is like gourmet food for dogs, there is no difference.

Wow, to think all this time the parents who read Dr Suess, Twain, and The Wizard of Oz to their children were actually destroying their kids' fragile little minds! How many generations must've been warped by the callous disregard of those that consider the above to be children's literature! =)

In all seriousness though, you are still basically using circular logic to prove your point. Saying that "children's literature can't be deep because if it's deep it's not children's literature" isn't backing up your argument. It's just restating your original position in another way.

 

[MB202]

So THAT'S what a young Han Solo would look like...