Like so many children, my mom read me the Winnie-the-Pooh books as a child; rereading them during my own children's pre-school years, I was struck again at the whimsical and deliciously creative use of language, particularly in the poems.
My enjoyment of the books, however, has largely been soured by the Dizzy corp's treatment of the character and his adoring public. I detest the way the character is drawn, portrayed and protected by Walt Disney Corp. All the lovely language and subtlety is lost, whilst the bumbling aspect of the character is bloated to buffoonlike proportions. The backgrounds are bland and overbright, without any of the mystery—or danger—any real wood possesses. Let's not even discuss that stupid gopher character they added.
In a word, yech.
Needless to say, I looked at the Shepard illustrations for my inspiration. I choose Pooh as the subject for the stocking because its recipient's bedroom was completely done in Pooh—wallpaper, art, switchplates, figurines, bedding, mobile—you name it, was in Pooh. Naturally there were all sorts of Pooh outfits, stuffed animals, and toys. I'm sure they have the complete run of the Pooh films. (The family also enjoys going to Disney theme parks for Christmas.) So, obviously, the kid's xmas stocking had to be Pooh, too.
However, Pooh—far more than Mickey Mouse—is Disney's biggest cash cow. They got the Sonny Bono act passed ’cuz the first pooh book was published in 1926, which means (gasp!) the copyright would've expired in 2001. Now, they can keep milking the little stuffed bear till 2021, the greedy bastards. (If you're getting the idea I don't like them very much, you're absolutely right. It pains me deeply, because I love animated film, and very much enjoy some of the modern classics, particularly Little Mermaid [one case where I really appreciated the updated ending] and Beauty [from which they swiped a number of details from my favorite version, Robin McKinley's book of the same name—magnificent!] but their bottom-line, anti-artist, anti-consumer behavior really turns me off.)
I don't download music or film that doesn't belong to me, not even Disney's. (I have, however, stopped buying or renting their DVDs, and am finding it easier and easier to skip seeing Disney films in the theatre). But in my view, the original stories now belong to everyone, as they would now be in the public domain, but for Disney's paying off Congress; (I made the not unwarranted assumption that the art was also 75 years old, which, in researching this page, I found that it was not. However, as my felt and sequin bear is an interpretation, not a copy, I suppose I could argue “interpretation” or “fair use” —both concepts so beleagered I hardly considered them in deciding at the time whether I was morally justified in making this stocking. But I wasn't happy about it, not least because it seemed to me to promote a Disney product.
Ah yes, what every creator hopes for her characters—to become a corporation's “product”. I hope it never happens to any of mine. Meanwhile, the child's grandparents got her sister a Disney-made pooh stocking to match this one, so it's not as if the Dizzy corp is out anything. (This, btw, is something some firms, such as the manufacturers of Barbies and Breyer model horses, really understand: all sorts of people purchase these products and modify them like crazy, then resell, which in turn builds interest and a market for the OEM. Similarly, fanfic of manga in Japan is tolerated, because the fanfic generates sales in the authorized versions.)
Unless otherwise noted, text, image and objects depicted therein copyright 1996--present sylvus tarn.
