Sign in with FacebookPaul's Reviews > Winnie-the-Pooh
Winnie-the-Pooh
by A.A. Milne, Ernest H. Shepard
by A.A. Milne, Ernest H. Shepard
Winnie-the-Pooh, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Win-knee-the-Pooh: the tip of the lip taking a trip of three steps down the palate to return at four to kiss : Pooh. He was Pooh, plain Pooh, in the morning, standing eighteen inches in one sock. He was that scruffy old bear at school. He was Mr Winnie Pooh on the dotted line. But in my arms he was always Bear.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Winnie-the-Pooh.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-29 of 29) (29 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Paquita Maria
(new)
Mar 22, 2011 04:53pm
Just yes.
reply
|
flag
*
Okay, I honestly laughed out loud and startled my dog. But 2 stars, Mr. B? Next you'll be dissing The Little Prince. (oh wait...)
Did Winnie have a precursor? He did, indeed he did.
In point of fact, there might have been no Winnie at all had Paul not loved, one summer, a certain initial Teddy Bear-child.
In Sussex. A princedom by the sea.
Oh when?
About as many years before Winnie was born as Paul's age was that summer.
So how old was Paul that summer?
I am so ignorant, Paul. I read your review and I confess it totally irritated me. But I've just had it explained to me, what it is. And that's reminded me that I stood in a bookshop the other day reading the first paragraph of Lolita, never having done so before. And it irritated me sufficiently that I thought I'd better not buy it.So, you've succeeded on two counts. Firstly well done in irritating me by writing a parody of something that irritated me. Secondly I can see now that it's really funny too.
PS: it isn't entirely clear to me, however, that this shouldn't be a review of Lolita rather than Winnie. I kind of like the idea that the central character in Lolita is into blowup bestiality. IS there such a thing? Are there plastic blowup animals out there complete with working sex parts?Okay. I've asked the question, but I don't really want to know the answer.
PS: Manny, that is particularly directed at you. Yesterday on goodreads you said you weren't to be distracted from writing a paper. So absolutely no surfing the internet for an answer to my question.
notgettingenough wrote: "PPS: In fact, don't even read this comment thread. Stop about four comments ago."Hi, NGE, the book is more about playfulness than it is about sex.
If you can fight your way through the sex at the beginning, you might start to enjoy the playfulness of Nabokov, if not necessarily Humbert.
I think I felt sorry for Humbert when I first read it.
Paul's playfulness is up there with Nabokov's.
For both of them, it could have been about sex, or it could have been about bears, or it could have been about gardening.
It's not intended to be irritating, it's intended to be playful.
All work and no play makes all of us dull boys and girls.
Don't try reading Lolita with Death in Venice.
Velvetink wrote: "hummm; teddy bears getting dirty get sent into a spin"Pooh and sex... somehow an irresistible combination. For example, look at my review of The House at Pooh Corner. Or rather, no, no, don't!
Ian Graye wrote--"I think I felt sorry for Humbert when I first read it."I felt that way. And back then, a road trip like that was all bad coffee. Silly old bear!
There is an interesting article about the maths problem Humbert poses here:http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/20...
If there's anything better than pooh and sex, it might just be sex and maths.
Ian wrote: "If there's anything better than pooh and sex, it might just be sex and maths. "Sex is more fun than logic. This cannot be proved; it IS, in the same sense that Mount Everest is.
I love the fact that his ultimate negation of an argument is that it is "crap", so we come back to "pooh" after all.Unless he's fallen victim to a logical phallacy.
I get it. I just don't think it's one of your funniest ones, PB. Your Murakami send-up is the cat's whiskers.
