Earlier Jan wrote:

>> Rabbit is not the only character who is not always truthful. 
>> Tigger boasts that he can climb trees, among other things. Owl fools Pooh 
>> into believing his writing is an actual word or phrase.

And then James wrote:

> I believe Glenda hit on this one as well. The exact phrase in 
> question is:
>    HIPY PAPY BTHUTHDATH THUTHDA BTHUTHDY
> Which Owl tells Pooh means, 'A Very Happy Birthday with love from Pooh.'
> Now, this might not look like 'A Very Happy Birthday with love from Pooh.'
> to you and I, but who among us speaks Wolish? I therefore submit that since
> Owl is the only person we know that speaks Wolish, we must accept him as an
> expert and therefore accept his statement as true.

To me this sounds like an assumption. But please, James, go on...

> As for Tigger, you are incorrect... Many of the statements made by Tigger
> should be interpretted as 'optimistic' in nature. Since he's never tried
> something, he just assumes that he can do it. As for your specific example,
> Tigger goes on to prove that Tiggers can indeed climb trees well. They just
> can't get down.


As James so correctly pointed out in his essay, lying does not make one a
criminal. Rabbit's "pretending" or attempting to "fool" Pooh is not
different than Owl's attempt to fool Pooh. Tigger's boasting may be
optimistic, but it is not truth. "Climbing trees it what they do best," said
Tigger. "Much better than Poohs". When Roo asks if Tiggers could climb that
particular tree, Tigger replies, "They're always climbing trees like
that,"..."Up and down all day". I find it interesting to note that the
chapter in which we read this is called, "Tiggers Don't Climb Trees", (at
least in my edition of "The World Of Pooh").

It is not my intention to "criminalize" the other characters by pointing out
their faulty traits, but to cause you to think about the difference between
malicious deceit and a harmless untruth.

>> Rabbit is clever. He is able to use rigid logic to plan and 
>> scheme. Though kidnapping Roo and holding him hostage may seem malicious 
>> under one context, when viewed with the understanding of Rabbit's 
>> xenophobia it is merely the non-recognition of Kanga and Roo as valuable 
>> beings. Rabbit realizes that Kanga has a liability, Roo. He plans to use 
>> that liability to remove the threat and regain security once more in the 
>> forest. In the process, however, Rabbit becomes more familiar with Roo 
>> ("more fond of him every minute"), and realizes that the newcomers are not 
>> a threat. This is a classic example of the way in which education, or 
>> enlightenment, can overcome prejudice.

> Or perhaps he is just sucessful in 'training' Roo, and now that Roo is
> responding appropriate, Rabbit can deign to spend time with him.

I can't consider a rhetorical assumption, such as "perhaps", when I carry on
a logical debate.
My Critical Thinking Professor would never have allowed that! Please quote a
passage in the book that tells of this suspected "brainwashing", and I will
gladly consider it.

>> The Eeyore/pooh-stick incident is simply another example of 
>> Rabbit's take-charge personality. Rabbit needs to organize and give 
>> orders; it is just his way. Pooh is about to drop the "biggest stone 
>> he could carry", into the river where Eeyore is turning around and 
>> around. Out of concern that Eeyore might get hit, Rabbit takes command 
>> to syncronize Pooh's stone- dropping with Eeyore's turning. There are 
>> enough other accounts of Rabbit's governing behavior to establish this 
>> as fact. There is no evidence to convict Rabbit of attempted murder for 
>> organizing the rock throwing idea supplied by Pooh.
> 
> You may be right, and then, I might be right... The evidence is a little
> shaky on this one. I just find it too 'convinient' that Rabbit steps in to
> take control... He asks Eeyore if he's ready, Eeyore replies with "No," and
> Rabbit tells Pooh to drop the stone... Far too 'convinient.'

James is correct about the shaky evidence. It certainly wouldn't hold up in
a court of law. I find it best to avoid making an assumption when evidence
is not clear. The way I read it, Pooh was going to drop the stone whether
Eeyore was ready or not. 

>> Pooh gets through life by depending on the goodness of others. He is
>> technically lazy. 

> Not exactly true... During the search for the North Pole, Pooh is very
> active, going so far as to save Roo and discover the North Pole, all at the
> same time. He also intialized a rescue attempt for Piglet during the flood,
> building one boat in the process and thinking up the design for another.
> Pooh is anything but lazy.

I did not say that Pooh is always lazy. Shall I say he has a tendancy toward
laziness? Does that seem less like an "attack"?

>> Eeyore, as mentioned earlier, is mired in negativity and low 
>> self-esteem.
 
> And yet, when Piglet is visiting him on Eeyore's birthday, and trying to
> explain why Eeyore's gift is suddenly popped, Eeyore becomes very concerned
> about the well-being of his friend Eeyore. Eeyore may have a lot of
> negativity and low self-esteem, but he is not mired down by it.
 
Well, I am guilty of a pun on that one! Eeyore does live in a rather boggy
and sad area, and the definition of "mire" (American Heritage Dictionary)
is: An area of wet, soggy, and muddy ground. 
Eeyore spends the majority of his time, or has a tendancy to spend time,
(not all of it), "mired" in his negativity. Is that better?

> Unfortunately, I loaned my books to my sister today, so I don't 
> have them handy to handle the 'attacks' on the other characters as well 
> as can against Rabbit.
 
But here, my friend James has missed my point completely!

There is no "evil" creature in the Hundred Acre Wood. The creatures do
indeed have character flaws, but I am not implying that they are unable to
overcome these faulty traits, nor am I saying that these faulty traits rule
their actions. I am not in any way "attacking" the characters. Of course
Pooh can do things for himself! Of course Piglet can be brave! Of course
Eeyore can be happy! Of course Tigger can be thoughtful! If the characters
could not overcome their faults, where would our lesson be? By creating his
characters with these traits, A. A. Milne has given us a wonderful example
of humanity. I ask you to re read my Final Point.

> Oh, this has been fun. Unfortunately, I have to get to homework now.
> Bother. Jan (and anyone else), if you enjoy this sort of thing (and judging
> by your reply, I'm guessing that you might) you might want to read "The
> Pooh Perplex" by Frederick Crews... Lots of essays for you to argue with!

I certainly shall! And it was fun! I sincerely hope that no one is offended
by any of our comments. 
Let it be known that I love all of Milne's characters, and can see a little
bit of myself in each one.

Thank you, James, for providing the grist for this mill. At least you made
me get out the book and read it critically! Perhaps when you get your books
back, you will take another look at Rabbit. <smile>


Back to the Essays!