What’s A Little Sex Change?
I’m all for making literature more appealing to the masses. But marketing a work is one thing. Changing it is quite another.
Disney ruffled some pots of honey today when they announced that their new animated series detailing the adventures of Winnie the Pooh and friends would replace Christopher Robin with a “tomboyish girl.” If you haven’t yet read it, the story is here.
Oh, we’ve all seen Christopher Robin in the books…the hair, the shoes…it was all a bit suspect anyways. His sweetly androgynous appearance made it simple for a child to envision him as either boy or girl friend. But still. Not only was he created to be a boy by the original author, A.A. Milne, but he was a representation of the author’s real-life son, Christopher Robin Milne. In fact, the beloved stories were tales the doting father penned to describe his young son’s play and fantasy world. To completely disregard that seems somehow brutal.
I know Disney is hardly the paragon of authenticity and historical accuracy—Anastasia Pocahontas is a glaring example—but this just seems so…not right. I never cared much for the Winnie the Pooh stories, but as a lover of literature I feel pain when works are desecrated.
Christopher Robin was a rather interesting fellow in real life. Shy, he did not care for the attention the books brought him, and learned to box to retaliate against taunts. He won a fellowship to study English in college and grew up a lover, and writer, of words. He faced sadness in his adult life: medical problems, estrangement from his father, and an only child born severely handicapped. He put his sharp mind and mechanical skills to work to build numerous contraptions to help his daughter live her life more comfortably and independently. He passed away as a result of a neurological condition.
But in books, he’ll always be small and full of wonder and magic, not afraid to express his love for a faithful, beaten-up teddy bear.
It just doesn’t seem right to change that.
10 Comments
Oh dear, I’m all in a muddle. Whatever will we do? I’m not sure how Pooh will go recognising this new character since he was so close to Christopher Robin. I don’t think the silly old bear needs any more confusion in his simple life.
Great Pooh impression! Poor Pooh.
Oh Lord, spare us. What’s next? Tigger the transvestite?
This is just wrong. Leave Christopher (who is not known as “Chris”) Robin a boy fer cryin’ out loud!
Shades of “Pat” from Saturday Night Live.
LOL
hee!
Tranny Tigger!
Hate to nitpick, but “Anastasia” wasn’t a Disney movie.
“Pocahontas” would be a better example
The Multi-National With Very Little Brain has messed up on this one. Even if you aren’t a Pooh fan, it doesn’t take much to realise he is crucial to the stories – it is through him that the animals come to life. At Storynory.com we’ve started a campaign to Save Christopher Robin – come on over and lend a hand.
Disney didn’t do Anastasia. That was a Don Bluth production through 20th Century Fox.
Try “Pocahantas” instead.
Matt–that’s great! I’ll definitely help!
Aw, leave it to Bill aand Chuggy to be all accurate…okay, pretend I said Pocahontas!
Thanks for the correction, guys.
I’m sick of all the spunky, tomboyish girl characters in all the mainstream films of the past twenty years. Have you seen a non-period-movie girl-heroine who WASN’T a spunky tomboy?
It’s as much of a cliché and describes about as big a chunk of the real girl population as the saintly-sweet angel-children of the Victorian era did.
Good point, Sedulia! Even though it may be seen as ‘progressive’ to have girls who aren’t ‘girly’ it’s still a stereotype, which has the potential to be damaging. Excellent observation.