Well, you're in the condition of not being able to see that the characters in the film are pathetic caricatures of the ones in the book. Or, perhaps, of being able to see it but not caring.
Jeff doesn't find himself to be in a "hopeless" condition, and neither do I.
I can't understand what point you're trying to make.
According to which set of illustrations? (I'd consider the Shepard drawings to be definitive, and any others unworthy of analysis.)
Actually, in the original order of things, I believe C.R. didn't have a stuffed owl -- or a stuffed rabbit. Surely you've noticed that Owl and Rabbit don't have seams or the other nursery-toy emblems possessed by Pooh, Piglet, Kanga, Roo and Eeyore (pin-on tail).
Not sure you're correct, but it can be researched. Of course, even if C.R. does have a stuffed Owl and Rabbit, he probably doesn't have a stuffed Very Small Beetle or a stuffed animal for each and every Friend-and-Relation of Rabbit's. So we may have to admit the possibility of animals living in the H.A.W. that don't have real-world analogues. But still, those are native forest creatures and the Backson isn't.
Owl and Rabbit, I think, occupy a different ontological space than the others; they are native imaginary creatures of the Hundred Acre Wood, whose prototypes, if they exist at all, are the real owls and rabbits of the wood.
That's the whole bloody point. In the film, the Backson is imagined neither by A.A. nor by C.R., but by Owl. This is not Owl's story; Owl is a character, not a narrator; what gives Owl the power to bring the Backson to life?
So, if C.R. and/or A.A. can imagine up Rabbit and Owl, why not a Backson?
Edited by mrmando, 05 September 2011 - 06:40 PM.