Followup: The King's Breakfast
Feb. 5th, 2008 11:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAt poohsoc last week I got to examine the songbook I mentioned before.
* I think it's The Pooh Song Book, comprising "The Hums of Pooh", "The King's Breakfast", and fourteen songs from "When We Were Very Young".
* IIRC, the music was written to Milne's words by H. Simon-Fraser, but I might have got that completely wrong.
* However, the essay in question was, IIRC, my Milne himself, and the professors in it (IIUC) were fictional. However, what I'd missed in the hurly-burly of the first meeting was the conclusion, which states the authorial intent, being that (a) certain artistic liberties were taken, however, (b) the cow was sent to bed in the morning because she has frolicked irresponsibly on the King's Buttercups.
* Authorial intent isn't always definitive. There's still questions you can consider (like, how much weight do you put in these people's behaviour, who, if anyone, acts reasonably, and is this a good model to present to children -- probably so, but if so, why?)
* But in this case, I'm willing to accept it. It's certainly consistent, and it also explains why the cow is suspiciously sulky at being asked for milk. So I think this knowledge isn't necessary -- simply trusting that the events can be taken at face value is fine, but I think this interpretation (likely retroactive it may be) adds to rather than detracts from your understanding, in that it resolves questions comfortably, consistent with both the facts and the tone of the poem, without raising any more.
* I think it's The Pooh Song Book, comprising "The Hums of Pooh", "The King's Breakfast", and fourteen songs from "When We Were Very Young".
* IIRC, the music was written to Milne's words by H. Simon-Fraser, but I might have got that completely wrong.
* However, the essay in question was, IIRC, my Milne himself, and the professors in it (IIUC) were fictional. However, what I'd missed in the hurly-burly of the first meeting was the conclusion, which states the authorial intent, being that (a) certain artistic liberties were taken, however, (b) the cow was sent to bed in the morning because she has frolicked irresponsibly on the King's Buttercups.
* Authorial intent isn't always definitive. There's still questions you can consider (like, how much weight do you put in these people's behaviour, who, if anyone, acts reasonably, and is this a good model to present to children -- probably so, but if so, why?)
* But in this case, I'm willing to accept it. It's certainly consistent, and it also explains why the cow is suspiciously sulky at being asked for milk. So I think this knowledge isn't necessary -- simply trusting that the events can be taken at face value is fine, but I think this interpretation (likely retroactive it may be) adds to rather than detracts from your understanding, in that it resolves questions comfortably, consistent with both the facts and the tone of the poem, without raising any more.