Postmodern Pooh [NOOK Book]


A sequel of sorts to the classic (and bestselling) sendup of literary criticism, The Pooh Perplex

Thirty-seven years ago, a slim parody of academic literary criticism called The Pooh Perplex became a surprise bestseller. Now Frederick Crews has written a hilarious new satire in the same vein. Purporting to be the proceedings of a forum on Pooh convened at the Modern ...
See more details below
Postmodern Pooh

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 7.0
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 NOOK 10.1
  • NOOK HD Tablet
  • NOOK HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK eReaders
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$7.99 price


A sequel of sorts to the classic (and bestselling) sendup of literary criticism, The Pooh Perplex

Thirty-seven years ago, a slim parody of academic literary criticism called The Pooh Perplex became a surprise bestseller. Now Frederick Crews has written a hilarious new satire in the same vein. Purporting to be the proceedings of a forum on Pooh convened at the Modern Language Association's annual convention, Postmodern Pooh brilliantly parodies the academic fads and figures that hold sway at the millennium.

Deconstruction, poststructuralist Marxism, new historicism, radical feminism, cultural studies, recovered-memory theory, and postcolonialism, among other methods, take their shots at the poor teddy bear and Crews takes his shots at them. The fun lies in seeing just how much adulteration Pooh can stand.

Note to Adobe eBook Customers: The Adobe Acrobat eBook Reader version is copyable and printable, but there is a known problem printing to printers that do not use the PostScript page description language. This problem occurs with some HP LaserJet, Epson Stylus inkjet, and Epson impact printers. Consult your printer’s documentation to find out if it is PostScript compatible. This does not affect your ability to read the book on screen.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Joan Acocella
Hilarious and accurate. Crews has made the punishment fit the crime.
Carol Tavris
Frederick Crews is a Person of Very Great Brain. What he pooh-poohs deserves it.
Denis Dutton
Postmodern Pooh is an astonishing book: hilarious, deliciously cruel, and intellectually stimulating.
James Hynes
A brilliant and savagely witty skewering of the combatants on all sides of the academic culture wars . . . These are pitch-perfect lampoons . . .
The Washington Post
Mark Pendergrast
Once again, Crews made me laugh until I wept.(Mark Pendergrast, The Philadelphia Inquirer)
Merle Rubin
Sparkling wit and brilliant parodies . . . make this a funny book.
Los Angeles Times
Barbara Fisher
Really good academic fun. The Boston Globe
Michael Pakenham
Postmodern Pooh should be required reading.
The Sun [Baltimore]
Publishers Weekly
In 1964, a young English professor at Berkeley published The Pooh Perplex, a slim academic satire purporting to collect a dozen critical essays on Winnie-the-Pooh. Insightful and searingly funny, it took academia by storm and gave the humanities a much-needed poke in the ribs. Little known then, Crews would become a highly influential cultural critic, whose humor and clarity leaven many books more serious than Pooh. Now, concluding a "long if uneventful career of devotion to humanistic values and to Pooh," Crews has issued a sequel, which is, if possible, more trenchant and hilarious than the original. This is partly circumstantial, the English Lit profession having become more self-parodying than ever. In 11 sham essays (complete with footnotes of brilliantly chosen actual texts), Crews takes on deconstruction, queer theory, gender/body studies, postcolonial studies, chaos theory, etc. His genius lies in details, like the "stochastic teddy bear descent rate" chart in the gene-theory paper and the Marxist professor with a "cross-departmental chair at Duke as Joe Camel Professor of Child Development." Crews steers largely clear of ethnic studies, reserving his finest shots for the Freudian and post-Freudian pretensions he has been dismantling for most of his career. Insiders will readily recognize minences grises like Harold Bloom and Stanley Fish, broadly caricatured. Occasionally, Crews falls somewhat wide of the mark. But in general his touch is too deft to be mean-spirited, and should be welcomed by a profession famous for its need and ability to laugh at itself. This small volume should be required reading for the 30,000 members of the MLA and any other bemused spectators of theacademic fishbowl. (Oct.) Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
Library Journal
Crews (English, emeritus, Berkeley) recently created controversy with his book-length invective against Freudianism, The Memory Wars. For this updated version of his wildly popular lampooning of literary criticism, The Pooh Perplex, published almost four decades ago, Crews sinks his fangs into more recent movements, such as deconstructionism, new historicism, radical feminism, trauma studies, postcolonialism, and cybercriticism. The book gathers papers from a fictional panel on Pooh at the Modern Language Association's annual convention, all written by Crews and garnished with footnotes that allow the bathos and muddled thinking in some actual scholarship to speak for itself. But like a gang of sorcerer's apprentices, Crews's targets often wriggle free of their creator's grasp and endow his satire with some of the passion, eloquence, and wit that has earned them their following. Although his animus against Freud knows no bounds, Crews eschews cynicism and ideological agendas as ringmaster of this learned Cage aux folles, magnanimously skewering radicals and archconservatives alike. Crews's obvious pleasure in letting a stuffed bear show up those critics who have clearly kept him reading for years will keep anyone interested in literary scholarship in stitches. Recommended for larger public and all academic libraries. Ulrich Baer, New York Univ. Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
A delightful sequel to the 1963 bestseller The Pooh Perplex that, like its predecessor, both skewers and synopsizes contemporary lit-crit approaches. Comprised of "methodologically acute papers on Pooh from leading figures in our field" presented at a Modern Language Association forum (or so the tongue-in-cheek preface informs us), the volume aims to examine Pooh in ways that generate "usefully conflictual" comments. This goal was achieved, says youthful-gadfly-turned-ironist-emeritus Crews (English/Berkeley). There's so much more to laugh at in literary criticism now than in 1963: while the first Pooh volume spoofed Freudian and Marxist academics, this one offers an even riper lot of ideologies for delectation. In 11 essays, including "Why? Wherefore? Inasmuch as Which?" and "The Fissured Subtext: Historical Problematics, the Absolute Cause, Transcoded Contradictions, and Late-Capitalist Metanarrative (in Pooh)," the Bear with Very Little Brain is dissected in light of gay studies, gyn crit, new historicism, meme studies, cultural studies, psychoanalytic studies, postcolonialism, poststructuralism, and more. Deliciously named imaginary contributors include N. Mack Hobbes, Sisera Catheter, and Calcutta-born Das Nuffa Dat. Identifying these characters is one of the many pleasures here: Could they be Stanley Fish, Judith Butler, Edward Said? At least Orpheus Bruno, writing on "The Importance of Being Portly," definitely appears to be Harold Bloom (clues to identity can be found in the footnotes). The essays display such erudition that they provide a backhanded overview of modern critical theory. More important, they reveal the author's humanistic faith even as "our humanism itself, by thislate date, has become full of Pooh." English majors, arise: Your field has been satirized, and well. Enjoy this in small doses, for it may be Crews's last Pooh, and you'll want to savor every semiotics joke that comes along.
From the Publisher
"So all you lit-crit junkies, rush right out and snag a copy of Postmodern Pooh. Once again, Crews made me laugh until I wept." —Mark Pendergrast, The Philadelphia Inquirer

"Sparkling wit and brilliant parodies ... make this a funny book." —Merle Rubin, The Los Angeles Times

"Really good academic fun." —Barbara Fisher, The Boston Globe

"Postmodern Pooh should be required reading." —Michael Pakenham, The Baltimore Sun

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781429930758
  • Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  • Publication date: 4/1/2011
  • Sold by: Macmillan
  • Format: eBook
  • Edition number: 1
  • Pages: 160
  • File size: 304 KB

Meet the Author

Frederick Crews is Professor Emeritus of English at University of California, Berkeley. In addition to The Pooh Perplex, he is the author of The Memory Wars and other books about psychology.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Postmodern Pooh
CHAPTER ONEWhy? Wherefore? Inasmuch as Which?FELICIA MARRONNEZ 
Felicia Marronnez is Sea & Ski Professor of English at the University of California at Irvine. All of her degrees, however, were awarded by Yale University, and it was from Yale's English department that she relocated to Irvine in 1990, with the specific aim of helping to narrow the sophistication gap between our two coasts. In view of her prizewinning dissertation, "Heidegger Reading Pooh Reading Hegel Reading Husserl: Or, Isn't It Punny How a Hun Likes Beary?," Marronnez has been well situated to demonstrate how the ethically serious Derrideanism of the Yale school illuminates the subtleties of the Pooh books. That promise was fully realized in her subsequent monograph, (P)ooh La La! Kiddie Lit Gets the Jacques of Its Life (Yale University Press, 1992). 
"Well," said Pooh, "we keep looking for Home and not finding it, so I thought that if we looked for this Pit, we'd be sure not to find it, which would be a Good Thing, because then we might find something that we weren't looking for, which might be just what we were looking for, really."ONE might say that the reader who has grasped the full significance of this passage has seen to the bottom of both Winnie-the-Pooh and its author. Yes, one might say that. But "one" would thereby be branded as a simpleton, a theory-starved dunce. "Grasped the full significance"? "Seen to the bottom"? Not very likely.Pooh, it's true, manages, through byzantine byways that I will track below, to body forth the key principles of Deconstruction with uncanny fidelity. And that fact, given the apparent temporal priority of Milne over Derrida, would seem to prove the timeless pertinence of the latter's approach to textuality. Yet what is the leçon of Derrida, that consummate rhetor of the iterable and the dehiscent, if not that clear sight, the grasping of significance, and even historical precedence (to say nothing of timeless truth) are all illusions, effects of that very différance that constitutes the only legitimate object of critical scrutiny?I wonder how many of you went for my feint that we might learn something here about the author of Winnie-the-Pooh. C'est pour rire. Pooh Bear, at least, knows better:I sometimes wonder if it's true That who is what and what is who.After all, J. Hillis Miller has pointed out that "there is not any 'Shakespeare himself,'"1 and Derrida once observed that "there is not, strictly speaking, a text whose author or subject is Jean-Jacques Rousseau."2 It's fairly clear, then, that Miller is right when he characterizes every author as merely "an effect of the text."3 "A. A. Milne" himself or itself concedes the point in the preface to When We Were Very Young:You may wonder sometimes who is supposed to be saying the verses. Is it the Author, that strange but uninteresting person, or is it Christopher Robin, or some other boy or girl, or Nurse, or Hoo? ... you will have to decide for yourselves.As for "the reader," spare me! The term elides difference, attempts to inscribe on a bubbling bouillabaisse of potentialities one model of a stolid, passive, tabula rasa receptor. Grant yourself a "reader" and you automatically become a writer--worse, a communicator with a plain message that "the reader" will supposedly open like some ersatz telegram announcing that he has been declared a finalist in the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes.Now that we've dispensed with both author and reader, you will be interested to learn that I'm going to go right on discussing them. And the same holds for both truth andliterary meaning, notions at once fallacious and essential to the work of Deconstruction. After we have registered the fatal instability of our concepts, they still remain our concepts, all the more precious for our awareness that they, and therefore we, fail to intersect with "reality" at any point. As Pooh shows in numerous ways, we cannot do otherwise than yearn for unwobbling transcendence, especially when we see it dissolving into linguistic supplement and remainder.Think of the scene in which Winnie-the-Pooh, supposedly on a purposeful march to call on his friends, pauses squarely in the middle of an entropic stream. Oblivious of its unilinear flow toward oblivion, slack-jawed Pooh, stubby arms at perfect rest on beloved belly, sits on a rock as solid as the one Dr. Johnson kicked to refute Berkeley. Using a passing dragonfly as a quadrant, he aims his nose straight at the warming sun. Heliotrope: that is Derrida's stunning metaphor for our arching toward the Logos, source of all the false light by which we (think we) "discern the significance," "see things in perspective," "apply the light of common sense," or "develop a vision."Pooh's eyes, however, are closed. Paunchy Panza, catching the rays without reflection. He seeks nothing, perceives nothing, propounds nothing, but merely sings the noncommittally conditional, innocently egoistic "I could spend a happy morning / Being Pooh."Being--Dasein! What is Pooh in this tableau if not the personification (ursification?) of Man stripped of all striving, truly attuned, for once, to that discursive impossibility, a Nature without cultural excess or archive? No dispersal here, no deferral or dissemination. But look what happens next:The sun was so delightfully warm, and the stone, which had been sitting in it for a long time, was so warm, too, that Pooh had almost decided to go on being Pooh in the middle of the stream for the rest of the morning, when he remembered Rabbit."When he remembered Rabbit." Rabbit the nosy busybody, the restless, envious brain, the all-around expert who always gets it wrong. Rabbit is discourse itself, particularly in its most seductively "present" form, speech. And though Pooh never wants anything from Rabbit but food, it is no coincidence that the act-ivation of his bodily need co-insides with the prospect of his vulnerability to the Pooh books' most logorrheic talker. There is no free lunch, not even in the sacred forest of childhood. Once having felt a pang, we can gain our sustenance only by becoming dealers and supplicants within the web of signifiers, that differential network of traces both producing and exceeding "meaning" without ever duplicating the object of desire.Now we can discern why Pooh, in Rabbit's company somewhat later, gets "into a comfortable position for not listening to Rabbit." Here he attunes himself, defensively, to gentle forest sounds "which all seemed to be saying to Pooh, 'Don't listen to Rabbit, listen to me.'" But Rabbit, of course, prevails, and Pooh is swept from trance into transaction yet again. To submit to Rabbit is to be drawn into the "present" as it attempts to "be itself," the advancing edge of nervous conative (go native?) will. Pooh, however, doesn't have to like it. He senses--or rather, we sense through him--the speciousness of such contemporaneity. As Derrida--drawing from what Seán Burke has called his"apparatus criticus ... awesome in its relentless invagination" 4--points out:An interval must separate the present from what it is not in order for the present to be itself, but this interval that constitutes it as present must, by the same token, divide the present in and of itself, thereby also dividing, along with the present, everything that is thought on the basis of the present, that is, in our metaphysical language, every being, and singularly substance or the subject.5Some auditors, I know, will consider this line of inquiry a bit too theoretical for their taste. That's a pity, but Hillis Miller and the late Paul de Man proved long ago that Deconstruction, reading, and theory are all exactly the same thing. If you attempt to reject that conclusion, you will only be generating more theory and thus illustrating Paul's law. Hillis put it succinctly in his famous, feisty presidential address to the MLA: "If the resistance to theory is the resistance to reading, theory is itself the resistance to theory, therefore a resistance to the reading it advocates."6Although all literary works, when rigorously analyzed, yield what Paul de Man called "allegories of the impossibilityof reading,"7 the ethics of Deconstruction require that we favor the "strong misreading" instead of the "weak misreading." 8 We wouldn't want to claim, for example, that Winnie-the-Pooh is really about the U.S. Patent Office, America Online, or Fermat's last theorem. Instead, we must first establish what the text is "trying to say," so that we can then go about discovering its antiphonal, antipodal antiself. In Pooh's case, that manifest theme is the need to practice tolerant sociability--a virtue that supposedly redeems the protagonist's near absence of gray matter. But is that fixed intention of "A. A. Milne's" realized without breaching, effraction, or polylogue? Deconstructors, start your engines!Attend to Pooh without sentimentality and ask yourself what positive social traits he can plausibly be taken to represent. He is a freeloader whose affability extends no further than his next honey fix. Deconstructed, he is just a mouth and a digestive tract in charge of some rudimentary powers of rationalization. And when he is confronted with a different genus (the apian) pursuing its own programmed livelihood, he shows himself utterly incapable of acknowledging the Other. "The only reason for making honey," he deduces with infantile self-in-fat-uation, "is so as I can eat it." Community values? One for all and all for one?Furthermore, Pooh's selfishness is no greater than that of the whole kapok menagerie surrounding him. It is only his inability to disguise or dignify raw need that renders him the touchstone of value-in-reverse. While the hidebound "Milne"is musing complacently about rectitude and cooperation, his principal creation embodies a brute-all Brechtian forthrightness about the priority of aliment over intellect--and therefore of his majesty the ego over moral claims. Every gregarious sentiment in these books stands self-refuted in the very act of articulation.Consider also that the enchanted forest is presided over by the seeming child-god Christ-opher Robin, who, from the animals' occluded point of view, is assumed to be utterly loyal and attentive to them. As we progress toward the dissonant climax of The House at Pooh Corner, however, it becomes increasingly apparent that Christopher is coming under the thrall of that deadly Pied Piper, Western culture. His mind will soon be warped by the lexical and calculative disciplinary--that is, by spelling and math--imparted, no doubt, with the mnemonic aid of thwacks from a sadistic schoolmaster's ruler, its numbingly identical spaces marked off with vertical lines forming a lockstep zombie parade of Baconian/Newtonian "units." During his ever more frequent absences, we can infer, he is becoming just the sort of know-it-all bore lampooned in the pushy schemer Rabbit and the insufferable pedant Owl. The text, chewing away like an army of termites beneath "Milne's" conscious mind, has included those ridiculous "intellectuals" precisely in order to facilitate our strong misreading.Is this at last, then, the "meaning" of Winnie-the-Pooh: the falseness of every overtly proffered ideal? If you suppose so, I want you to listen carefully from here on. A strong misreading is still a reading, with all its loose ends tucked neatly out of sight. Since meaning, as one of "Milne's" poems proclaims, "isn't really anywhere! / It's somewhere else instead," the meaning of nonmeaning must itself bedeconstructed if we are to keep pace with the text's self-dissolution.Jonathan Culler once memorably defined this task for us. A critic's role, he wrote, is that of "sawing off the branch on which one is sitting":One can and may continue to sit on a branch while sawing it. There is no physical or moral obstacle if one is willing to risk the consequences. The question then becomes whether one will succeed in sawing it clear through, and where and how one might land. A difficult question: to answer one would need a comprehensive understanding of the entire situation--the resilience of the support, the efficacy of one's tools, the shape of the terrain--and an ability to predict accurately the consequences of one's work.9Note, here, how Culler, much in the spirit of Pooh and Piglet carefully pondering how best to trap a Heffalump, eschews premature closure. Just what will happen when the branch is severed remains a topic of meticulously--perhaps even permanently--postponed investigation.The branch on which we wielders of critical discourse sit is logocentrism: the assumption, both delusory and irreplaceable, that the signifiers we employ actually denote their signified objects, nothing more or less. But the Pooh books continually saw away at that very premise. "This writing business," as Eeyore puts it. "Pencils and what-not. 
Over-rated, if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it." Naturally, Eeyore does not mean to challenge Derrida's point that language in general is just a special case of writing. Quite the contrary: he perceives, as does Derrida, that writing as a direct conveyor of meaning, with necessary connections between word and object, begs to be devalued. By ascribing this lesson to Eeyore, the text implies that any ass could learn it.It is, once again, the emergent pupil Christopher Robin, the apple-polishing regurgitator of potted "facts," whose stock declines in direct seesaw linkage with the uncerebral Eeyore's rise. By comparison with Milne's pampered but incipiently regimented offspring, even the numskull Pooh, whose mouth remains in readiness at all moments for regression from emitting speech to ingesting snacks, appears deeply wise. Indeed, he sounds on occasion like a shrewd postanalytic philosopher: "You find sometimes that a Thing [ein Ding] which seemed very Thingish [dinglich] inside you is quite different [différent/différant] when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."Not only Pooh in the flesh but Pooh as a text habitually concretizes social constructs, reversing the sinister process whereby mere things were once promoted to signifiers. You may have thought that the North Pole, for example, means something as abstract as latitude 90° and longitude 0°, but for Pooh it's just a stick in the ground. Other sticks appear to constitute Eeyore's house, which is then disassembled, only to rematerialize as the very same house. But is it the same, plunked down on an alien plot? Here the text, with Heraclitean panache, puts into question self-identity itself, the principle lying behind all Western thought from Plato through Husserl.Again, it is noteworthy that Owl's letter box, rendered useless for its original logocentric function, serves as the escape hatch through which Piglet emerges to become, himself, a parodic incarnate missive. Derrida's recurrent pun, in La carte postale, between l'être and lettre, showing that Being can never be captured in language, echoes in our minds throughout the episode. The postcard, you will recall, is Derrida's image for the modern world's fondest illusion:Everything in our bildopedic culture, in our politics of the encyclopedic, in our telecommunications of all genres, in our telematicometaphysical archives ... everything is constructed on the protocolary charter of an axiom, that could be demonstrated, displayed on a large carte, a post card of course, since it is so simple, elementary, a brief, fearful stereotyping.10If you catch the heavy irony here--the culture of "communication" rests on the fib that signifiers can make their way from one party to another with no fading or twisting of informational content--you will see why Pooh reduces the standard literary notion of rescue (that is, salvation) to a self-mailed postcard consisting of a timid little pig. Having a wonderful time, wish you were oink oink oink.A still more suggestive torpedoing of the communicative, however, makes use of the bellpull adorning the marge or limen of Owl's tree house. Ostensibly, that object serves as a sign of the querulous bird's (distinctly tepid and equivocal)hospitality. Yet once deconstructed, it reveals itself to be nothing other than Eeyore's missing tail, which, if you stop to think about it in anatomical context, can't be said to constitute a fetching invitation to give a pull and begin speaking into the intercom. As usual, Derrida has said it all: "That the sign detaches itself, that signifies of course that one cuts it out of its place of emission or from its natural relations; but the separation is never perfect, the difference never consummated."11Since you now know that a detached sign is precisely a name without a referent, you can appreciate why much of the text's deconstructive satire is focused on the problematic status of names. When Pooh is, quite literally, living "under the name of Sanders," he finds himself in possession not of yet another alias but of a mere board with some misshapen scratchings on it. Graphemically aleatory and semioclastic, it is a sign without meaning. To go in search of the mythical Sanders, just because the indentations on that board bear an uncanny resemblance to the letters S-A-N-D-E-R-S, would thus be as quixotic as trying to locate the beheaded or castrated William of "TRESPASSERS W." The text instructs us not to bother; (S)anders is the ever-deferred Other (anders), or (non)personhood per se, our doppelgänger whose face is always turned aside.If the sign of all signs is the name, the most "authentic" of names is the signature. But suppose the signature were to surrender its claim to vouch for the seamless self and instead be unmasked as just so much extruded ink. No one then, Idaresay, could fail to grant that the literary work embodying such logodefusion has embarked on Derrida's own most urgent project--in his words, "to paralyze the signature's sperm."12 Well, do you recall the eight signatures deposited on Eeyore's farewell poem to Christopher Robin? Six characters (in search of an author?) more or less succeed in spelling their names, but the sequence ends explosively with Tigger's inarticulate BLOT and Roo's even more diffuse SMUDGE, as if to say to the others, Scribble away if you must, but in the end it comes to this.There is, of course, a political as well as a semiotic lesson here. Pooh is trying to say that nothing short of a thoroughgoing revolt against the equivalence of word and thing, name and person, signature and certification can overcome the stifling of our prelinguistic freedom. A comparable insight enabled Derrida to show that South African apartheid, which some dull analysts had blamed on a tenacious and fearful white minority, was actually brought about by phonetic writing, which, "by isolating and hypostatizing being, ... corrupts it into a quasi-ontological segregation."13 Apartheid has vanished now, so we can safely conclude that South African phonetic writing must be in full retreat. The only mystery is why the Nobel Peace Prize went to the prosaic literalist Nelson Mandela and not to Derrida.Well, that is water under the Poohsticks bridge. The good news is that from Johns Hopkins to Johannesburg, from Sewanee to Soweto, people are confirming Hillis Miller's joyous prophecy that "the millennium would come if all menand women became good readers in de Man's sense."14 Wherever we turn, furthermore, we find less and less of what Geoffrey Hartman once deplored as "the automatic valuing of works of art over works of commentary."15 Now it seems to be generally accepted that while fictions--including Pooh, of course--all mean pretty much the same thing, deconstructive criticism can be infinitely various and creative.It can also be wild and freakish fun. Since "the absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the interplay of signification ad infinitum,"16 critics are thereby freed to practice what Hartman calls "Derridadaism,"17 a "methodical craziness" or "vertiginous glissement of language toward an uncontrollable echoing; a mad round of verbal associations of signifier-signifying signifiers."18 As Gregory Ulmer explains, "The idea put to work hypomnemically ... is not the signified concept ... but the letters / phonemes of the word itself, which are set free to generate conceptual material mechanically (without the intention or presence of the subject) by gathering into a discourse terms possessing these letters."19We Derridadaists are behind the whee-l now, swerving with verve to avoid the pedestrian. If a Woozle can Wizzle, so can I. This little Piglet went to mark it; will he Roo the day? "Sériature of sériature: antherection, colpos, signature, stewke, betweens, colossos."20 Cottleston, Cottleston, Pie in your eye. HIPY PAPY BTHUTHDTH THUTHDA BTHUTHDY!Copyright © 2001 by Frederick Crews
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

1 Why? Wherefore? Inasmuch as Which? 3
2 A Bellyful of Pooh 19
3 The Fissured Subtext: Historical Problematics, the Absolute Cause, Transcoded Contradictions, and Late-Capitalist Metanarrative (in Pooh) 33
4 Just Lack a Woman 47
5 The Importance of Being Portly 65
6 Resident Aliens 81
7 Gene/Meme Covariation in Ashdown Forest: Pooh and the Consilience of Knowledge 97
8 The Courage to Squeal 117
9 Virtual Bear 133
10 Twilight of the Dogs 147
11 You Don't Know What Pooh Studies Are About, Do You, and Even If You Did, Do You Think Anybody Would Be Impressed? 163
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 2.5
( 3 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 21, 2001

    A Stuffed Bear Shows Up the Professors

    A wonderful book, though its charm probably requires some grasp of academia and the ideologies or intellectual 'disciplines' being satirized. Even (but only) a few academic ideologues may crack a smile, before undoubtedly reverting to character in the rush for yet more publications and conference panel invitations.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 9, 2012



    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted August 22, 2011


    Im only writing a review because it said i would be tge first one to write one. I actually didnt even read the book. Good luck.

    0 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)