Posted by andy bolger on 01/21/00 from m617-mp1-cvx1b.ren.ntl.com:
In Reply to: Re: Sequels posted by Peter H on January 20, 2000 at 13:13:20:
Peter, I am sorry, but I don't see how you can compare a sentient being with a work of literature, This seems to be category confusion of the rankest type. To follow the ancient word game, animals are animals; while books are 'abstract with vegetable connections''
So, I remain totally puzzled by your argument.
Peter R.'s thoughts on 'dilution' might apply to the public image of AR but I don't see how our own passion for AR's works can be diminished by inferior imitations.
I think our distaste for the idea of sequels ( which, by the way, I share) has got more to do with possessiveness than anything else. The need to guard one's inner imaginative world from outsiders occurs and recurrs in AR, his own private ritual of dipping his finger in the Lake, the Swallows wanting to drive the Amazons from 'their' island ( and vice versa), the Eels instructions to the Mastodon, come to mind.
But in the stories at least, engaging with the newcomers produces new adventures.
I'm not in favour of sequels, because:
a) I am pretty sure that AR wouldn't have liked them and it seems a poor way to pay him back for all the pleasure he gave us.
b) because they would breach copyright as Ann has pointed out,
but most strongly, because they would almost certainly be awful.
If some one did produce some it wouldn't hurt my AR and I don't see why it should hurt yours.