This week, in its first authorized sequel, the Winnie the Pooh characters reappear in “Return to the Hundred Acre Wood,” complete with a new otter character. The Pooh Properties Trust decided to have a writer create a sequel, without (in their words, stated in the New York Times) doing damage to the original books by A.A. Milne.
Often we create a piece of work that uses another’s work as a foundation of our own work. For example, a sculptor studies Rodin and becomes influenced by his work. However, does the trust in charge of Rodin’s work hire a sculptor to create a new figure for his “The Gates of Hell” or a “The Thinker,” Junior version?
Although I have not read the 10 stories David Benedictus wrote for the “Return to the Hundred Acre Wood,” I wonder:
Are works that are sequels, authorized (or not) with borrowed elements from the original classics, still considered creative? Do you think if someone uses another’s work as a jumping off point it is more–or less–creative?
“Return to the Hundred Acre Wood” is just the latest of this sequel following original, what are some others you know of that are great sequels? (Or should never have been made?)

Share on Facebook