Still, this lack of respect from the publishers towards Milne's work isn't surprising when — at least in the U.S. — they don't show a lot of respect for the two Pooh books he did write. How can it be, I ask you, that there are (at least) two notable typos in "The House at Pooh Corner", which apparently have been there since the first U.S. edition? I actually purchased a paperback set of the Pooh books from Amazon.co.uk, published by Egmont, so I could compare them against my 1950 Duttons. For those interested and concerned, here are the U.S. typos I've found:
1. In chapter 4, Tigger asserts that Tiggers are "Stornry good flyers." I always wondered what the heck "stornry" meant, figuring it must be some obscure British expression. But the British pressings have the word as "strornry" (note the extra "r"). And if you say that aloud — go ahead, do so — it's very obvious "strornry" is a British child's way of saying "extraordinary" or "extraordinarily".
2. In the last chapter, Pooh goes into a dream "in which he and Sir Pomp and Sir Brazil and Factors lived together with a horse, and were faithful knights". Pooh here is muddling together various facts that Christopher Robin has just told him. But what of "Sir Pomp"? Christopher Robin talks of Brazil and factors, but never mentions "pomp" in any way. What he does mention, however, is "how you make a Suction Pump"... and sure enough, the British pressings have it as "Sir Pump", not "Sir Pomp".
That these obfuscating errors (which are still in current U.S. pressings) can have persisted for decades in these most beloved of all children's books is quite — well — strornry. I submitted these errors through the labyrinthine channels of the Penguin website (Dutton is now owned by Penguin), and we'll see if they are ever corrected. My guess is that they'll be too busy preparing the next Pooh sequel to bother.