A theatre company, PuppeTyranny!, is doing an adaptation of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens this weekend in Philadelphia. Wish I could go out and see it. Puppetry, when done right, is quite effective. Here's a link to their site. I've got the image of it below, though, since it's likely to no longer show up in the future (as it is on an "upcoming" page.) I like that they say "forgotten prequel." And that there is a male fairy on his shoulder, who incidentally, looks (correctly!) mauve. I do have one question, though: Giant invisible goat? Umm...
Posts
4 comments:
I don't like that they say "forgotten prequel"--specifically I don't like their use of the word "prequel". The only way you could justify calling Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens a prequel is the fact that the book was published after the play--but as we both know, the earlier-set story began life as Chapters 13-18 of The Little White Bird, which predates the play. So technically it's not a prequel but a prelude (so many people make that mistake and it bugs me).
Okay, I can go along with that. Prelude is a better word. The reason I liked their usage here is solely from a marketing standpoint. When I tell people about my work Betwixt-and-Between I find I am most often met with surprise about Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. So, as an enticement to see their play, it seems appropriate. To many (most?) people, it is a prequel, you see? At least it's bringing attention to the "early years" story of the eternal boy - and will, one can hope, lead people to seek it out.
But yes, it's technically an erroneous classification. Kudos for pointing it out.
It's got me thinking, though, about the nature of 'prequel' and I'm thinking of a series in particular, what the truth is about that series and how it depends upon the angle one looks at it. Perhaps it will be a post.
I have another question: "immortal birds"?
I do see what you're saying about the marketing standpoint, though. And yes, a LOT more people know about the "sequel" than about the "original" story.
I missed that one... glossed over it, I suppose. Yes, 'immortal birds' is not quite right. Unless they're referring to one in particular, but then, it's not actually stated that he's immortal.
Post a Comment