Quite often I see that people have a tendency to think of Peter Pan and the Lost Boys as orphans. I guess I can understand that notion, but only if one's knowledge of the story comes from not having read the book.
Peter Pan, esepcially, is not an orphan, folks.
In fact, thinking that he is undermines the very heart of the tale. It pulls the punch of the gut-wrenching tragedy that is the events of the story. It's not that Pan doesn't have a mother & father and thus flew away to the Neverland. Quite the contrary, he sort of "oprhaned" his parents! He's the one who went away suddenly and without warning, leaving them to pine for their lost boy.
Either way, it's another misconception of the story of Peter Pan. Orphaning implies a sentimental outpouring for his loss. Instead we are to be horrified by the loss Pan created in the other direction. And for those who've read Peter Pan's NeverWorld, we know who else felt hurt by his decision to leave, now, don't we?
Why is it people tend to "soften" the blow of the tragic and disturbing elements in the tale of Peter Pan?
(A link to more misconceptions is in the sidebar)
1 comment:
People bowdlerize fairy tales all the time. It took watching "Into the Woods" for me to realize that Cinderella is actually a VIOLENT fairy tale (with respect to the stepsisters), and that the fairy godmother, the spell wearing off at midnight, the pumpkin coach and mice into horses, etc. DON'T EXIST.
Post a Comment