TRUE? False.

I have been  keeping my distance from Twitter, for the record.  It's just too time-consuming. Or else I let it be, I suppose.  One of these days I'll figure out how to organize and handle it better.  But for right now, I check in every blue moon...and @jediahsoka, someone who found me via the net, sent me a link to this page.

It's called True Peter Pan.
It's a website apparently under construction, but at the time it had just been pretty much a placeholder wherein you could plug in your email for update information.  There's more to it now.

I'll be honest.  I find it (for lack of a better word) offensive.  How so?  Here's what it says on the site, the parts that raise my eyebrows are in red:

Ever since J.M. Barrie published his story of the boy who would never grow up, the public has been fascinated by it. But who is Peter? In Barrie's book, he is a self-righteous, obnoxious,brat. If we are to believe that Barrie has given us the true representation of Peter, then it's no wonder his mother locked the window so he couldn't get back inside! But what if so many people have a wrong idea of Peter? What if we have been deceived by parents, friends, and Disney movies?

This site seeks to dispel the old thoughts of Peter, by reporting news of other stories about the boy who couldn't grow up that show a different side of him. I will always be grateful to J.M. Barrie for bringing Peter to our attention, but what if Barrie's story misses key details?

PARDON?    If we are to believe that Barrie has given us the true representation of Peter...

Why on earth would we not believe that the CREATOR of the character gave us a "true representation" of him?  Can this BE any more disrespectful?   I suppose the implication is that Peter Pan is an actual person... and perhaps this "true" Peter is not as Barrie described.  That's a lovely notion (albeit a scary one) to have... but still, it just boils down to claiming a renowned author did not do his job correctly. [Not to mention the fact that Peter Pan flew away from his mother's window before she'd ever found out what a brat he can be.  And when she closed the window on him [as Pan views the situation] it's even more so true.  She doesn't even know of Peter still being alive it would seem, so how can she have made a judgment call on him like that? She couldn't. So....what does that line even mean?]

The only time (in my opinion) that a form of this has ever been acceptable is when done by Linda Woolverton.  Her Alice makes "claims against" Lewis Carroll's famed wacky works... such as it's not the 'Cheshire Cat' - his name is Chessur.  Alice, being a little girl, heard the name wrong and latched onto it as the closest thing familiar to her:  Cheshire, England.  (A la the cat-shaped cheeses from there to which Carroll referred.)  Many other examples abound.  All of them, though, can be chalked up to Alice mistook things the first time she ventured into the Wonderland/Looking-Glass World[s].  But that isn't saying Carroll got it wrong, per se.  Just that he reported it as Alice observed it.

In this instance, the very nature of the character/personality of Peter Pan is being called into question... with the idea that Barrie got it wrong.  What the hell?

Not only that, but in the Peter Pan Timeline on the site, it neglects to include Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens as the beginning in favor of the fault-ridden Barry/Pearson novels.  Again, what the hell?

Here's the blurb regarding the Timeline.  It's both worrisome and funny.

This is the "official" timeline of the books and movies in which Peter's story is most accurately told. Keep in mind, these are only my opinion, and most traditional Barrie fans will either laugh at me, or try and kill me. These books and movies are all considered to be "official" by True Peter Pan.

Including movies as official representations of literature?  Okay.... how about no?  Allowing for stories riddled with mistakes from the originals to count as official?  How about no again...

So, yes, this "traditional Barrie fan" is not laughing and tends to want to have the devilish streak in Pan that is being denied [one, I might add, that Barrie insisted upon] to seek vengeance.  But allow me to use a line from Barrie:  Of course he did not strike.  I suppose I have, though, but it's not as if it hadn't been expected by the one who put up the site.  He sat down on the floor instead and sobbed... No, not really.  But I do "weep" for the blatant disregard for well-crafted art.