Twice Upon a Barrie-Land

There's more to report about how the TV series Once Upon a Time is handling the most famous work of Sir J.M. Barrie.  This post has spoilers, so be warned.  The first post is here.

This episode is a direct extension of the previous.  Its title completes the "directions to the Neverland."  I have that in quotes for two reasons: 1) they're using Disney's addition of the word "star" 2) they're not really the correct directions anyway.  At any rate, Second Star to the Right led into And Straight in 'Til Morning.  [There should be a "then" in there, without the apostrophed "till" but who's counting? ;) ]

Here's what we discover:
We do see the island, sort of, for we finally reach its shore.   In fact, as you can see, it's also the fantasy element shown this time amid the woods in the opening.  Okay, remember the character I'd mentioned who went in place of a Darling boy and fell into the ocean when struggling with the Shadow/Pan?  And I'd thought he'd be a pirate, then?  Well, he won't be.  You see, the boy pieces together that Hook is responsible for taking his mother away back in the land he came from and therefore wants nothing to do with the captain.  A little more on this kid in a bit.

We also see "The Lost Ones."  They've dropped the word "boys" for "ones."  I like it, for it makes it more intimidating.  And that's definitely the vibe they're going for here.  Besides that, they've got them in their early teens, if not teenagers.  So they're not exactly mere boys.  Oh - at least for now they do not fly.  They approach by ship.  The Lost Ones have a reputation in this world.  You don't want them to show up, they're feared.  They pester Hook because they think he's harboring the boy that fell into the ocean.  At the time he is, but hides the boy from them.  Smee (introduced into the show before Hook, for the record) expresses his concern about having any dealings with the kid.  He says, "What if the boy belongs to him?"  And the way he says it invokes a capital H.  "He'll be looking for us.  He knows this land better than we do."  Interesting, no?  Who could he be talking about?  I knew right away.  I bet you do, too.

Moving on, from what we have to gather, the infamous immortal boy of the island is not in fact just that truly scary Shadow from the other episode.  The Lost Ones tell Hook that He will rip your shadow from you as a punishment and it is reportedly very painful.  So it would seem the Shadow goes and fetches for a real boy, the leader of the Lost Ones.  But where is the real evidence?

Right around the bend.  Okay, the boy from the other world escapes Hook and is found washed ashore by the Lost Ones.  They examine him, but apparently He is looking for a particular boy.  It turns out he's not the boy they need.  One asks if they will ever find him.  Another replies, "Of course we will.  It make take time, but Peter Pan never fails."  Ah!  He does exist by that name!  And he's looking for none other than the main boy character from the series, of course.

To add more spice to this spooky spin, on their way to the Neverland via a portal (which they could only open with Hook's help!), Rumpelstiltskin says they (the other characters) have no idea who they're dealing with...and when is asked "Who's that?" the response is "Someone we all should fear."  Think about that for a second.  This is the Dark One saying to fear!  Granted, Rumplestiltskin has mellowed out a bit given his time as Mr. Gold in Storybrooke, and his literal (pun noted) relation to the other characters by blood and escapades - but he is still to be feared in his own right.  And yet, he's warning them.  Truth is the previous paragraph's events take place after this one's.  Know what that means?  He's talking about Peter Pan!

And so it seems that Peter Pan, in a new and twisted incarnation, will be the "Big Bad" for at least part of the next season.  For this had been the finale, and we are left hanging with the characters on their way to rescue the main character boy from his clutches.  I, for one, am very curious how they'll handle and depict Pan.  I bet it will be delightful.  Too bad we'll have to wait until the Fall!

A "Charmed Digit" [3] over 150!

Today is the

153 Anniversary

of the birth

of Sir J.M. Barrie.

Truly, what else can I say?

I certainly hope I've done him proud.

All hail the

modern mythmaker!

Thank you, Sir!

Once Upon a Barrie-Land

This post contains spoilers about the TV show Once Upon a Time.  Proceed at your own risk.

I’ve made it known before that I enjoy ABC’s Once Upon a Time.  It’s a clever and fresh take on fairy tales.  Well, once upon a time, they expanded the definition by including the Lewis Carroll Alice tales.  A little later on, Dr. Frankenstein came into the mix.  Yet it still remained as fantastic as the stories from which it borrowed.  In a nutshell, “The Mad Hatter” explains to the skeptic character that all stories are histories.  They’re just told differently.  Our ‘actual’ history, in other words, probably lost something of pure truth in the writing of it.  Speaking sort of metaphorically, all worlds can be peeked into, or semblances of them.  In this way, we can allow for the spins on characters and events that we thought we knew.  The creators of tales heard whispers and tried to get it right.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.  Of course, this only works within such a construct.  Separate Peter and Wendy and it becomes law until itself.  It can’t be told differently or contradicted or re-imagined… not unto its own telling as told by the author.   But the show does allow for deviations and it’s in this way that Once Upon a Time finally fully approached the Neverland.

With some rather unexpected results!

Hook has been on the show for quite a long time now.  However, we get to know him completely away from the Neverland.  Although we do know (and saw him chart a course for) the infamous isle.  [Once Upon a Time utilizes flashbacks to fully tell and realize their story.]  Their Hook is meant to make us swoon.  He’s much younger with good looks.  And his personality is sort of Jack Sparrow mellowed out with a touch of Barrie’s evil man.  The hook is on the incorrect hand, but then, it’s correct for Disney’s version and this is a production under their jurisdiction.  An interesting variation and major change is that Peter Pan did not cut off the captain’s hand.  Nope, not here.  Rather it had been the crocodile.  Except the crocodile isn’t an animal.  It’s a man with scaly skin, none other than the show’s Dark One himself, Rumpelstiltskin, who’d been thwarted by the pirate earlier in life before obtaining his magical power. The way I figure it, Peter would convince himself he cropped off the hand and bragged as such, thus the tale came to be.  For a whole season or so we’ve been wondering about the Neverland and Peter Pan.  Lemonie and I, and probably a slew of others, suspected a character as being Pan.  He even recognized and disliked seeing Hook.   But, we were wrong.

Well, they finally showed us how both the boy and the island manifestation in this version of fantasy on the episode “Second Star to the Right.”  Naturally they used Disney insertions into the tale of Peter Pan.  The second star to the right is one of two.  However, despite the title, it is never spoken.   We see a “second star” flash when Wendy is taken away.  And yes, I phrased it that way on purpose. For the living shadow is the other Disney touch.  Yet another unexpected twist.  It’s just the shadow!  There’s no boy.  He’s never referred to as Peter nor Pan.  Only the magic shadow.  Yet we can see that he’s dressed in leaves. Though Wendy wants to go (and it’s just her, by the way, not her brothers, too) the shadow forcibly drags her away.  She had been warned by a boy she’d been harboring in the house unbeknownst to her parents. (I didn’t know the nursery had a hidden compartment either, but it’s quite Barrie-like!) And oh – this boy happens to be from another world.  (This character fell into ours through a portal too many moons ago in the overall story.)  He fears magic, but away Wendy goes.  She comes back, though.  And mentions the mermaids and fairies…and the darkness at night.  She then describes the cries of children wanting to go home.  But the shadow won’t let them leave!  She escaped because it wanted a boy (imagine that!) and she said it could take one of her brothers.  The boy from the Enchanted Forest (the main place the storybook characters in the show came from) tries to defend them but ultimately goes instead to save the Darling Family.  (The boy lost both his parents, so it’s important to him.)  He fights the rapidly and dangerously flying shadow along the way, though, and plunges into the sea.  He’s picked up by Captain Hook.

As for the Neverland itself, we don’t get to see it other than glooming in the distance.  I’m not disappointed in that.  For their version needed to have it mysterious and foreboding.  Overall, I rather liked this take on it.  A recurring theme and line of the show all throughout has been “Magic comes with a price” so I enjoyed making the Neverland and its child thief as dark as can be.

Lastly, I’d like to say the portrayal of the Darlings is wonderful.  They certainly “looked” like them.  And how wonderful to weave in more of Barrie by having Mrs. Darling all too welcoming and ready to have another little one join the family.  Of course, Mr. Darling had two shillings to say about it.  But in the end, Mrs. Darling won out.  Any doubt? 

Once Upon a Time, thanks for bringing this to the dark.

Peter Pan 101

The "magically appearing overnight" statue of the infamous boy from Sir J.M. Barrie's most beloved tale has now seen a myriad of nights since then.  One hundred and one years of them, in fact.

I had a hard time finding it.  By which I mean I'd wanted to just come upon it.  Walking aimlessly amid the magnificence of lush greenery and splashes of color in the Kensington Gardens proved a welcome diversion.  To be in the place where it all happened!  You can wander for hours and not see it all, depending, of course on how much you take in or speed through.  You've been walking forever, thinking where the devil could it be??  And then, just around the bend (it's a cliché, but quite accurate!) it slinks into view from behind the trees.  As it should be -- like flying to the Neverland from London.

That's me there... in "painture."  I'm holding a picture of what Barrie had envisioned for the statue from George Frampton.  But, you can't win them all.  For the record, I'm back to wearing hats.

I've posted further information as well as my opinions of the statue over the years.  But no matter which lens is used, I'll not ever be able to discredit the sheer grandeur of craftsmanship and detail of the statue itself.  But more importantly, nothing will ever diminish the pure magic of the that moment.

Other posts on this date:  2008   2009   2010   2011   2012

The Realm of Barrie?

I always love hearing from fans.  Being told your work is enjoyed is a pleasure that never diminishes.  Beyond that, though, several of them have asked me questions about my books.  They also ask for my opinions, ideas and pick my knowledge about the world that Barrie created and about Barrie himself.  Thanks for that, too.  Glad to help when I can.   Still others have had regular chats with me.  And it’s during one of those that I’d been given a gift.

Note that earlier I said “the world that Barrie created” by which I mean, of course, relating to Peter Pan.  To me, this is covered by The Little White Bird (which contains Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens), Peter and Wendy (Peter Pan) as well as the play and screenplay, with the weight certainly upon the former two.  And then take my books, for instance.  They are meant to fit within and alongside that same set.  So what’s the umbrella term for all this?  I’d been saying Barrieverse, sometimes hyphenated.  I’d never been sure how it should be written.  I‘d never even been happy with it.  That’s where the fan, Norell (a name I've given him, as per his request), steps in.  He solved the terminology problem. 

I loved and accepted it immediately.  I shared it with my colleague and friend, Andrea Jones, author of The Hook & Jill Saga.  Her books skillfully chart another course for the classic tale without losing sight of or respect for it.  They extend the “world of Barrie” in a different way.   She wondered why we hadn’t thought of it.

I agree with her.  Why hadn’t we amid our immersion in it, literally whenever we interact?  It had been a snake, as they say.  Waiting to bite us.  Ah, the Neverland and its pitfalls and perils!

So what is this magical word that I thank Norell for creating?

Click here to find out.

Interpretations CAN Be Wrong

Somebody’s interpretation
of Peter being a

“betwixt-and-between”

bird & human is quite freaky.

I’ll have to go with this being utterly the wrong idea.

This, you see, makes it even more complicated than it already is.  In order for this image/idea to be so, his parents would had to have seen him as a bird to begin with... and if that were the case, they certainly wouldn’t have left the window open.  It also implies that he mutates fully into a human later on in life.  If THAT were the case, then he’d lose his special magical quality of being neither-nor.  Besides all the [warped] logistics of it contained therein and beyond, we can’t ignore the fact that Barrie had been well aware of Rackham’s drawings.  Which means that if Pan had been meant to literally be “betwixt-and-between” in physical form, Barrie would have corrected Rackham’s interpretation.  Sure he would have, given how fussy and attentive he’d been when it came to his eternal boy.

For anyone needing clarification on "Betwixt-and-Between" you'll certainly find it in my interquel novel.  As you might expect, it expands the idea into the broader scope of the character of Peter Pan. 

Beyond ADMIRABLE with Andrea

This past weekend had been a true delight.

My phone photo

I’d been in the company of one of my favorite people, the illustrious Andrea Jones, author of the Hook & Jill Saga.  And like I say about the Fairy Council in my novel, we didn’t meet for any small affair.   Besides the grand occasion of getting together to talk about Peter Pan face to face, we attended a performance.  Not just any show, but one of Barrie’s!  No, not his work that overshadows all the rest.  Rather The Admirable Crichton, a comedy predating the infamous eternal boy in 1902.

Andrea brought it to my attention that it’s being performed up in Wisconsin.  After a ‘Jeepers, why don’t we go?’ which became a ‘Why not, why waste this opportunity?’ and a comparison of schedules, we joyfully realized it would come to pass.   It would be quite a drive, but by golly, we were up for it.  After all, all we really wanted to do is talk shop anyway, right?

The American Players Theatre, an outdoor theatre literally in the woods, staged the marvelous social commentary.  Quite marvelously.   We had great seats, too.  Andrea scored front row!

I’d have to say what Andrea and I agreed upon as our favorite aspect has to be a rewrite of the play.  Zounds!  How could a rewrite be good?  Rewrite might be too strong a word.  You see, it incorporated Barrie’s stage directions.  What a wonderful idea!  For his stage directions are some of the most salient bits, with a humor and knowing all their own.    One only needs to start reading the play from the beginning and this becomes immediately apparent:  

A moment before the curtain rises, the Hon. Ernest Woolley drives up to the door of Loam House in Mayfair. There is a happy smile on his pleasant, insignificant face, and this presumably means that he is thinking of himself. He is too busy over nothing, this man about town, to be always thinking of himself, but, on the other hand, he almost never thinks of any other person. Probably Ernest's great moment is when he wakes of a morning and realises that he really is Ernest, for we must all wish to be that which is our ideal.

Thus, the clever folks at APT present these words just as they are over the sound of a car pulling up, a gate and the like – with the actor coming down through the audience aisle.  All throughout the play, but perfectly peppered and careful not to intrude, the pleasant and calming voice of David Frank in the role called “Speaking for Mr. Barrie” did precisely that.  I adore bringing his extra wit to light.  Andrea agrees. But would you believe they took it one step further?  They actually did write new material for it!  Andrea looked it up afterward, and to be sure, they created a stunningly convincing and perfectly in tune addition at the end – by way of this Narrator.  A nice touch that didn’t undermine the impact of Barrie’s ending nor did it change it.  Rather it seamlessly wrapped it all up given their conceit.

 

Naturally we must commend the actors and crew.  A top notch performance by all.  From the very start it became clear that these folks truly “got” Barrie’s humor and knew how to walk his fine line.  Bravo to director Kenneth Albers.

The set proved just as clever, with unfolding panels unleashing jungle scenery – oh, if you’re not aware, The Admirable Crichton has aristocrats finding themselves shipwrecked on an island (Barrie’s fond of those) and Crichton, the butler, naturally knows what to do… or does he?  At any rate, the staging is first rate.  I especially like the set dressing for the island home.  It all had a whimsical quality, including the English estate, which is an asset and hallmark in any Barrie work.

I must remark on an “uh-oh moment.”  During one of the more serious private exchanges between two characters, the strong breeze one toppled a flat set piece decorated like a stone urn planter, crashing from its platform to the stage.  The actors, in true form, ignored it.  The show must go on!  Then, when more characters arrived someone naturally picked it up and replaced it with little attention drawn.  But… yes, CRASH again later on – thanks Nature.  Hats off to Crichton (James Ridge) who, while the play went on, came onto the stage as nonchalantly as could be and carried off the offending set piece with a sigh, all while fully in character.  Well played.

What an absolute treat to see one of Barrie’s plays performed!  Both Andrea and I could not stop reveling in this good fortune, especially one so artfully done in such a lovely place.  Neither of us had ever seen a Barrie play (other than Peter Pan) and we couldn’t have asked for a better companion for the first!

O ye who appease the god Dionysis… heed this advice:  Do not overlook Barrie!  If you’re looking for that next great play to produce, check out his body of work.  You can’t be disappointed.

The Admirable Crichton runs through October 6.  If it’s within your grasp, both Andrea and I recommend you go.

That’s enough for now.  I’ll write of the truly unbelievable incident Andrea and I shared in another post.  Not to mention the rest of our latest awfully big adventure.

You think that's Tink?

Peter Pan is always with Tinker Bell, right?

Okay, he’s not in Peter Pan’s NeverWorld.  I didn’t see the need to ‘magically’ resurrect Tink when Barrie put in the extra sad touch of her ultimate demise.  After all, she’d already been saved from death once.   I gave Peter his own fairy, literally.

And thus, not counting my book or the final chapter (and whenever upon she ceased to be prior to his visit to grown-up Wendy), Peter Pan is never without Tink.  Right?

Perhaps not!  Two bits of Barrie leapt out at me when last going through the novel, which, in conjunction with each other, just might prove otherwise.

Among Peter’s visits to the Darling nursery (to hear the stories), we read:

He was accompanied by a strange light, no bigger than your fist, which darted about the room like a living thing and I think it must have been this light that wakened Mrs. Darling.

And later, having come back to fetch his shadow:

It was not really a light; it made this light by flashing about so quickly, but when it came to rest for a second you saw it was a fairy, no longer than your hand, but still growing.

We can say for certain that this second light/fairy is in fact Tink.  Why?  The next line, of course:

It was a girl called Tinker Bell...

All right, so Pan has a fairy with him both times.  Note, however, that Barrie doesn’t specify the first one as the popular Tink.  Granted, that doesn’t mean it isn’t her, and the natural assumption is to think it is.   But examination of what’s there yields the difference between a ‘fist’ and a ‘hand.’  Those are similar, yes, but not quite the same.  Try it.  Look at your fist rather than your hand - vastly dissimilar actually.  This alone might prove enough to question whether or not the fairy with him when Mrs. Darling encountered the boy is Tink.   But what really jarred me is the curious word ‘growing’ that Barrie wrote.   Why does it matter?  Well, only one week elapses between when Peter’s shadow had been torn off by the window and when he returns to fetch it. 

She decided to roll the shadow up and put it away carefully in a drawer, until a fitting opportunity came for telling her husband. Ah me!  The opportunity came a week later, on that never-to-be-forgotten Friday.

To think of Peter without his shadow for a whole week!   But in terms of the matter at wing, that’s not all that much time, really.  So are we to believe, then, that the first light had grown from a fist to hand size in just seven days?  And the fairy (Tink?) still growing?  If fairies kept getting bigger as such in as little time as a week, she’d be HUGE after the amount of time that the Darlings spent in the Neverland.  [Don’t believe me?  See this post.]  Unless, of course, she stopped growing after the week.  It’s entirely possible, given that a week seems to have some sort of magic property in the world of Pan. [i.e. Peter flew away from home in seven days (as per Narrator of Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens) and the seven days of boys before they are ‘lost.’]  Possible, sure, but is it likely? 

You see, if it can be surmised that a fairy grows in a week, then isn’t also true that Tink is a new fairy?  Thus, she hadn’t been with Peter all that long [if any time at all!] before the Mrs. Darling encounter.

All right, then, if the fairy with Pan & Mrs. Darling is in fact not Tinker Bell, then it suggests that fairies are different sizes just as humans are!  And even if it is Tink then, she’s now another size it would seem.

A lot to think about, no? 

I’m not stating outright that the first fairy is not Tink.  Nor am I saying that it is.  I haven’t made a decision.  And right now I don’t have to do so, as I have no plans on writing stories with Tinker Bell in them.  So I don’t have to bang my head to figure it out just yet.

But it does raise an interesting notion - not only on fairy sizing, but as to whether or not Tinker Bell “always” accompanies Pan.

Is THIS Rubbish?

You know, I'd just said to someone (okay, I typed it to Jesse Rowden [a.k.a. Musapan], ) the other day that I'd like to read the other submissions for the 'Peter Pan Sequel' contest held many years back.

It turns out another one of the authors whose work had been entered decided to unleash theirs upon the world as well.  Peter Pan and the Amazing Machine of Lord Rubbish by Max J. Aldridge.

Peter Pan and the Amazing Machine of Lord Rubbish is a sequel to J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan. It is set in 1907 in the same location as the original story. At school, Wendy becomes best friends with Betty, a little orphan who is under the care of her uncle, Lord Bryan, a wealthy businessman who runs two orphanages in the heart of London and has recently won the City Council contract to dispose the city’s rubbish. Wendy whispers a secret to Betty: Peter Pan has promised to come and fetch her as well as her brothers and they will spend a few days in the Neverland before going back to school. For his part, Lord Bryan is more worried about making good use of the enormous amount of rubbish that lies in the city dump. As such he forces the young boys who live in his orphanages (who call him Lord Rubbish) to sift through the garbage and pick out anything that is of economic value. But Lord Bryan’s greatest dream is to utilize the refuse to produce cheap food to sell to the poor.

Granted, I have not read this one yet, so I can make no official judgment as per se.  But there already is a contradiction from just there in the story description: Wendy's brothers never went back to the Neverland.  And what of the Lost Boys who became Darling children?  They don't seem to be around at the beginning of this book (from what can be read online.)  It cannot be considered as a tale "inserted into" the original novel, since they would have to be there.

There doesn't seem to be much effort to recreate Barrie's style, though - an observation, not a slam.

It's also interesting to note that a kind of environmental angle has been taken with this novel, too.  Though if I may say so (without having fully realized the scope of this novel) it's material that seems to fit better when magnifying the island to a planet as I have done. 

I can only imagine that Hook is still running amok in the Neverland in this, since one of the requirements for the sequel in the contest had been that he be in the book as well.

I suppose at some point I will have to read it for myself... but I don't have too much anticipation of it being inserted into the Pan-theon of the Boy's adventures. 

All in all, it just goes to show the enduring power of Pan.

And to play my own pipe - I still think the sequel should have something from Barrie in it.  Which is one of the reasons I love Michael Pan especially.

A Capital Idea

There is a small difference between Barrie’s Pan tales and mine by way of some capitalization. Specifically the Native American characters as a race and Pan’s “gang.” i.e. Redskins & Lost Boys.

It’s true, Barrie does not have them with capital letters. Yet I do. Am I being inconsistent, against what I claim? I suppose on one level, yes. But on another, no. (Could have expected that, right?)

Why do I make them proper nouns instead? In the case of the “Redskins” I just think it entirely disrespectful toward the Native Tribes of the Americas that we don’t give them such a distinction. After all, it’s not exactly the nicest way to refer to them. Yet I cannot have them listed as something other than what’s in the original text. (And I give a reason as to Barrie's motives for doing so in my Foreword.)  Thus, I’ve tried to rectify the situation a little by giving them a shred of dignity as per their moniker.

As for the boys... well, they’ve become quite iconic since Barrie first introduced them, no? It’s my belief that we tend to think of them as a “tribe” in their own right, and so I’ve capitalized them now as well. Within the world of Pan [story-wise], tales of the eternal boy are retold and passed down... so who is to say that they haven’t acquired “proper noun” status by the time the events of Peter Pan’s NeverWorld roll around?

I can just hear someone with a counter-argument using this notion [i.e. that the story is passed down over generations] in the sense of being able to therefore disregard any of what’s in the story by chalking it up to being altered by oral tradition. Consider, though, this text from the Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens : ...if you ask her whether he rode on a goat in those days, she says she never heard of his having a goat. Then is it to be believed? Of course it is. For the Narrator goes on to say: Perhaps she has forgotten, just as she sometimes forgets your name and calls you Mildred, which is your mother's name. Still, she could hardly forget such an important thing as the goat. Therefore there was no goat when your grandmother was a little girl. This shows that, in telling the story of Peter Pan, to begin with the goat (as most people do) is as silly as to put on your jacket before your vest.

Therefore, the establishment of certain elements of Peter Pan’s history can’t be ignored or forgotten. We have the cannon text. It [a la the Narrator] obviously knows what from what and when from when, so we have to follow strictly. Something as trivial as whether or not “Lost Boys” is capitalized, though, well, that’s subject to change - either in thought or in the text as per how much importance one winds up placing on them. And as I’ve said, the Lost Boys, in my opinion, have earned the right to be given proper credit with a proper noun.  And the Native People?  Let's give them the respect they deserve, too.

Gee, I’m not too hyper-speculative or anything, am I?  ;)

BARRIE DAY, But of course!

SHAME ON ME!

The date today DID sound familiar, I assure you.

But not until Andrea Jones sent me a "Happy Barrie Day!" on Facebook did it hit me.

Fie on me, who forgoteth to demarcate the anniversary of the man who would not stop playing games and brought the world such a joyous myth.

Hail to thee, Sir James Matthew Barrie.  Forgive my behaving like your most beloved character!

Peter Pan is 100 - AGAIN!

Well, folks, another Peter Pan Centennial has arrived!

As of today, the statue of the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up has been drawing visitors to it for 100 years!

Yep, having appeared without warning (as if by magic) as per Barrie's request on this date, it's a testament to the enduring quality of the magnificent character.

Now if only it looked like Barrie's photos instead... but, I'm just being a purist again.  Not meant in any way to slight George Frampton's statue, it's a masterpiece in and of itself.  I know, I had the good fortune to see it in person from every angle.  I spent a good chunk of time there! ;)

Peter Pan, a Crock?

I had to share this...

Who says things in the Neverland are complete figmentation?

Andrea Jones, author of Hook & Jill, posted this on Facebook.  I love her comment.  (In fact, I'm the one who hit "Like" as seen on the screen capture!)

It's a photo in an album by someone named Bobby Flaherty...



Click for Larger Photo



Certainly brings Barrie to mind... and who else would make sure to note it than Andrea?

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.