But It’s Been Done Before?

How’s this for a story:

After the unruly children exhaust nanny after nanny, a mysterious "super nanny" with magical powers drops in… The children grow to love her fabulous shenanigans as well as learn to behave. When order and balance is restored to the household, the nanny leaves, allowing them to relish their new found joy.

No no, it’s a not a story I’m planning to write.

But what story did you imagine there? I’m guessing you were thinking “But this is Mary Poppins!”

Yes, my first thought as well. But it also applies to Nanny McPhee.

When that movie first came out, I hastily brushed it off as a repeat of Mary Poppins. Bart and some others went to see McPhee. (I had somewhere else to go, as I recall, and I had not been so keen on it anyway given my assessment.) Well, Bart and the others really enjoyed it. And although Bart (who is a fan of Poppins) had the same worry as me, he found himself pleasantly surprised and assured me that it had not been the same story all over again.

So, via the magic of TiVo, I finally got to see for myself. Yes, the premise is essentially the same. But it’s also true that it’s nowhere near the same tale. I’m not going to spell out all the differences or the plot of Nanny McPhee. You can do such compare and contrast yourself. For it’s quite a good movie.

The point, of course, is that it’s entirely possible to have a similar but different story. Just because a through-line is common does not mean adventures do not exist until themselves. Granted, it takes skill to accomplish, but that’s true of any story.

Thus, I’m very glad I’d been wrong with my quick judgment. Lesson learned. (<-- reference to Nanny McPhee, actually.)

Actually, the same thing happened with my first novel. No, not a nanny. I don’t expect anyone will ever see this novel of mine, unless I do an overhaul on it. Plus it needs a sub-adventure of the past put into it so as to support the framework of the overall story. I began the novel in high school and finished it, or so I recall, in my first year of college. (1989) Let me tell you the basic premise. See what else comes to mind…

A kid, who lives with his aunt and uncle (after his parents died in a car crash), finds out that he has been selected to attend a special school to learn the art of magic. There are wacky professors and some cool friends along the way…and he ultimately discovers that he’s the chosen one who can undo the great evil in the land.

How about that? The story you’re probably thinking of came out in 1997. Go figure. And despite a few eeriely specific coincidences between the two, they are like Poppins and McPhee -- an entirely different adventure.


* And yes, I do know that the television show The Nanny is neither one I spoke of... but I wanted to keep the surprise element via the text. Also, this show applies as well. For in a rough sense, it's a reworking of The Sound of Music.

Get "Cross" with Me...

You might recall my April Fool joke: Peter Pan vs. Tom Sawyer. I’ve been thinking more about it. No, not terribly much. And especially, no, I don’t mean as a viable project. Just in general. It would be be quite the pairing, good for a lark. I then recalled my other match-up for Peter Pan: Mary Poppins. Also a crazy-cool meeting of characters. Again, not to be written in actuality. Just the playful entertainment value. So, naturally, I began to wonder who else might be intriguing to befriend (or pit against) Pan. I’ll be honest, I didn’t get further than one other idea before writing this post.

Quite frankly, he just may be the most logical pairing. One of my absolute favorites: Jim Hawkins of Treasure Island. Why logical? Besides the quite obvious reasons that Hawkins loves adventure and has had more than his share of a run-in with pirates, there’s the fact that the books are already purposely connected. (Via Barbecue and Hook.)

I’d love to see Jim and Peter battling pirates together. But I also don’t think I would ever try to manifest it beyond internal amusement. For one thing, it just seems “wrong.” For another, it doesn't actually work out. Peter Pan lives forever whereas Jim Hawkins does not. Even if their match-up adventure were placed immediately after the end of Treasure Island, it seems to me that the timeline is off. (In terms of what stage of development Peter would be experiencing then.) But it IS fun to think about!

Next I wondered about this very subject - “crossovers.” It happens in the comic world quite often. Another set that springs to mind: television shows. I think as with much, I am on the fence. It depends, of course, on the merits and execution.

How do you feel about the crossover of tales/characters?

And -- just for fun -- anyone else you’d like to see Peter Pan run into?

(Don’t worry, it won’t show up in anything I write in earnest!)

Addendum: Reading through my "Pan vs. Poppins" post again, how could I have forgotten THIS match-up? I might want to see that one more than Hawkins. Even better - Peter Pan and Jim Hawkins teaming up against the character in the picture!

Mary Pan-ins?

I had promised in my post about P.L. Travers’s Mary Poppins that I would tell you which part of it seemed very Barrie-like.

You might recall that the Disney movie eliminated two of the Banks children. As I said in the post, it’s understandable. They’re babies and don’t have much to do with the rest of it. Well, in the book, John and Barbara Banks have one chapter practically all to themselves:
John and Barbara’s Story

And what do they do in their chapter? Quite the magical pursuits. Or perhaps they are not so magical. It depends on your perception. You see, since they are babies, they have a natural talent that is beyond our scope as grown-ups. To be more precise, they are even more advanced than children.
I don’t believe I’ll ever understand Grown-ups. They all seem so stupid. And even Jane and Michael are stupid sometimes.
What makes John and Barbara superior? They converse with not only a Starling, but also the likes of sunlight* and Wind. Already this situation is akin to Barrie. Although Peter Pan doesn’t talk to sunshine, he does speak to birds. But he very well may be able to PLAY sunshine on his pipes.

Mary Poppins (who understands the chatter of the babies, mind you) explains to them that Jane and Michael at one time could understand the sunlight and trees and stars. Peter Pan can talk to stars, too.
But–how is it that they’ve forgotten it all? asks John. Mary Poppins explains. Because they’ve grown older.
John and Barbara consider it a stupid reason and vow to never forget how to talk to Starling and the rest of Nature. The bird and Poppins inform them that alas, forgetting is inevitable. They argue, of course, to no avail. Then, as part of his “sorry but no” speech, Starling says: There never was a human being that remembered after the age of one – at the very latest – except, of course, Her.° The babies naturally ask: Why not her? The Starling replies: She’s different. She’s the Great Exception.

Quite intriguing. Travers does not elaborate. We’re left to wonder the wherefore of that, too. I don’t expect to have an answer. Nor do I feel she should have given us one. It’s part of the mystery of Mary Poppins. We already know she’s a magical woman. In this case an explanation would ruin the fun. Thus, she is like Peter Pan in this way, too. Peter is the other Great Exception, if such a thing is possible. Of course, they are different stories, so each is an exception unto their own world.

Do not misconstrue that I am claiming some sort of umbrage at the similarities between the works. On the contrary, I am pointing it out because I find it delightful.

Let’s hope that at one time we understood birds and trees, too.

*Curiously, Travers did not capitalize sunlight, but did so with the Starling and Wind.
° Travers capitalizes it, but not later on the page when also referring to Mary in conversation.

Pan vs. Poppins?

Having recently read the first set of adventures of the most famous creation of P.L. Travers, I couldn’t help but think of a match up between her and Sir J.M. Barrie’s most famous creation. Is it a coincidence that they both use initials? [Of course it is, but it’s fun to note!]

Just imagine it…
Mary Poppins trying to discipline Peter Pan.
They’d be quite the nemesis for each other, don’t you think?

Pan would hate her. And she’d certainly be cross with Peter.

Sunshine suggested that he’d want her umbrella and bag. I then countered that Peter would probably turn both of them inside out. Actually, I can see him being as fascinated as Jane and Michael Banks with the bag and then turning it inside out in frustration when he can’t fathom its magic. He would probably not be so interested in the umbrella since he can fly himself and make fun of her for needing it. Not realizing that she can float on her own [think Uncle Albert's tea table] and her surprising him to dismay.

Mary, on the other hand, might not be able to cope with a flying boy. She’d be given a taste of her own medicine, for sure. By that I mean not being the only one with special powers. She might even be able to be lulled to sleep by his pipes. Then what mischief would he dish out for her?

I can also see her being so damn severe in her tone and look that he feels the need to obey her - for a time.

They might just do each other some good - if they don’t kill each other first!

This isn’t the first time I paired Pan with another character for fun. I also did it here.

But how about you? Any scenarios you can envision between Mary Poppins and Peter Pan?

Not Spit-Spot, But Ingeniously Imperfect

In an earlier post I mentioned that I picked up Mary Poppins by P.L. Travers, having never read it before. I love the Disney movie, so I decided to rectify my oversight and compare the two.

For everyone who enjoys the Disney version but has not read the book, fear not. You can go on loving the movie. No, it’s not a one-for-one adaptation. But then, movies rarely are. However, Disney certainly captured the tone, flavor and feeling of Travers’s work.

I’ll note the major differences briefly. As I mentioned in the last post, Mary Poppins does not arrive by gently floating down on an umbrella. However, she does leave via umbrella. (And it does have a parrot handle, though it does not talk.) The Banks have four children, the other two being John and Barbara. They’re babies, so it’s understandable that they’d be removed. Bert exists in this first book, but only as the chalk drawing artist. The entering into the sidewalk picture occurs, but the children are not present. It’s just Mary’s outing. (And there is but one waiter, who is not a penguin.) The parents are barely in the book and there is no “father and mother must be taught to reconnect with their children” aspect. Not in the least. Disney’s Mary says she is never cross, when in fact: All day long Mary Poppins had been in a hurry, and when she was in a hurry she was always cross. She’s cross a great deal. But to Disney’s credit, her crossness in the book is akin to her “sternness” in the movie. Mary Poppins is in fact much more vain than she appears in the film. To the annoyance of the kids, she can never not admire herself and clothes in shop windows. And she is certainly not as sentimental about the children.

The adventures from the movie that are in the book: the magic bag (but it’s more fun to actually see it), Uncle Albert’s laughing and floating tea party (though Bert is not there and the circumstances are different), Admiral Boom (though no blasting cannons and their “routine” handling of it), the Bird Woman at the Cathedral (though Mary Poppins is there with them and she did not “predict” it) and the appearance of Andrew the dog (yes, Mary can really talk to him). Otherwise, Disney concocted the rest. It’s possible that they ransacked P.L. Travers’s other Mary Poppins books to make up the rest of the scenes in the movie. I have not read them, so I cannot be sure. I looked into it a bit, but nothing I found sounded specifically like the Disney additions.

But it really doesn’t matter. Here’s why: Mary Poppins is non-linear, crazy, episodic book. Think Carroll's Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, or Dahl's Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. It’s a series of vignettes, with no cohesive plot or arc. In the case of Mary Poppins, the only “story” is that she arrives and says she’ll stay until the wind changes. (In the movie this seemed to mean the state of the family…in the book it’s literally the wind changing in Spring.) It would seem to make very little difference which order you placed their outings.* And anything outlandish that Disney put in it (such as the torn papers rising up the chimney, the room cleaning itself or climbing a smoke staircase) fits right into the world of P.L. Travers. Don’t believe me? Conisder: Mary Poppins’s birthday occurring on a full moon warrants a night party at the zoo where talking animals lavish over her and people are in cages (including Admiral Boom…a penguin does plays a role here), Mrs. Corry - a very old (as in before Time!) woman candy store shopkeeper breaking off her fingers which turn to Barley-Sugar and her fingers growing back (we’re told they will be a different confection next time), Mary Poppins along with Mrs. Corry and her daughters pasting the paper stars (from atop gingerbread squares) to the sky from extremely long ladders to become real stars, a magical compass that zips you to the ends of the earth in an instant.
* In fact, some of the later Mary Poppins books have adventures which occurred during the first few books. Travers realized her constantly "popping in & out" to be ridiculous, so she placed some other escapades within the other books. Which is a flat out confirmation that the order is of no real consequence.

I am not knocking these “random adventure” books, they’re obviously great fun. But as with the 1971 movie of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder, the film of Mary Poppins is better than the original book in my opinion. It brings more focus and overall action toward a gradual conclusion.

One last thing - she never says, "Practically Perfect" in the first book, but does say "Spit-Spot."

So go fly a kite (not in the first book) for Mary Poppins and her special brand of orderly disorder.

One day I’ll tell you which part of Mary Poppins is especially Barriesque. [Update: This post can be found here.]

Here’s a gem. It’s a re-cut trailer of the movie which makes it appear like a horror film. It’s not as good the one which makes The Shining look like the feel-good movie of the Summer, but it’s still a treat.

Places We Popped Into and What Resulted

Bart and I had brunch today at one of our favorite haunts in Andersonville. Nothing like a delicious Swedish breakfast.

After boring him with musings about Peter Pan, I somehow remembered that I'd been meaning to read Mary Poppins. I love the Disney movie. Color me silly, but Disney's Mary Poppins is a movie of the sort that movies should be. Delightful, tender, meaningful, mysterious and all around fun. Yet I never read the source from P.L. Travers. Shame on me. Thus, we popped into a bookstore and I picked it up.

I began it as I waited outside for Bart who wanted to browse around a shop I didn't have interest in today. Alrady there are some noticeable changes even as early as page 2. To be expected, right? Apparently there are two other children, John and Barbara, the Twins. And Mary Poppins did not, in fact, come to the house descending gently through the air via an umbrella. She has an umbrella tucked under her arm in the original illustrastions by Mary Shepard. But no mention is made in the text. What actually happens is a gust of wind blows her through the gate to their front door, a bang, and the house shakes. She does slide up the banister, though.

I'll give a full report later, of course.

As we strolled along, Bart suddenly realized how "funny" that I purchased Mary Poppins and the result of his shopping had been a new umbrella. Unintended.